4 ms·
> It doesn't help that they just dropped the Bullet physics engine because it was "too hard" to implement If it's "too hard" for Unreal, why wouldn't it be too
by light_hue_1 4y ago
> It doesn't help that they just dropped the Bullet physics engine because it was "too hard" to implement
If it's "too hard" for Unreal, why wouldn't it be too hard for Godot? I think this is really an unfair criticism when you look at other game engines. Unreal had Bullet support in version 3 and dumped it. And they had PhysX in version 4 and dumped it in 5.
> now promise to make an "engine agnostic" interface for physics engines
Which is exactly what Unity did.
It seems like you have a problem with what Godot does no matter what they do, even when they just follow what Unity and Unreal are doing.
- gamblor956 4y agoThe difference is that you can, and could, make fully functional physics-based games in Unity and Unreal because their in-house engines were accurate and performant enough. The point of integrating Bullet/physX was to provide the option for even more accurate physics engines. Godot's in-house engine is neither performant, nor accurate, and it boggles the mind to think that having abandoned the relatively easy task of implementing a single physics engine written in the same language as their game engine (and that their competitors were able to integrate and support) that they would be able to accomplish the far more difficult task of implementing an engine-agnostic interface supporting multiple physics engines, as accomplishing the latter would require them to first accomplish the former...
- Karliss 4y agoFrom what I have read Unity doesn't have an in-house physics engine, they use PhysX for 3d and Box2D for 2d .