4 ms·
I was about to say "they can't, the project is supposed to be fully open-source." Because, you know, Nvidia. But I looked it up just to double-check, and wow, t
by seanw444 4y ago
I was about to say "they can't, the project is supposed to be fully open-source." Because, you know, Nvidia. But I looked it up just to double-check, and wow, that's like one of the only open-source projects Nvidia has ever published. At least that I've seen.
- sho_hn 4y agoI believe you misread the quote; they're not using PhysX.
- seanw444 4y agoNo, I read it right. I was saying that I was about to explain why, but my explanation turned out to be incorrect, to my surprise. However, they say: > That said, Godot 4.0 introduces the ability to bind custom physics engines at runtime (without recompiling Godot) via GDExtension, so it’s perfectly possible for the community to integrate other engines such as PhysX, Jolt, or Box2D if need to be. I'm liking this work on GDExtension. It'll make Godot a lot more capable just on its own.
- croes 4y agoBut they are only mentioning PhysX as a reference for a high quality phsyics engine. The only tried to integrate Bullet.
- shmerl 4y agoIsn't PhysX hardware accelerated only with CUDA? In that case it would make sense for Godot to avoid it even if it's open source, becasue it's targeted for Nvidia.
- teawrecks 4y agoianal but it could be a licensing thing. PhysX is BSD3 and Godot is MIT.