Implement Box2D Now!

#1 The next version has Box2D. I don't see the need for GarageGames to invest the time integrating it into the current version when there's already instructions on how to do it (via code.google.com/p/tgb-box2d-integration/.)

Are you having trouble converting the Windows steps to the Mac? I'm sure somebody here could help you if you asked the right questions.

#2 Right, that is more accurate. The docs there are for PC.

#3 For me,
the questions begin on pg14 of the doc. That is when PC programs enter the scene. I have no idea how to translate them to Mac. Any suggestions?

Quote:
Next open the Properties of the project TGBGame.
• Select Configuration Properties/C/C++/General in the tree-view to the left. In the Additional Include Directories property add the directory ../../lib/Box2D/Include.
• Select Configuration Properties/Linker/General and add the directory ../../lib/Box2D/Library to the Additional Library Directories property.
• Select Configuration Properties/Linker/Input and add box2d.lib to the Additional Dependencies property.7

#4 @rennie - I've already talked to you about this in e-mail and here in the forums. I've mentioned it in other threads as well, that it is on the planning board. I'm the one who pointed it out to you, showed you the resource links, and walked through one of your other threads explaining some steps.

There is no need to "put pressure on GG", just because you can't implement the existing community resource on a Mac. We are not going to rush a huge feature implementation like Box2D. It would have to be carefully integrated, probably exposed to the editor or scripts in an intuitive way, and fully documented. That takes time and we are still trying to get 1.4.1 out the door. One step at a time.

#5 I understand that Michael, and thanks for your help. But I just feel that this is a very important issue and I gathered that while it was on that table, it was not a priority. I would like to see it be a priority. If Box2D were fully implemented GG's value would go through the roof.

#6 I will say both myself and students have all ran into performance limitations of the current system, though we've worked around this in the past it does hamper creative vision.

Though I definitely would like to see 1.4.1 out the door first, I agree that I'd like to see a high priority on this system, especially as integration has been proven. Out of the box physics simulation is something that separates TGB seriously from Flash and it would be nice to see top-end performance to match some of the custom flash implementations I've come across.

#7 I agree, the system is limiting and as such, creative visions can not be currently reached. This will hinder the users and GG's success. If implemented it helps not only raise the level of the communities apps, but GG's name.

#8 I always thought the main thing that seperated TGB and any other hw accelerated engine from flash was the fact that it does not stutter like hell if more than 100 bitmaps are drawn on screen ;) (sorry, just had to be said as people compare flash to game techs as if it was performant enough for anything but point and click adventures and games of similar complexity thanks to its pure cpu driven rendering)

I agree that having the physics replaced by something working (I'm not even talking about performance but generally just working correctly) should become a priority. But that has been my stance since early iT2D days, because the "physics" were known to be troublesome and low performing already on desktop and there you have 2-3ghz cpus to compensate for it yet still feel it, or even see it in form of jittering boxes and body pass through bugs. (I've been with TGB originally called T2D during its early days since T2D 0.7 EA - as such I've seen many things change to the better over time. Unhappily not the collision and physics part although it was after TGEs rendering pipeline the second largest problem since back then)

#9 We recently were able to use the reference listed above to get Box2D going for the Mac just this past week. Still ironing out a few bugs, but it works!

As far as the lines you mention go...

- Load your project in XCode
- Right Click on the left panel under Groups & Files, select 'Add' and then 'Existing Files'.
- Add the T2D/Box2D 'ref' files that are provided in the source code Micheal provides.
- Download Box2D ver: 2.0.1
- Right Click on the left panel under Groups & Files, select 'Add' and then 'Existing Files'.
- Add the 'Source' and 'Library' folders from your Box2D download.

You will need to do this for the TGB and also for your project.

Hope that helps!

#10 Thanks Mark. I will post when I am able to implement. Any chance you will be able to post a full doc on the implementation?

#11 We are still working out the kinks. I don't think we have anything profound enough to write a tutorial at this point, but I would be happy to answer any questions the best I can on the forums.

#12 ok great. I will post in here with questions as they arise.

Much appreciated.

#13 Mark, have you solved the "operator new" compile error?

#14 This can be real helpful, Box2D is awesome and some cool integration will be very appreciated.

#15 @Juan Sorry, I did not put a notify on this thread so I'm just now seeing your question. Yes, we got around the operator new compile error. I believe we didn't have to stray too far from Michael's document. is this still an issue for you?

#16 Mark, don't worry. I solved it, thanks.

But I'm new to xcode so I'm having some issues. It shouldn't take me too long to make it work.

My app crashes on startup :)

#17

Quote:"The next version has Box2D."

Cool! I'm new here so can I ask when the "next version" is expected approximately? (I'm not sure how often new versions come out.) Meanwhile, I will try the instruction to add it to the current version (1.7.5).

#18 Not sure when the next version will be released, but I can tell you we just got version 1.4.1 about a month ago. So my bet is anywhere between 3-6 and 12 months. My guess now tho I say 8. Michael? But really, I think they wont know as you can never predict these things but I bet they have a rough timeline.

#19 @Charlie - William was referring to the R&D Torque 2D blogs we posted back in 2009. We have publicly announced a final plan for the next version of iTorque 2D. We need to schedule, budget and get some more programmers on staff before we can commit to a public statement.

#20 Wasn't the plan for that version scrapped and reformulated in 2010 anyway according the blog back then?
Already by the state back then with GG being part of IA it was late 2011 till there would be anything to touch, with the changes I would expect it to be more a mid 2012++ (without it cutting features to a degree where it is not even worth to release it anymore due to missing exactly those points people have been waiting and wanting for years)