5 ms·
Not too useful as does not include one of the very popular ports and an additional major platform: http://farseerphysics.codeplex.com/ http://farseerphysics.co
by CmonNoReg 13y ago
Not too useful as does not include one of the very popular ports and an additional major platform:
http://farseerphysics.codeplex.com/ http://farseerphysics.codeplex.com/
:(
- joelgwebber 13y agoI must admit to being unfamiliar with Farseer, but if you feel like submitting a pull request, I'll figure out a way to run it on my Mac (I presume the "platform" you're referring to is .NET, or perhaps WinMo).
- seanmcdirmid 13y agoIt doesn't make sense to test farseer on anything but Windows. I would be curious to see how .NET stands these days with relation to Java and native.
- Stranger2013 13y ago>> It doesn't make sense to test farseer on anything but Windows You may want to read this to catch up: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mono_(software) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mono_(software)
- seanmcdirmid 13y agoI know about Mono. I don't think its as fast as Microsoft's own CLR, though I would definitely be happy if it was.
- dukoid 13y agoI don't get this comment. This is about performance in browsers, not different physics engines...?!
- joelgwebber 13y agoIt looks like Farseer is based on Box2D, but extended, so it makes a kind of sense. I suspect the .NET VM performance will be somewhere around what the JVM gets, so it shouldn't be too much of a surprise.
- mambodog 13y agoIt's perfectly useful as comparison of browser-based Box2d ports, and how they perform relative to the original C library.
- Stranger2013 13y agoFarseer can run in browser using Silverlight.
- Stranger2013 13y agoIs NaCl even cross-browser?
- mambodog 13y agoIt's perfectly useful as comparison of browser-based Box2d ports, and how they perform relative to the original C library.