box2d-wasm VS aioquic

https://github.com/Birch-san/box2d-wasm.) Godot uses box2d, too, so that would be convenient, if I switch to godot, but only if it is worth the performance improvement, which it currently does not seem to be. Maybe next year.

Following the article, you build a simple 2D physic simulation (only for balls). Did by chance anyone expand on that to include boxes, or know of a different approach to build a physic engine in WebGPU?

I experiemented a bit with it and imolemented raycasting, but it is really not trivial getting the data in and out. (Limiting it to boxes and circles would satisfy my use case and seems doable, but getting polygons would be very hard, as then you have a dynamic size of their edges to account for and that gives me headache)

3D physic engine on the GPU would be the obvious dream goal to get maximum performance, but that is really not an easy thing to do.

Right now I am using a Box2D for wasm and it has good performance, but it could be better.

https://github.com/Birch-san/box2d-wasm

The main problem with all this is the overhead of getting data into the gpu and back. Once it is on the gpu it is amazingly fast. But the back and forth can really make your framerates drop - so to make it worth it, most of the simulation data has to remain on the gpu and you only put small chanks of data that have changed in and out. And ideally render it all on the gpu in the next step.

(The performance bottleneck of this simulation is exactly that, it gets simulated on the gpu, then retrieved and drawn with the normal canvasAPI which is slow)

box2dwasm - an old, still maintained C++ library compiled to WASM. The documentation is lacking and developer experience seems poor.

network inspector says 2.1MB. but that's dominated by a 1.3MB image.

the main assets of the library are:

- Box2D.simd.js (422kB)

- Box2D.simd.wasm (266 kB)

a minimal demo that uses the library can be created in just a few kB:

https://github.com/Birch-san/box2d-wasm/tree/master/demo/mod...

A couple weeks ago I ported liquidfun to TypeScript + WebAssembly: https://github.com/Birch-san/box2d-wasm/releases/tag/v4.0.0-liquidfun.0

One of the interesting patterns happening in Rust is io-less libraries. I'm not sure where best to link this phenomenon. It here s a open issue for an io-less quic library, from 2019, https://github.com/aiortc/aioquic/issues/4

It'd be so fracking sweet to see filesystems follow this pattern. If we could re-use the file system logic, but apply it to windows or fuse or Linux or wasm linearly-addressed-storage, that would allow such intensely cool forms of portability/reuse & bending/hacking.

for those wishing to use http3 with a Python web framework, the ASGI hypercorn[1] currently supports it.

made a Django example last week with a sample client based on the examples from aioquic[2]: https://github.com/djstein/django-http3-example

this example also includes the first pass at async Django REST Framework using adrift[3] based on these GitHub issues:

- https://github.com/encode/django-rest-framework/pull/8617

- https://github.com/encode/django-rest-framework/issues/8496

sources

[1]: https://github.com/pgjones/hypercorn

[2]: https://github.com/aiortc/aioquic

[2]: https://github.com/em1208/adrf

In your estimation where does the QUIC specification, HTTP/3 specification, WebTransport specification, aioquic QUIC and HTTP/3 implementation in Python https://github.com/aiortc/aioquic (notice the GoogleChrome/samples WebTransport sample code is described as local server "There's code for a sample local server at https://github.com/GoogleChrome/samples/blob/gh-pages/webtransport/webtransport_server.py") fit into the categories you color "Framework" and "Webserver"?

Whilst the article rightly mentions aioquic to use HTTP/3 with Python, it is only a minimal example server. Hypercorn is a compete ASGI server built on aioquic that is likely more useful practically.