PROJECT PROPOSAL: jME Physics

Business and Project Management Discussions Community & Volunteer Projects
#21

Apologies for the confusion - I saw jME-physics on the java.net games page, I hadn’t realised it was an incubator project!

I voted -1, as I thought jME-physics would be much better off in the jME repository, as it is jME-specific. As I said, if it was a general physics binding library (or physics abstraction layer) I’d be very happy with it. Personally, I don’t like the idea of fragmenting what would be better as a single project (IMHO). Surely jME would be better off as a scenegraph with built-in physics than as two projects?

Anyway, that’s my personal feeling. I’m going to retract my -1 vote though - I’ve made my point, and I’m not going to stand in the way of the rest of the community :slight_smile:

-CDF

#22

Errr, just because he replied doesn’t mean he addressed it. “Its not meant to be scenegraph agnostic, but physics library agnostic” does not resolve the issue.

Anyways, since it is an incubator project…i’ll leave things the way they are.
DP

#23

Ok, I thought it was just a misunderstanding, that was clarified. So what’s your point then? There is no need for a physics engine independent physics API for jME?!?
Regarding “because we already have an ODE binding”: you know jmephysics is using (a modified) odejava. You wrote parts of the first version of it…

#24

Well, to both chaosdeathfish and DP, you really think that ODE, Novodex, Newton, etc. implementations for an optional physics binding should be included in the jME repository? You’re then forcing LOTS of people who may or may not care about physics at all to download massive amounts of code and bindings. You don’t see anything wrong with that?

  • fears the VE repository *

-Matt Hicks

#25

My point is that the jme-physics stuff should be put in the jme resp, because it is only suitable for people who are using jme. If I was using Xith, i wotn be able to use it. Having a physics agnostic library for jme is a great idea!

Heh, you dont know what a CVS module is do you ? Also, a user might not particularly care about effects, or terrain, or model loading, yet your making him download them anyway…

DP

#26

Putting in into jME itself would be fine with me, yes. But it’s not on me to finally decide that. So at least while Mojomonk and Renanse are busy moving and starting their new job it will stay a separate project.

But I feel that point against is addressed now, isn’t it? :slight_smile:

#27

DP is just being difficult. :-p

Okay, how about the aspect of requiring people working on the physics project to have the ability to write to the jME project? I might be a developer for jME-Physics but we all know that monkeys and frogs don’t trust each other…and for good reason, monkeys are afraid of warts, and monkeys like to throw frogs almost as much as their own feces. :-p

-Matt Hicks

#28

Okay guys,

It sounds like there is a lot of interest in this project and one or two still open questions.?

Since its under active discussion I’ll hold it open.

I would appreciate it if anyone who still cares and believes there is more to discuss post their questions below this message so i have a place to start reading from.

If noone posts then we will assume noone has any objections anymore. Its not enough just to object, you do have to make a good faith effort to engage and work it out. Nothing esle is fair to all the people who DO want to see this projecthappen.

#29

I would say two months is more than enough to wait without response before confirming this project.

#30

I won’t object to the jME Physics project but I do think it’s principle is the opposite of code re-use and collaboration between projects.

I just wonder if jME Physics will use a fork of JOODE, as it does with ODEJava. I heard jME physics was fixing some bugs in ODEJava, then why do not contribute to ODEJava itself ?

That is splitting effort you don’t think there are enough duplicated work in the java game development area ? Don’t say Xith3D and jME aren’t in competition. (Some will say “it’s not the same developers that use it”, "they don’t have the same goals/architecture/performances/usecases/structure/taste).

Forks are good when projects are definitely dead (as Java3D was, why Sun just resurrect it ?) and when the projects owners don’t want any further contributions different from the original goals.

And let me tell you if you guys succeed to make a common adapter for ODEJava, JOODE, Novodex, Newton, Havok, then I promise I’ll shut up. But if it’s the case then you’d better to do a scenegraph-agnostic & physic_library-agnostic lib. But that just seems impossible to me.

#31

An important point - lets continue discussion here.