Godot for AA/AAA game development – What's missing?

Re:Godot for AA/AAA game development – What's missing? by seanw444 on Monday January 16, 2023 @12:15PM (#34402857)

I was about to say "they can't, the project is supposed to be fully open-source." Because, you know, Nvidia. But I looked it up just to double-check, and wow, that's like one of the only open-source projects Nvidia has ever published. At least that I've seen.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Godot for AA/AAA game development – What's missing? by sho_hn on Monday January 16, 2023 @12:16PM (#34402869)

I believe you misread the quote; they're not using PhysX.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Godot for AA/AAA game development – What's missing? by seanw444 on Monday January 16, 2023 @12:18PM (#34402889)

No, I read it right. I was saying that I was about to explain why, but my explanation turned out to be incorrect, to my surprise.

However, they say:

> That said, Godot 4.0 introduces the ability to bind custom physics engines at runtime (without recompiling Godot) via GDExtension, so it’s perfectly possible for the community to integrate other engines such as PhysX, Jolt, or Box2D if need to be.

I'm liking this work on GDExtension. It'll make Godot a lot more capable just on its own.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Godot for AA/AAA game development – What's missing? by croes on Monday January 16, 2023 @12:43PM (#34403274)

But they are only mentioning PhysX as a reference for a high quality phsyics engine.

The only tried to integrate Bullet.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Godot for AA/AAA game development – What's missing? by shmerl on Monday January 16, 2023 @02:09PM (#34404306)

Isn't PhysX hardware accelerated only with CUDA? In that case it would make sense for Godot to avoid it even if it's open source, becasue it's targeted for Nvidia.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Godot for AA/AAA game development – What's missing? by teawrecks on Monday January 16, 2023 @12:22PM (#34402962)

ianal but it could be a licensing thing. PhysX is BSD3 and Godot is MIT.

[ Parent | on HN ]