Physx compitable for Armory licence wise? and thoughts on recently open-sourced Physx 4.0


#1

I was wondering is armory is compatible with BSD licence ? I think it is and this would mean that armory can get new physx 4.0 from nvidia under The 3-Clause BSD License.


PhysX 4.0 for Armory - results of test?
#2

Nah. we aren’t doing that.
First, It too much work.
Second, There nothing wrong with bullet, its all good and just need more and proper implementation.
Third, We aren’t going with Nvidia, reason? b/c they are intentionally decreasing performance on AMD graphics card, sure that Nvidia isn’t center of everything and we probably don’t want that to happen.


#3

I won’t argue a lot , but the bigger games would not use Nvidia if it had so much impact on AMD cards and performance ( i never had performance issues when i had AMD 3D cards playing games).
Perhaps it’s because you use Linux, while it’s not an issue on Windows.

This could be done by some experimented user, but in the long term anyone doing Nvidia integration could quit. So this is useless until Nvidia would become Armory main physic engine.


#4

well, let me explain more broadly.
If i was using linux, then there would be no issue, as far as i know that linux has more driver/support then windows has due to it being FOSS, so bringing it in here would do you no good.
I searched some and conclude that when Physx is runned on AMD system than Physx will cancel AMD card and instead make calculation on cpu, which is huge downgrade and which is what you probably don’t want.
Every Nvidia library have bad performance(some big, some small) on AMD cards, such as Hairworks, Physx.
Because of their nature similar to that of apple.
While all this between Physx and AMD card, Bullet Engine is chilling knowing it is FOSS and has better community and better support for both of Company’s Card, bullet engine don’t take upper hand on any of company’s card. So that why it would be better to have bullet as main physics engine.

well, this is where money is involved, Game studio are paid to showcase their library and use it in their game.
Well, if this wasn’t the case then Blender would be using Physx instead of bullet. You yourself know that physics simulation are really good in blender. If you are trying to say that physx is real-time simulation then remember that Bullet is real-time physics simulation to but when it power are controlled then can be beast while Physx is constrained to real-time by Nvidia and is closed sourced, so that you can’t improve it and do anything with it source code.
Touching the source code doesn’t matter now much for now but when more and more people start contributing to armory’s physics and Armory is taken to 1.0 then it would do you a huge favour.

Alas this is long shit, enjoy reading the whole thing as there is no TL;DR.


#5

One of the biggest draws to a project like Armory is that is is a opensource project. From my reading of what @Lubos has said in the past and a vast majority of the user base is we want something that is NOT beholden to companies. By leaving it open source individuals could make use different physics and other parts but the project should not narrow itself down to that.


#6

When you enable Nvidia advanced physics, otherwise the simple physics will run fine on both Nvidia and AMD. Many games just use regular physics.

Many console games don’ t use Nvidia , there is PC and console games using Havok, Euphoria or other custom ones.
I think companies takes what is prooven and work well, this is why Nvidia is used a lot.

This makes sense to keep the whole without closed source and not behold by any companies or license changes.


#7

Well, physx has become open-sourced.
There is one draw-back, Physx doesn’t have support for Web that is it don’t have binding for javascript, so Physx can’t be used for Krom or Web, This mean keeping both Physx and bullet, which doesn’t make sense to me. It would be hard to keep both. And it look too soon to be talking about which physics engine should be used, it hard enough to implement and use bullet with full control and implementing physx from scratch would not be good move for new born engine. How about talking about this when Physx’s open source power is more abused?
@Monte_Drebenstedt is absolutely correct, I have little trust issue with closed nature company like Nvidia, and much prefer to have opened-nature company like AMD.

And between Physx is late to Robotic AI, Reinforcement learning game, which bullet owns for years.

Again, It would be best to wait, instead of riding the badwagon


#8

@mistajuliax
Please check before creating thread if there is previously created thread that is sharing same issue/topic.
It will help organizing things.


#9

There is nothing to wait, bullet physics is the best choice.
There is only one option Armory would need Nvidia, if Armory would not be able to get bullet physics stable and working well for most physics needs.


#10

Ehh???

I thought you were taking Physx side.
I was talking about that if you want Physx support then you will need to wait.
But if you don’t physx then there is no need to wait.
Imma confused.


#11

It was not clear, but this was about bullet physics

Lubos only supports bullet physics, there is no need for Nvidia.
But Nvidia getting open source with BSD license makes it a good challenger to bullet physics ( if bullet physics would not turn so good with Armory 3D ).
I’m saying bullet is Armory 3D physic engine , but Nvidia could be an option if someone would dare to spend lot of work trying to make it work and maintaining it. The door is not closed.