Chipmunk Physics或Box2D for C ++ 2D GameEngine？ [英] Chipmunk Physics or Box2D for C++ 2D GameEngine?

问题描述

我正在开发它是一个跨平台的2D游戏引擎，我的初始平台目标是iPhone操作系统，但可以移动到Android或甚至一些控制台像PSP，或任天堂DS，我想保持我的选项打开。

我的引擎是用C ++开发的，并且已经阅读了很多关于Box2D和Chipmunk，但仍然无法决定使用哪一个作为我的物理中间件。

Chipmunk看起来很容易嵌入，Box2D似乎被广泛使用。
Chipmunk是C，Box2D是C ++，但我听说Box2D的API比chipmunk的API差很多。

现在我将使用

我的价值：

  1）良好的API的
 2）易于集成。 
 3）可移植性。 
  

当然，如果你注意到其他事情，我很乐意听到。

您认为哪一个会更符合我的需求？

EDIT ：我最后写下关于我特定选择的文章，您可以 此处

解决方案

你是对的，花栗鼠已经发展成为改善Box2D倒下的很多地方。然而，Box2D绝对是更成熟的平台，根据我的个人经验，当决定使用哪个引擎时，我发现Box2D有一个更大的社区跟随，所以更容易通过示例学习。

I'm developing what it's turning into a "cross-platform" 2D Game Engine, my initial platform target is iPhone OS, but could move on to Android or even some console like the PSP, or Nintendo DS, I want to keep my options open.

My engine is developed in C++, and have been reading a lot about Box2D and Chipmunk but still I can't decide which one to use as my Physics Middleware.

Chipmunk appears to have been made to be embedded easily, and Box2D seems to be widely used. Chipmunk is C , and Box2D is C++, but I've heard the API's of Box2D are much worse than chipmunk's API's.

For now I will be using the engine shape creation and collision detection features for irregular polygons (not concave).

I value:

1) Good API's
2) Easy to integrate.
3) Portability.

And of course if you notice anything else, I would love to hear it.

Which one do you think that would fit my needs better ?

EDIT: I ended up writing an article about my particular choice, you can find it here

解决方案

You are right, chipmunk has been developed improving a lot of the places where Box2D falls down.

However, Box2D is definitely the more established platform and from my personal experience when making the decision of which engine to use, I found that Box2D had a much larger community following, so was easier to learn by example.

这篇关于Chipmunk Physics或Box2D for C ++ 2D GameEngine？的文章就介绍到这了，希望我们推荐的答案对大家有所帮助，也希望大家多多支持IT屋！