Oimo.js

Pros of Ammo.js

• More comprehensive physics simulation capabilities
• Better performance for complex simulations
• Wider community support and integration with popular 3D engines

Cons of Ammo.js

• Larger file size and potentially slower initial load times
• Steeper learning curve due to more complex API
• Less straightforward integration for simple projects

Code Comparison

Oimo.js:

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

Ammo.js:

var collisionConfiguration = new Ammo.btDefaultCollisionConfiguration();
var dispatcher = new Ammo.btCollisionDispatcher(collisionConfiguration);
var overlappingPairCache = new Ammo.btDbvtBroadphase();
var solver = new Ammo.btSequentialImpulseConstraintSolver();
var dynamicsWorld = new Ammo.btDiscreteDynamicsWorld(dispatcher, overlappingPairCache, solver, collisionConfiguration);

Both Oimo.js and Ammo.js are JavaScript physics engines, but they cater to different needs. Oimo.js is lightweight and easy to use, making it ideal for simple physics simulations in web applications. Ammo.js, on the other hand, is a port of the Bullet physics engine, offering more advanced features and better performance for complex simulations. The code comparison shows that Oimo.js has a more straightforward setup process, while Ammo.js requires more detailed configuration but provides greater control over the physics world.

Pros of cannon.js

• More comprehensive documentation and examples
• Wider range of physics features, including constraints and vehicle dynamics
• Active community support and regular updates

Cons of cannon.js

• Generally slower performance compared to Oimo.js
• Larger file size, which may impact load times for web applications

Code Comparison

Oimo.js:

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

cannon.js:

var world = new CANNON.World();
world.gravity.set(0, -9.82, 0);
world.broadphase = new CANNON.NaiveBroadphase();
world.solver.iterations = 10;

Both libraries offer similar basic setup for creating a physics world, but cannon.js provides more granular control over individual properties like gravity and solver iterations. Oimo.js combines multiple settings in a single configuration object, which can be more convenient for quick setups but may offer less flexibility for fine-tuning.

Overall, cannon.js is better suited for complex physics simulations with diverse requirements, while Oimo.js excels in performance-critical applications with simpler physics needs.

Pros of Physijs

• Tighter integration with Three.js, making it easier to use for Three.js-based projects
• More comprehensive documentation and examples
• Better support for complex physics simulations, including constraints and compound shapes

Cons of Physijs

• Less actively maintained, with the last update being several years ago
• Heavier and potentially slower performance compared to Oimo.js
• Limited compatibility with newer versions of Three.js

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));

Both libraries provide physics simulations for web-based 3D environments, but they differ in their approach and integration. Oimo.js is lighter and more flexible, while Physijs offers tighter integration with Three.js at the cost of being heavier and less actively maintained. The code comparison shows the different initialization processes, with Oimo.js creating a world object directly, while Physijs extends the Three.js scene and requires additional script loading.

Pros of Matter.js

• More comprehensive documentation and examples
• Broader community support and active development
• Includes additional features like constraints and composites

Cons of Matter.js

• Generally slower performance, especially for large simulations
• Higher memory usage compared to Oimo.js
• Steeper learning curve for beginners

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);

Oimo.js:

var world = new OIMO.World();
var box = world.add({type:'box', size:[1,1,1], pos:[0,0,0]});
world.step();

Summary

Matter.js offers a more feature-rich and well-documented physics engine with strong community support, making it suitable for complex simulations and interactive projects. However, it may have performance limitations for large-scale simulations.

Oimo.js, on the other hand, provides better performance and lower memory usage, making it more suitable for games and applications requiring many physics objects. Its simpler API can be easier for beginners to grasp, but it may lack some advanced features found in Matter.js.

The choice between the two depends on the specific requirements of your project, balancing features, performance, and ease of use.

Pros of cannon-es

• More active development and maintenance
• Better TypeScript support and modern JavaScript practices
• Wider community adoption and integration with popular frameworks

Cons of cannon-es

• Potentially higher learning curve for beginners
• May have more complex API compared to Oimo.js
• Larger file size, which could impact load times for smaller projects

Code Comparison

Oimo.js:

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

cannon-es:

const world = new CANNON.World({
    gravity: new CANNON.Vec3(0, -9.82, 0),
    allowSleep: true,
    broadphase: new CANNON.SAPBroadphase(),
    solver: new CANNON.GSSolver()
});

Both libraries offer similar functionality for physics simulations in JavaScript. Oimo.js provides a simpler API and may be easier for beginners to get started with. On the other hand, cannon-es offers more advanced features, better TypeScript support, and is more actively maintained. The choice between the two depends on the specific requirements of your project and your familiarity with 3D physics engines.