Box2d Revisited

#1

Post by mmastrac » Thu, Apr 25, 2013, 10:18 PM UTC

Box2d Revisited
j15r.com

Re: Box2d Revisited

#2

Post by CmonNoReg » Thu, Apr 25, 2013, 10:49 PM UTC

Not too useful as does not include one of the very popular ports and an additional major platform:

http://farseerphysics.codeplex.com/

:(

Re: Box2d Revisited

#3

Post by joelgwebber » Thu, Apr 25, 2013, 10:54 PM UTC

CmonNoReg wrote: post #2

Not too useful as does not include one of the very popular ports and an additional major platform: http://farseerphysics.codeplex.com/ :(

I must admit to being unfamiliar with Farseer, but if you feel like submitting a pull request, I'll figure out a way to run it on my Mac (I presume the "platform" you're referring to is .NET, or perhaps WinMo).

Re: Box2d Revisited

#4

Post by dukoid » Thu, Apr 25, 2013, 10:57 PM UTC

CmonNoReg wrote: post #2

Not too useful as does not include one of the very popular ports and an additional major platform: http://farseerphysics.codeplex.com/ :(

I don't get this comment. This is about performance in browsers, not different physics engines...?!

Re: Box2d Revisited

#5

Post by joelgwebber » Thu, Apr 25, 2013, 11:06 PM UTC

dukoid wrote: post #4

CmonNoReg wrote: post #2

Not too useful as does not include one of the very popular ports and an additional major platform: http://farseerphysics.codeplex.com/ :(

I don't get this comment. This is about performance in browsers, not different physics engines...?!

It looks like Farseer is based on Box2D, but extended, so it makes a kind of sense. I suspect the .NET VM performance will be somewhere around what the JVM gets, so it shouldn't be too much of a surprise.

Re: Box2d Revisited

#6

Post by nezza-_- » Thu, Apr 25, 2013, 11:31 PM UTC

I can't zoom on this page with my phone and, due to that, can't read it at all except with the "Reader" function.

Re: Box2d Revisited

#7

Post by seanmcdirmid » Thu, Apr 25, 2013, 11:34 PM UTC

joelgwebber wrote: post #3

CmonNoReg wrote: post #2

Not too useful as does not include one of the very popular ports and an additional major platform: http://farseerphysics.codeplex.com/ :(

I must admit to being unfamiliar with Farseer, but if you feel like submitting a pull request, I'll figure out a way to run it on my Mac (I presume the "platform" you're referring to is .NET, or perhaps WinMo).

It doesn't make sense to test farseer on anything but Windows. I would be curious to see how .NET stands these days with relation to Java and native.

Re: Box2d Revisited

#8

Post by evmar » Thu, Apr 25, 2013, 11:37 PM UTC

I'm curious whether the performance varies if you used a C compiler from the last five years -- GCC 4.2.1 was released in July 2007. (I'm not claimed the author of the post is unfairly biasing the results, I'm just honestly curious.)

Re: Box2d Revisited

#9

Post by joelgwebber » Thu, Apr 25, 2013, 11:38 PM UTC

nezza-_- wrote: post #6

I can't zoom on this page with my phone and, due to that, can't read it at all except with the "Reader" function.

What phone browser are you using? It seems ok on my Nexus 4 and mobile Safari, but I may need to fix the viewport or some such thing.

Re: Box2d Revisited

#10

Post by evmar » Thu, Apr 25, 2013, 11:58 PM UTC

evmar wrote: post #8

I'm curious whether the performance varies if you used a C compiler from the last five years -- GCC 4.2.1 was released in July 2007. (I'm not claimed the author of the post is unfairly biasing the results, I'm just honestly curious.)

To answer my own question, I got:

  gcc 4.6.3: 3.554688 +/- 4.786550
  clang trunk: 3.593750 +/- 4.798172  
  Chrome: 41.03515625 +/- 9.331709130062185

Which puts Chrome at about 11x these native compilers, consistent with the blog post.