I've seen some people suggest that voxels are like sprites for 3d programming (as far as sheer simplicity goes), but this strikes even more so as that. How does this compare to using actual 3d/voxels? Can you still have interesting physics or do you miss out on a lot?
Thanks! As with most software decisions, raycasters involve a tradeoff. They are related to voxels in that they impose constraints on what can be rendered. Voxels render grids in 3 dimensions while raycasters (typically) render them in 2.
For this reason, you can generally build a raycaster faster and simpler than either voxels or meshes, but there will be things you can't do. Rotation on the x axis is tricky, for example.
It's probably best to think of physics in a raycaster as the same sort of physics you could apply in a top-down 2D game.
I've seen some people suggest that voxels are like sprites for 3d programming (as far as sheer simplicity goes), but this strikes even more so as that. How does this compare to using actual 3d/voxels? Can you still have interesting physics or do you miss out on a lot?