Hi,
I ve just tested an emscripten/wasm port of Nvidia PhysX5. It looks really cool.
All of this is possible thanks to #fabmax
15 Likes
The screen capture looks promising. Demo doesnât work on iPhone - Iâll try desktop later on!
edit: looks really, really good on desktop! nice work 
1 Like
Hi ,
Iâve just setup a playground 
I donât have much time right now to dive into this great physics engine. Physics dev/playing can be really time consumming 
. Anyway I keep an eye on that. sam.
9 Likes
I really like this efficient physics engine.
A new plugin for Babylon?
2 Likes
Nice! very efficient 
1 Like
Hopefully this is related to Integrating a modern and maintained physics engine to Babylon.js 
1 Like
Really time consumming ⌠I compiled the #fabmax github repo and expose to the wrapper a missing method : PxQuat (float angleRadians, const [PxVec3] , all went well. It seems to be robust.
Last draft playground before my boss fired me 
edit : the loop is handled by a setinterval⌠so close your browser before it crashes
6 Likes
Just adding to the last playground:
This will clear the interval every time you run the scene, so your browser will not explode
physx5 @sam | Babylon.js Playground (babylonjs.com)
Just wondering - it seems like there is a minimum thickness for a plane. The boxes are âin the airâ a little above the plane. Just wondering TBH. didnât debug at all.
4 Likes
thks @RaananW ! and for the âlittle in the airâ look to :
*var groundGeometry = new PhysX.PxBoxGeometry(100, 0.5, 100); box rigidbody has y size at 0.5 (1 in bjs world), and I was using a plane. Here is a better version with babylon box :
5 Likes
Hi,
I investigated a bit more the github repo physX wrapper #fabmax, itâs a fantastic job, however, there is a huge job to do, to get all working, wrapping, etcâŚ
7 Likes
I wonder why wonât run on iOS 
it has workers, wasm and all that 
Looks really very promising (and works beautifully on desktop). I hope you will have time to dig in further. It would be an amazing step forward with physX (in my opinion).
Night test 
demo : http://www.visualiser.fr/physX2/index.html
I will continue investigating next week, and try to get some free time this week to put this demo in the playground.
And about IOS, sorry I have no idea.
1 Like
PhysX requires a GPU that must have 256MB of dedicated local video memory, support NVIDIAâs CUDA technology and also have 32 cores or higher.
PhysX is extremely powerful but wonât run off integrated graphics machines, but according to their marketing hype, Physx5.1 should run on smartphones⌠but not Intel Iris or similar IGPUs. Not sure why wont work on iOS but I assumed Physx needs a dedicated card.
Also sidenote, If this could be stableized in babylon, would this have better perf for simple Physics or would it be overkill? Debabing if my game needs it or not.
So this basically means that you couldnât run physics server side with NullEngine?
Hi @jamessimo, this port of Physx only runs on CPU side, the gpu is not involved at all in the simulation.
1 Like
I am wondering if it could all be working with thin instances
Will probably be expensive because it needs to reconstruct the matrix of all on each frame. rendering-wise it would be great though
Teaser for whatâs to come with the next NPM package (fluid rendering):
I just used the positions of the cubes/spheres as the positions of particles and removed the cubes/spheres from the display: probably not the best way to do it
Hereâs the modified PG (which will only work when the Playground is updated):
4 Likes