@"Ace Dragon" said:
Godot has an option to switch the physics engine to Bullet now (which should be far better in almost all cases compared to the original one). It's not set by default, but anyone experience such issues should try the switch before reporting.
I think Bullet is the default physics engine for Godot 3, at least that is the impression I get from this article back when it was announced. Also, according to that same article, it appears Godot's built in 3D physics will be removed in Godot 3.1.
@newmodels said:
I hope godot will continue to have their own built in physics, not become dependent.
Personally, I'm glad Bullet is (likely) replacing the built in physics. Having worked with the built in physics in several projects, I can confidently say that Bullet is much better than the built in physics and much better for performance too. Using Bullet will also reduce the work load for those contributing to Godot, since they no longer also have to write a physics engine as well as all of the other stuff in Godot.
That said, I do get what you are saying. I think replacing systems internally (like the physics) is a slippery slope and should be carefully considered before replacing internal/built-in systems.
@MagicLord said:
Exactly, before trying to race against [big game engine], first get fundation right.
I totally agree! Without getting the foundation right, you end up in a situation like Unity, where you have to backpedal and focus (almost) entirely on performance, but with a huge code base instead of a small one. I'd much rather have to code 'fancy' features myself but have a solid foundation to build on, then have a bunch of 'cool features' but a shaky/ill-performing foundation.
(That said, I have nothing against Unity, I'm just using it as an example. Unity has its faults, but honestly all game engines have their quirks/faults)