Hi J-S, Thanks! I'm just wondering to move the base classes of osgNVPhysx into another namespace, and "hatch out" more integrations from that, like osgODE, osgBullet, etc. Members of the base classes, which are not associated with any physics engines but support most common interfaces to them, include a singleton manager class, an abstract builder (inherit to initialize/destroy the engine), an abstract scene (manage the scene), and elements of the scene (rigid, soft bodies, joints, cloth, fluid...).
I will start to create that osgPhysics namespace and try to make it open and expandable to most physics engines. Hope a simple framework be done before the Chinese spring festival :-) But it seems not part of the osgNV library any more? Cheers, Wang Rui 2008/12/18 Jean-Sébastien Guay jean-sebastien.g...@cm-labs.com > > > If you intended it to support other physics engines that PhysX, I think > osgNVPhysx is probably not the best name... osgPhysics would be better, as > has been suggested in the past, with concrete bindings for PhysX (which > could then be in another module named osgNVPhysx if you want) and any other > engine people want to implement. > >
_______________________________________________ osg-users mailing list osg-users@lists.openscenegraph.org http://lists.openscenegraph.org/listinfo.cgi/osg-users-openscenegraph.org
