![Very Happy :D](./images/smilies/icon_biggrin.gif)
![Rolling Eyes :roll:](./images/smilies/icon_rolleyes.gif)
I hope Ageia sends me the confirmation mail soon... surely you'll can see me in the future asking for other doubts in the NxOgre forum, as soon as I begin to have problems using PhysX and NxOgre, as a good newbie
![Laughing :lol:](./images/smilies/icon_lol.gif)
Lots of thanks for all your help
![Smile :)](./images/smilies/icon_smile.gif)
It doesn't involve extra cost in additional coding or learning to use if you don't want to. But if you want to take full advantage of the hardware acceleration you will need to think a bit harder about your design. Essentially you call the function "simulate" to tell the hardware to process a timestep and then call "fetchResults" to get the results. You can call these two functions right after each other, but if you do that you lose the advantages of having hardware acceleration. What you should do is perform time consuming stuff like rendering or whatever in between those two calls so that the physx hardware can be busy processing the physics while the CPU is doing other stuff. The problem is that you can't do certain things while its busy processing, so I ended up just calling "simulate" and "fetchResults" after each other since I don't have a physx card. But i still have the possibility to optimize for hardware later on.And what about the implementation of PhysX accelerator support? Does it envolve a cost in additional coding or learning how-to-use? Is it feasible at all if you don't have such hardware to test that support?