There are a lot of problems with the physics and are semi impossible make a game with gameplay physics based.
Please add support to Bullet physics or migrate to Bullet physics and add support to a Havok plugin or something.
There don’t are PhysX games with physics in the gameplay.
The true uses of PhysX always are for non gameplay things like effects, details, smoke, and other list of non gameplay things (only toy cars), you cannot create something like Gmod or Half Life 2 as you can see in the video…
Bullet physics work better than this.
Bullet physics are in all 3D apps Blender, Maya…
Bullet Physics use MIT license and all code is open…
Yeah the only thing you going to see effects and vehicles, but look at the Arma 3 vehicles or Planetside 2 Vehicles are like toys.
*The game with more things using PhysX is the Watch Dogs and have problems + don’t have like the examples i say, the best example of physics is the Source engine, you can place boxes or models and jump over (more than 10 years old engine), check the video in UE4…
Vehicles are known to have problems (in both UE and physx), please see my post on the other thread.
The surfing bug you show in the video was introduced in 4.8, but is fixed in 4.9 - This still sucks though (Sorry!)
We don’t have plans to switch physics engines any time soon. While there are advantages/disadvantages to different engines, I don’t think switching is feasible or would solve most of the issues people encounter. The majority of bugs are actually the result of complex interaction of systems at the unreal level.
We are of course trying to improve this and posts by the community really help. I know it’s annoying, but posting a simple project that reproduces the problem goes a long way on our end to fixing the bug.
There are games out there that rely heavily on PhysX for gameplay - see Kerbal Space Programm.
There are just no games with UE4 + PhysX out there.
I also think switching physics engines is wrong. PhysX works well, not as reliable and robust as Havox, but then it is for free. Robustness is what you would pay for with Havok.
But it works well, see Unity3D. It is just that Epic needs to work more on a solid integration (and multi-threading PhysX like in Unity)
PhysX has been multi-threaded in UE4 since UE4 launched. I am not sure where this misconception came from, but my guess is that it’s related to the new function names in 4.8 which explicitly state whether a lock has been obtained.
I did something vey similar without problems. If you want, you can share the stripped down project and I can take a look. Difficult to pin down what is wrong without a project file.
All the usual stuff is on, right? (sub-stepping, CCD, no huge mass ratios, generate hit events = OFF (in 4.8), velocity/position solver high,…)
Please Epic, when you do physics in 4.9, move careful. Or better: tell your developers to move careful. It was a trip to hell and back to retune physics in my project when I switched from 4.7.4 to 4.8.
You say now that a bug has been introduced in 4.8.
This renders all the ‘advice’ to always stay with one version during development useless, regardless of how many updates there are.
I could faint when I read that physics in 4.9 gets another overhaul.
At some point you guys really have to move slower, introduce less features and instead do solid work.
You are running to fast with rather short legs. You do not have that many people in your company but want to create output like you had 5x the employees.
It is not going to work.
Do it for your users, move slower!