Nape vs Box2d（Actionscript 3 物理引擎）
我一直在测试 Nape 物理引擎与 Box2D AS3 和 炼金术 > 端口，看起来 Nape 比它们都慢很多。我读过一些地方（这里和此处 ）它应该更快。有人在两者之间进行过测试吗？如果是的话，你的结果是什么？
I've been testing performance of the Nape physics engine vs the Box2D AS3 and Alchemy ports and it seems like Nape is a lot slower than both of them. I have read in a few places( here and here ) that it is supposed to be faster. Has anyone done testing between the two and if so what were your results?
如果你对这篇内容有疑问，欢迎到本站社区发帖提问 参与讨论，获取更多帮助，或者扫码二维码加入 Web 技术交流群。
绑定邮箱获取回复消息
由于您还没有绑定你的真实邮箱，如果其他用户或者作者回复了您的评论，将不能在第一时间通知您！
发布评论
评论（2）
在与 Nape 的创建者交谈后，他告诉我 Nape 在移动设备上运行缓慢，这与我的目标设备类似，因为它使用了内联。
After talking to the creator of Nape he told me that Nape runs slowly on mobile devices, which is similar to my target device, due to its use of in-lining.
嘿，从我网站的链接中发现了这个问题。我已经使用了 Box2D AS3，然后又使用了一年左右的 Box2D Alchemy 用户，我可以自信地说 Nape 使 Box2D 的性能达到了惊人的水平。我的早期测试表明，Box2D 可以堆叠 100-150 个盒子，而 Nape 可以堆叠 500 个以上，且性能相同。
在我最近的测试中，场景中可以有 1000 个物体，而且我发现显示延迟比物理计算延迟更多。默认设置应该没问题；只要确保您使用的是类似的物理量表即可！
Hey, found this question from the link to my site. I've been a Box2D AS3, and then a Box2D Alchemy user for a year or so, and I can say with confidence that Nape blows Box2D performance out of the water. My early tests have shown that while Box2D can have 100-150 boxes stacked, Nape can have 500+ with the same performance.
In my recent testing, I can have 1000 bodies in the scene, and I see more lag from display than physics calculations. Default settings should be fine; just make sure you're using a similar physics scale!