A native plugin that integrates the entire QuarkPhysics library into Godot, with builds for all platforms.
An editor plugin that provides unlimited editing capabilities for QMesh inside Godot.
An example project and 6 example scenes to help you try QuarkPhysics and explore how it works.
This is a first release, and a lot has been accomplished in a short time, so there may of course be some issues. Feel free to share your experiences and any bugs you find on GitHub.
Hello everyone, the new version is coming out soon! Are there any developers here who have tried and played around with the QuarkPhysics extension? Since the new release is on its way, I’m open to feedback to help shape its development. Lately, I’ve been working on comprehensive documentation. Feel free to share your thoughts—positive or negative—what you liked, and any disappointments you may have encountered.
I stumbled accross QuarkPhysics yesterday and tried the demo and what can I say, it looks really promising :). Especially as the godot 2d-physics-engine is not really good :).
Unfortunately it is not integrated in godot what means that it would mean some affort to integrate it in my existing project. So I have some questions, before I try to do it :).
Are you still developing the engine? As it seems, you are the only developer and unfortunatly many projects with few devs vanish from one day to another.
What is the roadmap for the engine?
Are there known issues or limitations? I did not find anything about this on github.
Are you working together with godot devs or is there any plan to integrate QuarkPhysics into godot?
And congrats for the great work you did so far :).
Thanks for giving it a try. Let me answer your questions:
The physics engine is actively being developed. Since I use it myself, it will naturally continue to evolve — even outside of Godot. The project has a well-defined core goal, and once that’s achieved, both the development cycle and long-term maintenance cost will gradually decline.
I’m not working directly with the Godot developers — mostly because the engine’s structure hasn’t presented any bottlenecks that would require that kind of collaboration. Godot gives us plenty of freedom in that regard
That said, if I encounter any missing features that could improve integration quality, I report them. I’m usually not alone in that — other users tend to request the same features too.
Are there known issues or limitations? Of course — and I’m planning to list them in a dedicated FAQ section soon.
As of the current version, most limitations are on the rigid body dynamics side. While the engine performs reasonably well for many game types, its rigid body stacking behavior is currently simpler than more mature engines like Box2D.
So, for games that rely heavily on rigid stacks (like Tricky Towers), you might prefer a physics engine that’s fully dedicated to rigid dynamics, such as Box2D or Chipmunk.
Beyond that, I don’t see any dramatic disadvantages in terms of stability or performance compared to alternatives. Integration with Godot is solid and enjoyable to work with.
If you run into minor bugs, they’re typically addressed quickly in upcoming versions. Reporting them on GitHub would be a great way to contribute to the project.
Right now, we’ve completed the full beginner-friendly documentation on the GitHub Wiki for the upcoming release. I’m also working on native API documentation integration inside the Godot editor itself. That will be a major usability improvement for the next version.
Thanks a lot for your fast and detailed answer :).
I’ll give it a try but it will take some days as I do not have much time at the moment.
Also looking forward towards fluid dynamics and destsructable rigid bodies :).
