go here
and vote for your top 10!
i did 
I would like to make a quick suggestion for two! These are where all of my votes have been sitting.
http://feedback.unity3d.com/suggestions/update-to-lastest-version-of-phy
http://feedback.unity3d.com/suggestions/terrain-voxelbased-terrains
hey no solicitation around the polling place
great ones
too bad im all out of votes
10 votes are just not enough.
I think it will be more useful to support Havok physic then nvidia physX for many reason.What do think?
http://feedback.unity3d.com/suggestions/physics-havok
Try havok physic
http://havok.com/try-havok
Be careful what you ask for 
Physics APIs have very little in common, beyond the obvious that they all do the same things to different degrees of success.
Replacing PhysX with Havok would change the way everything to do with rigidbodies and joints, etc, work - not just the sim results, but the interfaces to hook into the APIs.
We used to make heavy use of Reactor (Havok) in 3DS Max ⌠when Autodesk replaced Reactor with MassFX (PhysX) one year, it pretty much cut us off from using current versions of Max for 18 monthsâŚand to this day I canât load and re-export a max project from pre-2012 because of it.
That said, if you want a physics solution thatâs not tied to a vendor, doesnât have crippling license fees attached and has proven itself across the CG industry, it would be Bullet.
Also, from what I worked with Bullet it has similar API to current physics api (dunno how it work behind scenes, may be even similar to PhysX in general).
Plus, nothing stops UT from just write wrapper that is consistent with current API, but makes call to Havok/Bullet behind the scenes instead of PhysX (again, dunno whatâs going on internally, maybe there is wrapper in place already).
the thing w physx is nvidia bought it so its not supported on ati gpu
its eye catching title
but when you open the candy wrapper and look inside you get an unexpected surprise
so when click on it and you read the actual post it has nothing to do with todays elections in the us
but about a different type of voting
voting for what you like changed / added in unity
and giving them feedback to help shape in small way what gets done in future releasesâŚ
and by getting you to look i hope i got you to go there take a look at feedback area and take the time to cast some votes for stuff you want changed/added
and thus made unity a little better for everyone
which is sort of what elections are all about, getting people involved and shaping what happens
then again the feedback area maybe as fake as the rest of our election systems
Everyone should vote for this one, so we can finally upgrade the version of physx. You want force-fields, its got em, tornados yeah, rubber frogs, its there and that was 5+ years ago last time I looked it at.I think they also had fluids. It seems to me since they got bought by NVida they have been adding less features then they used to and thats a god damn shame.
http://feedback.unity3d.com/suggestions/update-to-lastest-version-of-phy
Well obviously put all your votes on this to get rid of this nonsensial limitation:
http://feedback.unity3d.com/suggestions/allow-native-code-plugins-for-un
Also, why do I have -8 votes left
Nah, obviously vote for this one: http://feedback.unity3d.com/suggestions/linux-ide-editor
Upgrade to latest mono runtime.
New PhysX
Deprecation of US/Boo
Or maybe even (see signature).
Or, you know, maybe FBX-es shouldnât all have a 270 degree rotation on them. If there is a solution that in the Asset Store, ProPivot, then why cannot unity implement it? 
If they are afraid that it will break existing things, they should make the import default as current, but similar to setting the âimport scaleâ, we should be able to set the âimport rotationâ too.