[CLOSED] - Farseer Phsyics Integration - Any pointers?

#1 I gave farseer physics a shot but I had some success. Im also interested in using that engine. As far as I know farseer is open source. What would be cool is if TX already had that installed on it. It would really push the engine forward.

As far as production goes, releasing a product is very important. Nobody can enjoy your game if its sitting on your hard drive. So give it a week and if you can't do it just release it :)

#2 I hear you John...my first Xbox LIVE Indie Game was a quick release job. I got online with Creators Club in December and had my first game out in February.

My 2nd project is a bit more ambitious and my goal is to have it up on the Marketplace by the end of this year.

I'd be willing to take a week or 2 to get some love out of Farseer...but anything more than that is scope creep that my project can't afford if I'm going to have it out this year.

--RB

#3 For my next project I would like to use farseer too. I also started my current project about 7 weeks ago. Im going to put my game in review today :)

What was the name of your first game?

#4 My first game was Planet Crashmania 9,000,000

The ridiculous title was totally intentional ;)

#5 Nice :)

#6 Did you see this?

www.torquepowered.com/community/forums/viewthread/107401

Integrate JigLibX in TX3D. I am certain you could do something similar with FarSeer. It may give you a start.

#7 @Henry...seems like the JigLibX integ wasn't so hard. I've decided that I'll commit a couple of weekends worth of time to see how far it gets me and whether or not it's a worthy diversion. =)

If I get anything good, I'll share it here and maybe work it into the community repo.

--RB

#8 Is there a possibility for 2d physics?

#9 @John...Farseer is 2D only. Does your last post refer to JigLibX?

I'm so confused. =P

--RB

#10 Haha, I am referring to JigLibX.

#11 Shawn Simas had done it before.

http://www.torquepowered.com/community/blogs/view/13762

I think he's still active too, just in the iPhone forums.

#12 He never shared the code, just did a little showing off in the blogs. I am certain one of us can get it done.

#13 Well I'm a loser and haven't touched my game project since my original post...technically I'm from Boston...so I guess I'm a wicked loser. =P

Has anyone here been toying with it at all? I'm about to get back into my game project...but I've got some non-physics work that I have to complete. I'm falling behind my scheduled goals...and unfortunately, Farseer integration was not on my list. So I'm going to have to get ahead back on track...then maybe a little bit ahead of my plan if I'm going to take the time to do the integration.

If anyone else has any luck...post here!

BTW, @Henry...on a completely unrelated note...I'm the guy (exibeo) who keeps sending you gold on Godfinger. You're the only guy in my google contacts that was playing that game. :)

Thanks
--RB

#14 Hey Ron,

I've just seen this thread, sorry :) I've planned to publish a Farseer integration by the end of August as I've to integrate that for a title that will follow "Get Out!", the one that by my schedule must be finished in 2 weeks. Of course game dev schedules tend to be broken by real world work, by I'm fairly optimist ;)

Cheers,
Pino

#15 @Pino...I'll be interested to see your implementation. I've just spent the last hour or two playing around with it. I got a very rudimentary interaction going on with TX.

I created a wrapper to make sure the components all interact with the same instance of the physics simulator (this might not be desirable for everyone).

Then I created a component that allows you to specify the object's mass, and if it has a Farseer Geom or not.

I was able to get some GG logos bouncing around the screen and interacting with each other.

Very rudimentary.

Pino, are you planning to implement this as a back end to the T2DPhysicsComponent?

You'll have another game ready in 2 weeks!?!?! Geez...I am definitely doing something wrong. Maybe my game projects are too ambitious.

I may pull the plug on the one I'm working on right now...the artwork and level design needs are too much for me to handle on my own...and I don't have anyone locally that I can collaborate with who has the artistic flare that the game will need.

Good luck on getting your next project out.

--RB

#16 I was looking at it as a choice, TX2D physics or Farseer. I do not know if it is "heavier" and will take more resources than the TX physics. If performance were not a factor I'd prefer the Farseer. what would be interesting is if it is more efficient.

#17 @Henry...my toying around this morning "agreed" with you that it should be a choice. However...the more I look at my game project...I notice tons of interdependence with the T2DPhysicsComponent. =(

So for someone starting a project brand new...the choice paradigm is a fair option. But for someone working with a project already...it might be to their benefit to retrofit the Farseer calculation engine over an augmented version of the T2DPhysicsComponent. That way your existing stuff that relies on the TX supplied physics module can still continue to function but the computations for positioning and rotation will be handled by Farseer.

Thoughts?
--RB

#18 Well,

my plans are to limit the use of the internal TX2D Physics to positioning only, interlacing those properties with Farseer, having the latter in charge of almost all. I've planned to have a component (or a set of components, depending on what comes out while writing it) and one singletone integration manager. The manager I guess will be a plus, but I'll be sure once I put my hands in this project.

"Get Out!" has been worked since the day after YASS was released, but here I got very lucky because I found a very good Italian artist (he's studying the last year of Fine Arts) and this looks a serious and long term collaboration, so I've only to deal with the coding and this makes carrying out the game a very fast paced task :) this week-end I'll publish another more complete preview of this one.

~Pino

#19 @Pino...I think you're right in creating a the singleton to manage the integration.

I did the same thing with my rudimentary tryouts and it helped to keep everything in the same physics simulator allowing the objects to interact with one another.

It still seems like quite a bit of work to do...but likely a worthwhile effort.

I'm thinking my current game project is a bit too ambitious for the amount of time I have available. I'm going to put it on the back burner for a little while and work on a simpler project. I may work on the Farseer integration first and then see if the inclusion of a more robust physics engine gives me any new gameplay concepts that I can play with.

--RB

#20 Hey guys...I'm at it again here with the Farseer Integration. Having read all the docs, it makes most sense to me to make a component for each of the different pieces of Farseer entities. I'm working on the basic Body and Geom components right now and I bumped into a little problem that raised a generic TX question.

Is there a way, when defining a SceneObject's components to prioritize the initialization/registration of the individual components? I know how to set dependencies between components (in this case a Geom requires a Body) so I've got it set up so TXB will not allow a Geom component without a body component. But my Body component still seems to be registering AFTER my Geom. Since there's not much to do in a Geom/Body during runtime (they are mostly just registered and setup upon creation), I didn't want to add tick processing unless I had to.

I'd like to enforce that the Body component registers first followed by the Geom component.

Any help?

Thanks
--RB