Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Popular Physics Engines comparison: PhysX, Havok and ODE

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
a b U Graphics card
December 7, 2009 7:11:32 PM

http://physxinfo.com/articles/?page_id=154

This one pic says it all:



Looks like PhysX has even begun to displace Havok in the marketplace. We'll see if the trend continues in the long run. Should be interesting to see if PhysX can make inroads in the console market though...

*This is NOT distinguishing between CPU and GPU PhysX
a b U Graphics card
December 7, 2009 8:16:58 PM

The most telling pic was 81 physx titles were considered 'third rate' with only 8 considered 'excellent' compared to havok's 22.
m
0
l
December 7, 2009 11:55:50 PM

Correct me if im wrong, but isnt Havok popular with console games? Wasn't it used for halo?

EDIT: also how can PhysX work on a 360's ATI card?
m
0
l
Related resources
December 8, 2009 12:05:59 AM

PhysX is ran though the IBM chip on there not the ATI chip =p Havok was popular on consoles it's why nvidia pushed physx support onto consoles.
m
0
l
December 8, 2009 12:16:17 AM

IzzyCraft said:
PhysX is ran though the IBM chip on there not the ATI chip =p Havok was popular on consoles it's why nvidia pushed physx support onto consoles.


oh ok thanks
m
0
l
December 8, 2009 1:59:25 AM

just because a game is made with a particular physics engine doesn't make it better than the other.

havok is the best one to date, but because of the complications that arise from using (way different programming from physics x) not many company's want to even use havok. the few games that got havok showed way better physics than physics x.

What I don't get, is when 360 came out everyone was bragging about how it had nvidia graphics and that its better than ps3 and wii because of it. And now that ATI has a new card out, and Nvidia doesn't even have a prototype (trust me I know, I cant say anything more) all I cant find for ps3 specs is ATI this ATI that. What happened to when it had nvidia?

but off of that, havok is better, no matter what, physics x is old news, havok is the future.
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
December 8, 2009 10:50:34 AM

I would argue the opposite: Havok is built into a really strong engine, which naturally leads to more polished games. As a API though, PhysX can be used by most any title, regardless of the engine used, which leads to a lot more crapware overall. That being said, with it being the default Physics API for the Unreal3 engine, I expect support to take off next year.

Also remember, GPU bound PhysX is only a small part of the overall API.
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
December 8, 2009 11:40:19 AM

Its a shame nVidia doesnt do cpu Physx well, and has said its not their job to do so.
I see why, but until it does this, its gimped
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
December 8, 2009 4:08:31 PM

JAYDEEJOHN said:
Its a shame nVidia doesnt do cpu Physx well, and has said its not their job to do so.
I see why, but until it does this, its gimped


And exactly where are you getting that from? The overwhelming majority of PhysX titles use CPU PhysX and not GPU based PhysX, so I find it hard to argue you're point without some explanation/evidence.
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
December 8, 2009 6:27:21 PM

Just see if you ever get more than 1 core for Physx working on a cpu.
Gimped
My point is, if they can get it to work so well on consoles, certainly a i7 should deliver fairly well also on a PC, but they dont, you somehow need to buy a nVidia only gfx card, since theyve also disallowed the usage of anything but nVidia cards.
If they can wring out good perf on consoles using their cpus, then why not PCs?
Its gimped intentionally, just like other certain things theyve done, and to me it plays more against them than for them, as Im sure alot of people were and still are upset they cut out the ATI option, as well as them doing so on PC cpus.
Theyve left the cpu option available only to promote their cards IMO, and that too is the wrong move in the wrong direction at the wrong time
m
0
l
!