[ODE] Using ODE in Doom 3

[Gerhard W. Gruber]

On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 13:32:31 -0800, "John Miles" <jmiles at pop.net> wrote:

>In my opinion, yes, it's feasible.  Doom 3's physics subsystem was pretty 
>unexceptional.  While playing the game, I remember thinking that there was 
>absolutely nothing going on that ODE couldn't handle.

I was downloading a demo movie from that hellforces game. The game itself is
pretty crap IMO, but I was focussing on the physics in the movie. There are
some parts where one can see the physics in action and thatlooks pretty good.
Of course the movie features mainly the game, so these sequences are rather
short or often obsutrcuted. Currently I try to find my way in teh ODE library,
but the mian problem I have is that there are no makefiles for the
demoprograms.

What I would like to see is some demo of different features of that engine so
I can see how it handles that. Is that feasable? Or are there some more
instructions on how to compile that thing? I downloaded that 041110 version
and it had also a bug in it. I had to remove an assert before I could finish
compiling it.

The documentation is quite good, but it lacks info for a beginner on that lib.

>It'll take some heavy-duty tweaking, though.  By the time you get ODE 

Yeah. I expect that. :) But the D3 physics really looks bad and I would like
to have something better than that. I got hooked on ODE because it was
mentioned that Stalker uses it and Softimage XSI, both are pretty big apps, so
I thought that it wouldn't be to bad. :) But it really would help if there
were some easily accessible demos out there.

>working in Doom 3, your statement about not having much experience with 
>physics and game development will no longer be true. :-)

:)

Actually I'm the lead programmer and project leader of our mod, and I have
enough in experience with software development being a professional. Only with
games it's a bit different, but it is quite exciting. :)

-- 
Gerhard Gruber

Für jedes menschliche Problem gibt es immer eine einfache Lösung:
Klar, einleuchtend und falsch. (Henry Louis Mencken)