Choosing a Physics Engine for A-Frame: Cannon.js, Ammo.js, or Oimo.js?
Pick the right physics engine for your A‑Frame app. Compare Cannon.js, Ammo.js, and Oimo.js in a quick table, weigh trade‑offs, and see how to swap and validate the engine in a live scene.
13 Sept 2026, 06:58 UTC

Decision to Make
When building an interactive 3D scene in A‑Frame that requires realistic motion, you must pick a physics engine. A‑Frame bundles three popular options – Cannon.js, Ammo.js, and Oimo.js – each with its own strengths and trade‑offs. This guide helps you decide which engine best fits your project’s constraints and shows how to switch engines and validate the result.
Project Constraints
- Target Platforms: Modern browsers with WebAssembly support (Chrome, Edge, Safari). Ammo.js requires WebAssembly; others work in pure JavaScript.
- Scene Complexity: Ranges from a handful of objects to hundreds of dynamic bodies.
- Feature Needs: Basic rigid‑body physics, advanced constraints, or soft‑body simulation.
- Bundle Size & Load Time: Acceptable size < 200 KB for initial load.
- License Compatibility: All engines are permissive (MIT or BSD‑3), but check your project’s license.
Compact Comparison Table
| Engine | API Simplicity | Feature Set | Performance (Dynamic Objects) | Bundle Size | Community & Docs |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cannon.js | Very simple – type: "dynamic" etc. | Rigid body, basic constraints, no soft‑body. | Good for <200 objects; slows after 300. | ~30 KB (JS only) | Large community, many examples. |
| Ammo.js | Verbosity – requires ammo.js API calls. | Full Bullet features: ragdoll, soft‑body, constraints. | Best for <500 objects; slower startup. | ~200 KB (WASM + JS glue) | Active, but docs scattered. |
| Oimo.js | Mid‑level – less verbose than Ammo. | Rigid body, some constraints, no soft‑body. | Fastest for >200 objects. | ~35 KB (JS only) | Smaller community, limited docs. |
Trade‑Offs Explained
- API Simplicity vs. Feature Richness
Use Cannon.js if you need a quick prototype with standard rigid bodies. Ammo.js gives you the most features but requires more code and a deeper understanding of Bullet’s API. - Performance vs. Bundle Size
Oimo.js shines in large scenes but offers fewer constraints. If you need ragdolls or soft bodies, Ammo.js is the only viable choice, accepting a larger bundle. - Browser Support
Ammo.js falls back to a JavaScript version if WebAssembly is unavailable, but the fallback is noticeably slower. For legacy browsers, stick with Cannon or Oimo. - Community & Documentation
While Cannon.js has the most community code, Ammo.js has official documentation through the Bullet project. Oimo.js has fewer resources, so debugging may be harder.
Concrete Implementation: Switching Engines
Below is a minimal A‑Frame scene that demonstrates how to swap physics engines by changing the src of the physics-system component. The scene contains a falling cube and a static ground plane.
<!DOCTYPE html>
<html>
<head>
<meta charset="utf-8"
<title>Physics Engine Switch Demo</title>
<script src="https://aframe.io/releases/1.5.0/aframe.min.js"
</head>
<body>
<a-scene physics-body="gravity: -9.8" physics-system="debug: true"
<a-entity position="0 2 0" geometry="primitive: box; depth:1; height:1; width:1" material="color: blue" physics-body="type: dynamic"
</a-entity>
<a-entity geometry="primitive: plane; width:10; height:10" rotation="-90 0 0" material="color: green" physics-body="type: static"
</a-entity>
</a-scene>
</body>
</html>0 replies
A thoughtful contribution can make all the difference. Be the first to share one.