thanks @danielp for explain.
jme3-bullet is not a small project, not a big too, its all up to @sgold who is the one taking care of physics now.
trully, if he would expand jme3-jBullet, i would use it anyway, because there are not so much differences. But we are still back to main topic.
The Minie lib use extended/fixed jme3-bullet-native to make Minie work with this physics. Making same changes for jme3-jBullet would not be just a copy paste but deep rebuild of both Minie and jBullet code, but thats what sgold could say how hard it would be to update jBullet.
recently was told jBullet had no sourcecode, but it was provided and we have sourcecode of it, so if there would be anyone who would want update it, its possible.
But still we got only one person who make physics for us, so we need bless him and do not add even more work for him. If its only for native, then lets use it.
Ofc i dont say own opinion to drop jBullet, it could stay as it is, just would make jme3-bullet-minie to work only with native, thats all. This topic is overall advantages and disadvantages, i dont see anything about drop jBullet for now, but i feel it was intended to know our opinions to stick only one physics.
Both have advantages and disadvantages ofc, but the main advantage of Native Bullet that was not mentioned as point here is:
- jme native bullet have support of @sgold in Minie (not just current features)
i belive i understand topic intention, but i see alternatives all the time. Even if lets say, cant use native-physics and upgrade it to work with Minie features, i also see new alternative like creating totally new package jme3-minie with updated jme-physics and all features from Minie, while jme3-bullet-native and jme3-jBullet would stay intact to not break other people physics.
but i hope updating current one is not that problem.