PROJECT PROPOSAL: jME Physics

Business and Project Management Discussions Community & Volunteer Projects
#1

Hi all!

Short Description: jME Physics System provides an interface between jME (jMonkey Engine) and physics engines (currently ODE, Open Dynamics Engine).
More details about the current jME Physics here:


Board here:
http://www.jmonkeyengine.com/jmeforum/index.php?board=3.0

We already host jME Physics on sourceforge but are unhappy with the availability of their CVS servers (especially our users are). Thus we’d like to host jME Physics on the java.net servers to get it on the same server like jME itself. Additionally the API is going to be revamped
(see http://www.jmonkeyengine.com/jmeforum/index.php?topic=2811.0)
and we would like to take this as a chance for moving.

Thanks for all votes :),
Irrisor

#2

Why not just put jME-Physics in the jME repository? I would’ve thought it’d fit better there, as it’s tightly coupled with jME?

Although if you were going to reimplement it as a generic Java physics API that could wrap ODE, Novodex and others, I’d definately be all for it!

#3

Yes, the implementation-independent API will probably get into the jME repository. But the ODE binding should not.

Yes I am reimplementing it as physics-engine-independent API. With one implementation - ODE - to start with. But it will stay coupled with jMEs scenegraph. So it’s not an entirely generic physics API but could though be used with other graphics engines as it uses jME for some vector transformations…

#4

The JME repository shall contain high level APIs for integration with physics system. The physics system implementation based on ODE or NOVODEX or any other physics engine shall be in the environment of a plugin project, because the end user is only interested in the abstract high level API and not the implementation. The implementation must be totally decoupled from the base JME code!

#5

Yes, that’s exactly the plan :slight_smile: - the implementation is decoupled! (I only mentioned the abstract API depends on jME - not on the physics impl)
If your vote was the -1, we had a misunderstanding here, I think :wink:

#6

My Vote was +1! I totally agree with your proposal!

#7

My vote was for -1 because we already jave an ODE binding…and thats ODEjava. I dont see the use for yet another binding to ODE, as ODEjava is a wrapper/binding, and JOODE is a port of it.

Also, the name of it should change to something else if it is to be a scene-graph agnostic.

#8

I KNEW IT! :-p

It is not intended to be scene-graph agnostic, but rather physics implementation agnostic.

Further, we all know how many problems exist with OdeJava and just the lack of ability in ODE in general. You can’t fault us for trying to do something you happen to be doing as well. :-p

darkfrog

#9

Then put it in the jme resp. It makes perfect sense!

ODEjava is a binding, you should blame ODE. Your binding to ODE wont solve any of the problems…

I didn’t try to put mine in another resp, because mine fits in perfectly with what I want to do.

DP

#10

Don’t make me call in the H.B. :-p

-Matt Hicks

#11

oky guys ill try to catch up with this by this weekend.

#12

I assumed this had been approved?

https://jmephysics.dev.java.net/

It seems to exist…

#13

I thought that when there were -1 votes, it should not be approved just like that? :-X

#14

Guess this whole voting and project proposal business is just a mockery. Whats even funnier is that no one bothered to say that it was approved on here…

Shameful really…

Edit: From the “Project Proposal Guidelines”:

DP

#15

16 to 3 hardly leaves a lot of room for debate. :o

#16

These votes are pointless really anyway given that we still have no idea what makes a “good java.net project”. As always this project will simply stand on what it produces… be a raving success or a slew of forgotten example code. :slight_smile:

I look forward to seeing what happens

Kev

#17

sunsett, just to leave no more room for debate on this matter:

From: https://games.dev.java.net/govern.html

AFAIK, it hasn’t been addressed.

DP

#18

DP, “just to leave no more room for debate on this matter” the project has been approved. :-p

-Matt Hicks

#19

Any word from Jeff, Jeff? If not, next time, don’t make it a poll please, as -1 votes are ignored.

#20

Jeff asked me to start this thread - I thought it was a good idea to make it a poll. Obviously it wasn’t ::slight_smile:

The project actually was not approved for java gaming! It was put into the general incubator, as nobody is officially in charge for the gaming approvals any more. Thus Jeff can’t find the time for it …

So what about those -1 votes?
-1 from DP: was addressed by sunsett
-1 from 2 other people: they did not post any reason! - how to address them?