Does the Physx implementation in Unity3D support liquid, cloth and deformation physics or I have to script them myself? If possible with scripting that is.
These PhysX features are not currently exposed in Unity, so you’d have to script them yourself. You might find these softbody samples helpful:
I was wondering if I could built something utilizing the mesh class by changing vertices. Apart from that can we expect the rest of the features to be exposed?
I remember them saying that implementing the new features was a tricky subject mostly due to the webplayer. Apparently Physx does a ton of incremental updates which would require UT to update the webplayer constantly. This gets problematic since end-users aren’t very receptive to constantly installing plug-ins. This may be a bit off, so hopefully someone official can clarify.
I believe the reason had to do with the fact that UT had to port the PhysX engine to OS X, although the explanation you gave seems pretty plausible also.
So custom solution. Hmmm, a new challenge, I like it.
Maybe with PhysX it’s a similar situation as with .NET/Mono: It’s simply painful for UT to keep up with the latest version, so they only do it once in a while, which is reasonable (even if this tests my patience … but that might be a feature and not a bug 
).
Hopefully once 2.5 is out and the upcoming storm has settled, .NET (um, Mono), PhysX, Raknet and sound get some major love i.e. get updated to the most recent versions of the libraries that Unity builds upon, and get more functionalities exposed through the Unity APIs. With the massive updates 2.1 and 2.5, I really wouldn’t mind paying for Unity 3.0 later this year (well, to make the egoism involved here obvious: I still got a coupon from the Unity Awards 2008 but can’t use it because I’ve got everything available through the store ).
I’d expect that a lot of Windows developers will not like the out-of-date-state of Mono in Unity, since they’re used to working on the most current version of .NET (consider me one of them). And could be that the same holds for PhysX and Raknet. Concerning sound … I think OpenAL sucks
To tell you the truth for our project we could really use a network solution for a lightweight MMO. I believe it all depends on demand. If a lot of people inquire about networking for MMO games then we would probably read about that. If more people inquire about the lack of PhysX features then they might starts implementing them. Nevertheless, I am not dissatisfied with the current features although the Windows version is on top of my list.
you have raknet 3 at your hand, don’t see what would preventing you from creating a lightweight / heavy weight MMO networking, given you find the message constants somewhere.
That is something you will need to do anyway as you likely write the server in C++ or a similar performant full control environment.
Unity is great for what it does but for a server with tousands of indepdent actors, it is definitely not usable with its massive event handling overhead.
I could take the source code of a deformation implementation, compile it to a dll and then use it from a C# script right?
If you’re talking about C++ source code, you need Pro for that - but then: yes, that should work. If you’re talking about .NET source code, you can also do this with Indie.
In other words: If you’re talking about a “binary Windows DLL”, you need Pro; if you’re talking about a “.NET/Mono Assembly DLL”, you’re fine with Indie.
We have the pro edition. Thank you for the info. I dont think that PhysX is giving the source code away. However they do provide binaries from what I read in gamedev.net. Unless you can suggest a different implementation in C#. I think there are C# wrappers for PhysX and some ports also.
Would it be possible to use the dll that comes with the Nvidia PhysX sdk?