Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Comparison with Bullet/Jolt/PhysX #310

Open
SirLynix opened this issue Mar 15, 2023 · 4 comments
Open

Comparison with Bullet/Jolt/PhysX #310

SirLynix opened this issue Mar 15, 2023 · 4 comments

Comments

@SirLynix
Copy link

Hi!

I'm interested in comparing Newton Dynamics with Bullet, PhysX and more recently Jolt. Do you have benchmarks (or know some benchmarks), or tests?

I'm interested in performance, stability, usage of multi-core processors (and GPU) and multiplatform support.

Can you tell me how Newton performs (or is expected to perform) compared to those physics engine, or even better if there's a recent demo comparing them?

Thank you.

@JulioJerez
Copy link
Contributor

JulioJerez commented Mar 15, 2023

I do not spend type on comparison.
I found that this is just a waste of my time, and only create aggravation and animosity.
I just try to do the best I could. Newton is hobbyist project, probably slower, than all those you listed.
So if you are looking for an engine with resources behind, you can just disregard Newton and go with any of those other choices, I promise nothing.

Sorry, but that is no what I do.
Julio

@DaveGravel
Copy link

Newton may be slower in some cases, but it provides much greater precision in several other cases. However, determining the actual difference cannot be done through a benchmark alone. One needs to use the software to observe the true variance. Furthermore, I must emphasize that the Newton library's code interface is much more well-organized and better written than that of other libraries. This makes it considerably easier to use for professional and highly accurate simulations. If your aim is to simulate thousands of objects and physical precision is not critical, then Newton can certainly meet your needs, although it may not be the optimal choice. On the other hand, if you require a highly precise simulation and the number of objects is not a significant factor, Newton is one of the best options available, in my opinion, if it matters.

@SirLynix
Copy link
Author

As I wrote I'm not only interested in performances but in simulation stability too.

And honestly, after experimenting with Bullet for a while, I think Newton easily outclasses it, I was curious if benchmarks existed but I suppose I'll have to make my own.

Keep the hard work!

@TrevorCash
Copy link
Contributor

TrevorCash commented Mar 18, 2023

I have done comparisons against bullet myself. Newton is a much more stable simulation than bullet for sure. Newton also has very good joint robustness for a given iteration count. Very good runga kutta solver. And CPU threading scales very well.

Using Newton in a project will throw asserts during if you are using it wrong while other libraries might still run but sub optimally.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

4 participants