carla VS Bullet

It sounds like you're looking for something like the CARLA simulator.

If you are looking for a different simulator, I would suggest using (Carla)[https://carla.org/] with ROS bridge and it also has an inbuilt support for OSM which worked flawlessly (you have to install it from source to get the OSM plugin).

(3) I would suggest you use CARLA or TORCS for self-driving cars in RL as they are common test beds.

carla env

Link to carla

There are a few ways you could go with this. A fun recent trend has been to make simulators in the unreal engine for photorealistic training. If you wanted to spend your whole project on the simulator part you could make your own environment, but I highly recommend using an open-source sim package. If you don't care too much about photorealism, you could use gazebo just fine. I've also made small visual worlds in blender, then simulated with RVIZ. Here's a good one with a focus on aerial robotics: https://theairlab.org/tartanair-dataset/ You could also give CARLA a spin for autonomous vehicles: https://carla.org/

For typical game physics engines... not that much. Math libraries like Eigen or Blaze use lots of template metaprogramming techniques under the hood that can help when you're doing large batched matrix multiplications (since it can remove temporary allocations at compile-time and can also fuse operations efficiently, as well as applying various SIMD optimizations), but it doesn't really help when you need lots of small operations (with mat3 / mat4 / vec3 / quat / etc.). Typical game physics engines tend to use iterative algorithms for their solvers (Gauss-Seidel, PBD, etc...) instead of batched "matrix"-oriented ones, so you'll get less benefits out of Eigen / Blaze compared to what you typically see in deep learning / scientific computing workloads.

The codebases I've seen in many game physics engines seem to all roll their own math libraries for these stuff, or even just use SIMD (SSE / AVX) intrinsics directly. Examples: PhysX (https://github.com/NVIDIA-Omniverse/PhysX), Box2D (https://github.com/erincatto/box2d), Bullet (https://github.com/bulletphysics/bullet3)...

I suspect most C++ physics libraries like Box2D (https://github.com/erincatto/box2d) or Bullet3 (https://github.com/bulletphysics/bullet3) could really benefit a lot from SIMD.

No, they replaced Bullet with Jolt. That is considerably more than "some adjustment", regardless of what you think of the result.

Vulkan graphics via Intel GVK, and physics via Bullet

The first two have a bunch of great examples, and I’m tying them together by refactoring some of the THREE examples to fit the ECS paradigm defined in AFrame. then upping the ante by adding physics using AMMO, which is more challenging since it’s only a partial implementation of Bullet, and already poorly documented (yet popular) physics engine.

Plus, SM uses a system called bullet physics, I imagine this would be rather complex to rework into a modern engine such as Unreal or Unity (after all, the majority of performance issues come from the physics engine rather than the graphics engine)

The physics in HDT-SMP are actually being calculated outside of Skyrim's engine with Bullet, an open-source physics engine. So this isn't some limitation of Skyrim's engine.