Pros of Oimo.js

• Lightweight and fast physics engine
• Supports both 2D and 3D physics simulations
• Active development and regular updates

Cons of Oimo.js

• Less extensive documentation compared to Physijs
• Smaller community and fewer resources available
• May require more manual setup for complex scenarios

Code Comparison

Oimo.js:

var world = new OIMO.World({ 
    timestep: 1/60, 
    iterations: 8, 
    broadphase: 2,
    worldscale: 1, 
    random: true
});

Physijs:

Physijs.scripts.worker = '/js/physijs_worker.js';
Physijs.scripts.ammo = '/js/ammo.js';

var scene = new Physijs.Scene;
scene.setGravity(new THREE.Vector3(0, -10, 0));

Key Differences

• Oimo.js is a standalone physics engine, while Physijs is built on top of Three.js
• Physijs offers tighter integration with Three.js, making it easier to use for 3D graphics
• Oimo.js provides more flexibility and can be used with various rendering engines
• Physijs has a more extensive set of pre-built constraints and joint types
• Oimo.js may offer better performance for simpler physics simulations

Both libraries have their strengths and are suitable for different use cases. The choice between them depends on the specific requirements of your project and your familiarity with Three.js.

Pros of Ammo.js

• Direct port of Bullet physics engine, offering more comprehensive physics simulation
• Better performance for complex physics scenarios
• Wider range of physics features and customization options

Cons of Ammo.js

• Steeper learning curve due to lower-level API
• Requires more manual setup and management of physics objects
• Less seamless integration with Three.js compared to Physijs

Code Comparison

Physijs example:

var box = new Physijs.BoxMesh(
    new THREE.BoxGeometry(5, 5, 5),
    new THREE.MeshBasicMaterial({ color: 0xff0000 })
);
scene.add(box);

Ammo.js example:

var transform = new Ammo.btTransform();
transform.setIdentity();
transform.setOrigin(new Ammo.btVector3(0, 0, 0));
var motionState = new Ammo.btDefaultMotionState(transform);
var shape = new Ammo.btBoxShape(new Ammo.btVector3(2.5, 2.5, 2.5));
var body = new Ammo.btRigidBody(new Ammo.btRigidBodyConstructionInfo(0, motionState, shape));
physicsWorld.addRigidBody(body);

Physijs provides a higher-level abstraction for physics integration with Three.js, while Ammo.js offers more control but requires more detailed setup. Physijs is easier to use for simple physics simulations, whereas Ammo.js is more suitable for complex physics scenarios and custom implementations.

Pros of cannon.js

• Pure JavaScript implementation, allowing for easier integration and customization
• More active development and community support
• Supports a wider range of physics simulations, including soft-body physics

Cons of cannon.js

• Generally slower performance compared to Physijs, which uses Ammo.js (C++ port)
• Steeper learning curve for beginners due to lower-level API
• Less seamless integration with Three.js compared to Physijs

Code Comparison

Physijs:

var scene = new Physijs.Scene();
var box = new Physijs.BoxMesh(
    new THREE.BoxGeometry(5, 5, 5),
    new THREE.MeshBasicMaterial({ color: 0xff0000 })
);
scene.add(box);

cannon.js:

var world = new CANNON.World();
var shape = new CANNON.Box(new CANNON.Vec3(2.5, 2.5, 2.5));
var body = new CANNON.Body({ mass: 1, shape: shape });
world.addBody(body);

Both libraries offer robust physics simulations for web applications, but they cater to different needs. Physijs provides a more straightforward integration with Three.js and better performance, while cannon.js offers more flexibility and a wider range of physics simulations. The choice between the two depends on the specific requirements of your project and your familiarity with physics engines.

Pros of matter-js

• Pure JavaScript implementation, making it easier to integrate and use in web projects
• More active development and community support
• Extensive documentation and examples

Cons of matter-js

• Limited to 2D physics simulations
• May have performance limitations for complex simulations compared to WebGL-based solutions

Code Comparison

matter-js:

var engine = Matter.Engine.create();
var world = engine.world;
var box = Matter.Bodies.rectangle(200, 200, 80, 80);
Matter.World.add(world, box);
Matter.Engine.run(engine);

Physijs:

var scene = new THREE.Scene();
var box = new Physijs.BoxMesh(
    new THREE.BoxGeometry(50, 50, 50),
    new THREE.MeshBasicMaterial({ color: 0x888888 })
);
scene.add(box);

Key Differences

• matter-js is a standalone 2D physics engine, while Physijs is a 3D physics plugin for Three.js
• Physijs leverages WebGL for rendering, potentially offering better performance for complex 3D simulations
• matter-js has a more straightforward API and setup process, making it easier for beginners to get started
• Physijs integrates seamlessly with Three.js, providing a familiar workflow for Three.js developers

Both libraries have their strengths and are suitable for different use cases. Choose matter-js for 2D web-based physics simulations or Physijs for 3D physics integrated with Three.js projects.

Pros of use-cannon

• More recent and actively maintained project
• Designed specifically for React and Three.js integration
• Supports modern JavaScript features and React hooks

Cons of use-cannon

• Steeper learning curve for developers not familiar with React
• May have less comprehensive documentation compared to Physijs

Code Comparison

Physijs:

var scene = new Physijs.Scene();
var box = new Physijs.BoxMesh(
    new THREE.BoxGeometry(5, 5, 5),
    new THREE.MeshBasicMaterial({ color: 0xff0000 })
);
scene.add(box);

use-cannon:

import { Physics, useBox } from '@react-three/cannon'

function Box(props) {
  const [ref] = useBox(() => ({ mass: 1, ...props }))
  return <mesh ref={ref}><boxGeometry /></mesh>
}

function Scene() {
  return (
    <Physics>
      <Box position={[0, 5, 0]} />
    </Physics>
  )
}

Summary

Physijs is an older physics engine for Three.js, while use-cannon is a more modern solution specifically designed for React applications using Three.js. use-cannon offers better integration with React and modern JavaScript features, but may have a steeper learning curve for developers not familiar with React. Physijs might be easier to get started with for pure Three.js projects, but lacks the React-specific optimizations and hooks that use-cannon provides.