Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

A change I needed for my project #1

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

michaelboccara
Copy link

Settings.velocityThresold needs to be modifiable, as it is in other languages.

I needed that because my world has no gravity, and objects without friction and with full restitution. Having velocityThreshold caused my bodies to stick to walls.

…or worlds without energy loss (e.g. no gravity, no friction and full restitution).

Also fix Maven project.
@dmurph
Copy link
Member

dmurph commented Feb 12, 2014

I just made all settings non-final :)
You should see performance improvements as well on master.

@dmurph dmurph closed this Feb 12, 2014
@michaelboccara
Copy link
Author

Hi Daniel,

Great! Can't wait to see, after work ;-).
My game can add infinite number of bodies (upon user request), and they
bounce without loss of energy for ever, so I'm always challenging
performance. Therefore any performance improvement will increase my number
of supported bodies.

BTW, I saw that you tried the JNI option. Did you really see no improvement
comparing to pure Java ?

On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 3:09 AM, Daniel Murphy notifications@github.comwrote:

I just made all settings non-final :)
You should see performance improvements as well on master.

Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHubhttps://github.com/dmurph/pull/1#issuecomment-34828395
.

@dmurph
Copy link
Member

dmurph commented Feb 12, 2014

It was a somewhat large disappointment :( I should probably double check my numbers though. Most of the issue came from needing the callbacks to java (proceed in the query or not), and crossing the java-c barrier is rather slow. I had some ideas for removing that for the most common cases, but I haven't gotten around to it yet.

If you want to see some cool stuff, check out the liquidfun branch :)

@michaelboccara
Copy link
Author

I wonder whether GWT+V8 would be faster than JNI ;-)

On 12 February 2014 20:53, Daniel Murphy notifications@github.com wrote:

It was a somewhat large disappointment :( I should probably double check
my numbers though. Most of the issue came from needing the callbacks to
java (proceed in the query or not), and crossing the java-c barrier is
rather slow. I had some ideas for removing that for the most common cases,
but I haven't gotten around to it yet.

If you want to see some cool stuff, check out the liquidfun branch :)


Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHubhttps://github.com/dmurph/pull/1#issuecomment-34902223
.

@dmurph
Copy link
Member

dmurph commented Feb 13, 2014

I've seen a couple of people do comparisons, apparently javascript is still slower.

dmurph added a commit that referenced this pull request Apr 9, 2015
filiph added a commit to filiph/box2d.dart that referenced this pull request Dec 5, 2017
filiph added a commit to google/box2d.dart that referenced this pull request Dec 7, 2017
* Make velocityThreshold mutable - See jbox2d/jbox2d#1
* TimeOfImpact loop fixes - See jbox2d/jbox2d#36
* fix ropejoint pool leak bug - See jbox2d/jbox2d#59
spydon pushed a commit to flame-engine/forge2d that referenced this pull request Dec 26, 2020
* Make velocityThreshold mutable - See jbox2d/jbox2d#1
* TimeOfImpact loop fixes - See jbox2d/jbox2d#36
* fix ropejoint pool leak bug - See jbox2d/jbox2d#59
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

3 participants