Chipmunk Physics

Hello,
I plan to port Chipmunk4PB to Windows with features like the Chipmunk Pro version for Mac and iOS.
Calling: ChipmunkPro4Win.

Goal is: A Chipmunk Pro version for Windows (Windows 7 and Windows 8, Windows Phone 8 and the XBox)
It will be a static library like on the Chipmunk Pro for Mac and iOS.

What are you think about it?

/edit
Removed the Pro on the subject text and renamed it too.
Sorry for confusion.

I'm a little confused. What exactly would you be porting? Also, you can't use the Chipmunk Pro name, that would be confusing and Chipmunk Pro already partially supports Windows for the features relevant to the platform.

You also asked me about Chipmunk Pro on Windows a few days ago in a private message. Summarizing that, Chipmunk Pro has three main parts currently:

1) Official language wrappers: Currently only for Objective-C as iOS is probably the single largest market for Chipmunk. Plans to add more, but not the time to do it.
2) Autogeometry: Works on anything (including Windows) that Chipmunk does and is written in C. Has some additional wrapper code to integrate with the Obj-C binding for working with Apple imaging APIs.
3) Optimizations: Currently only supports pthreads and/or ARM NEON. Mobile platforms are slow, so they have been the target of additional optimizations. People really aren't really writing high performance 2D physics games on desktop machines anymore anyway. Nobody has ever even mentioned wanting Windows threads or SSE support.

Which features exactly did you want to duplicate?

#1 would be easy enough, there isn't anything particularly special about Objective-Chipmunk other than making Chipmunk integrate as well as possible with the Objective-C way of doing things. On Windows, C++ and C# would probably be the biggest two languages. A C++ wrapper would be pretty straightforward, but somewhat unnecessary. The C and C++ language runtimes are similar enough that it would mostly just be syntax changes. (body.applyImpule(...) vs cpBodyApplyImpulse(body, ...)) A C# native wrapper wouldn't be nearly as useful as a C# port, and there are actually two partial ports already.

#2 The autogeometry wouldn't be very easy to emulate. I've spent a lot of time working on the algorithms that I use and making them fast, particularly the approximate convex decomposition algorithm.

#3 Adding SSE or Windows threading wouldn't be easy unless you really understand Chipmunk's solver very well.

There are already a dozen language bindings. Adding more is certainly welcome. Also, I'd prefer that you didn't go out of the way to reverse engineer specifically the functionality that we've implemented. There are plenty of other features that can be built on top of Chipmunk other than specifically the autogeometry we've made. We are selling Chipmunk Pro to make part of our living as we are full time independent developers. We've put a lot of time into developing, documenting and maintaining Chipmunk and Chipmunk Pro.

Mmhh I think my englsih is too bad for a correct description what I meant.

Chipmunk4PB is written in natic C++. Of course some differents have to be port to the PureBasic special interfaces/language issues. It has some interfaces to DirectX too.

The name is not so important for me: Chipmunk4Win is also ok (Or Chipmunk4DirectX).

So my idea behind Chipmunk4PB/Chipmunk4Win is:
It has some more Infos for direct use of DirectX stuffs.

So it will be a Chipmunk/DirectX11 lib for easy creating of 'Sprites' together with the additional features of the Chipmunk physics engine.

A nativ Chipmunk Pro Version will be better of course and will be totaly different to thats what I mean what Chipmunk4Win will be.

Hope you untersatnd some more what I meant with Chipmunk4Win.

Ok, sure. I have no issue with that. It sounds more like you are trying to make a graphics engine to accompany Chipmunk then.

slembcke wrote:Ok, sure. I have no issue with that. It sounds more like you are trying to make a graphics engine to accompany Chipmunk then.

Yes thats is it.
/edit:
And I think I will renamed it too.
Sorry for confusion.

@Slemke
Maybe it the best thing removing this 'confuse' Thread itself too.