PhysX is Open Source (EDIT: or is it?)
https://developer.nvidia.com/content/latest-physx-source-code-now-available-free-github
Note that contrary to what the post says, this is only the second best version (3.3.3). We are currently working on 3.4, which already contains significant changes and significant speedups (for example it includes Opcode2-based mesh collision structures, which provides faster raycasts, overlap and sweep queries). I think we will eventually open source 3.4 too, when it is released.
EDIT:
I’ve been reading the internet and receiving private emails after that. Apparently what I wrote is technically wrong: it is not “Open Source” because it does not have a proper open source license, it comes with a EULA, etc.
I notice now that both NVIDIA’s press release (above) and EPIC’s (here) are carefully worded. They actually never say “Open Source”, or even “open source”. They just say things like:
“NVIDIA opens PhysX code”
“PhysX source code now available free”
“The PhysX SDK is available free with full source code”
The weird thing then, is that many internet posts do the same mistake as I did, and present the news as if PhysX was indeed “Open Source:
http://techreport.com/news/27910/nvidia-physx-joins-the-open-source-party
http://www.dvhardware.net/article62067.html
http://forums.guru3d.com/showthread.php?p=5024001
https://forum.teksyndicate.com/t/physx-made-open-source/75101
http://hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1854357
(etc, etc)
Why is everybody making this mistake, if indeed none of the official press releases actually said that?
I’ll tell you why.
That’s because the distinction between “NVIDIA opens PhysX source” and “PhysX is open source” is so subtle that only pedantic morons misguided souls would be bold enough to complain about it when given something for free.
Give them a finger, they’ll take the whole hand, and slap you with it.
I have the feeling this is the only industry where people are so insane and out of touch with reality. You’ve given a free Porsche and then you complain that it is not “really free” because you still need to respect the “strings attached” traffic code. Hello? Just say “thank you”, enjoy what you’re given, or go buy a Ferrari if you don’t like Porsche. Jeeez.
March 5th, 2015 at 1:21 am
Is there any talk going on at nVidia about maybe just releasing the source to everyone? regardless of UE4?
March 5th, 2015 at 2:26 am
As far as I know it IS available to everyone:
“To access the GitHub repository, simply join the NVIDIA GameWorks Developer Program and accept the click-through EULA for PhysX source code. Full details can be found here.”
Unrelated to UE4.
March 5th, 2015 at 3:08 pm
Too bad it seems not free to use for consoles.
March 5th, 2015 at 8:12 pm
Hi Pierre 2 years ago you did benchmarking for PhysX and Bullet. Now that people will be making their own modifications any chance of you or Nvidia coming out with a benchmarking tool?
March 6th, 2015 at 12:55 am
>any chance of you or Nvidia coming out with a benchmarking tool?
I’m trying to release PEEL, yes. But otherwise, you know, it’s not hard to write your own benchmarks…..
March 6th, 2015 at 9:31 am
You don’t say… just look at the Unity 5 release.
You can try everything for free yet people are now bitching that they’re not getting the dark skin for free.
They just never stop.
March 6th, 2015 at 11:14 am
NVIDIA legal doesn’t think the difference is subtle, PhysX is still proprietary, although you can watch the source code under EULA. Some people try to help you see the difference between open source and proprietary, that is not complaining but helping. Free help. Congrats with this great step though!
March 7th, 2015 at 1:07 am
So you read the comments in the links I posted, and you really think that people are helping? That does not look like it at all. They are complaining - that the code is not “really” open source for example. Or that it only contains the CPU version. Etc.
The fact that the PhysX code is still “proprietary” should not even be a topic of discussion, since the official press releases did not actually said the opposite.
It looks like some people have a simple world view where “proprietary” = evil, proper “open source” = good, and there is nothing in-between. I disagree. PhysX is “proprietary” but putting it in the same bag as something that you pay for, and for which you don’t have the source code, is… not helping, actually.
Looking for exactly the proper term and arguing over the proper definition is also off topic and missing the point - again, simply because nobody actually mentioned “open source” in the press releases. I certainly made a mistake in the blog’s title, but that does not explain all the *complaints* on the internet.
Anyway, enough of this. Closing the comments, we said enough.