Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

Havok Unveils Next-Generation Physics Engine

Last response: in News comments
Share
March 13, 2013 10:05:31 PM

Great! Glad to know they stopped using Visual Basic.
Score
18
March 13, 2013 10:41:26 PM

Havok didn't say anything about HSA and unified address space. Will they use this architectural advantage?
Score
7
Related resources
March 13, 2013 11:30:41 PM

Yes, with fully optimized sub routines and intelligent cross-thread load balancing included?
Score
2
March 13, 2013 11:46:00 PM

Wonder what Nvidia's response will be?
Score
9
March 14, 2013 12:31:53 AM

What are the key differences between Havok and nVidia's PhysX? Are they both GPU accelerated? Does Havok in principle run on any hardware configuration? Which is most likely to be the more mainstream (i.e. dominant) solution over the next few years?
Score
7
March 14, 2013 1:18:25 AM

Well it's about time! Last time I was wow'd by you was in 04 with Half-Life 2
Score
4
March 14, 2013 1:37:55 AM

Nice development, and so glad its a system that works on any graphic card not like nVidia closed Physics Engine is for their own graphic cards. i was looking for a demo on YouTube but could not find one for the Havok Next-Generation Physics Engine. :( 
Score
2
March 14, 2013 1:50:16 AM

abbadon_34Wonder what Nvidia's response will be?

PhysX support on the PS4 :|
Score
5
March 14, 2013 2:28:35 AM

I've seen a few articles and rumors about stuff like this, all around the time for the next gen consoles to come out. Coincidence? I think not. Next gen consoles are going to help sky-rocket the gaming industry, meanwhile I'm sitting back watching with my GTX 640 and i7, which will become obsolete in about a year after the consoles get fully up and running. The next few years are going to be amazing.
Score
-5
March 14, 2013 2:29:56 AM

EdmondHaskellIf you think Alfred`s story is complete bullshit, it is.


Look out guys! Don't click it, you'll make him another few penny's at the exchange of all your information!!!!!1
Score
3
March 14, 2013 4:10:53 AM

abbadon_34Wonder what Nvidia's response will be?

More smoke... just more smoke on the screen... so much smoke you won't be able to see anything in front of you but damn look at that smoke... so nice.

And of course the SmokeFX technology will require a GeForce GTX 480 or higher as a dedicated PhysX card... but who cares... look at the smoke... the smoke... so much of it...
Score
18
March 14, 2013 4:28:37 AM

ElMoIsEviL said:
abbadon_34Wonder what Nvidia's response will be?

More smoke... just more smoke on the screen... so much smoke you won't be able to see anything in front of you but damn look at that smoke... so nice.

And of course the SmokeFX technology will require a GeForce GTX 480 or higher as a dedicated PhysX card... but who cares... look at the smoke... the smoke... so much of it...


LOL you win.

Score
10
March 14, 2013 5:55:26 AM

enewmenHavok didn't say anything about HSA and unified address space. Will they use this architectural advantage?


No. Unified address space makes things more complicated and harder to debug, that's why it really isn't used today. HSA is platform specific, on top of that it's not in widespread use. I figure HSA will see wide use in game engines around 2015. They'll probably patch Havok later on for this. I doubt they'll ever go with a unified address space. It became taboo for a good reason.
Score
1
March 14, 2013 6:20:34 AM

ojasPhysX support on the PS4 :|
But the PS4 is using an AMD APU...

Score
2
March 14, 2013 7:03:08 AM

jscynderBut the PS4 is using an AMD APU...

They already said they are going to support it.
Score
5
March 14, 2013 7:20:12 AM

This is actually huge. Havok was a killer when it came to mobile ATI GPus. It heated up the GPU like there is no tomorrow.
If they can lower that, their GPUs will be significantly better. However this remains to be seen in real world before we can all open up the champagne.
Score
0
March 14, 2013 8:45:26 AM

jscynderBut the PS4 is using an AMD APU...

PhysX work in AMD APU if Nvidia wants it to work... It would work very nicely in AMD GPU if Nvidia would want it to work, but they don't... I hope that this New Havok engine will make PhysX obsolete, so no-one would use it... But that is just I. One platform API for PC-is not so interesting, multiplatform like Havok really is!
Score
5
March 14, 2013 9:18:12 AM

I've always preferred Bullet Physics. I think Havok could be interesting since they had vested interest in OpenCL implementations. If its possible to divide physics and graphics calculations on the same GPU, I think it would be a winner.
Score
4
March 14, 2013 12:48:57 PM

"...and using up to 10 times less memory."
Ah, just in time for the new PS4 with 16x the memory!
Score
2
March 14, 2013 1:24:28 PM

zakaron said:
"...and using up to 10 times less memory."
Ah, just in time for the new PS4 with 16x the memory!


Well there will be a lot of games that will be ported or even developed to the PC3 and Xbox 360 for some time... several years actually, so this is good new to those older consoles. But yeah not so big thing to most people in these forums :-)
Score
4
March 14, 2013 4:20:20 PM

zakaron"...and using up to 10 times less memory."Ah, just in time for the new PS4 with 16x the memory!
Yeah too bad it doesn't support current devices like the PS3 and Xbox 360... oh wait, it does! Says so right in the article you skimmed. That means developers can use Havok in a multiplatform title that supports both current and next gen systems! Also you ignored the part where it also runs faster.
Score
1
March 14, 2013 4:27:22 PM

TidalWaveOneGreat! Glad to know they stopped using Visual Basic.

Now if only we could convince Nvidia to use "them thar newfangled SSE 'structions" in their PhysX software mode.
Score
1
March 15, 2013 2:12:19 AM

I'm sick of such cliches as "unprecedented... "; of COURSE there's a precedent, it's called Havok version 2.
Score
-1
March 17, 2013 9:17:17 AM

nitriumWhat are the key differences between Havok and nVidia's PhysX? Are they both GPU accelerated? Does Havok in principle run on any hardware configuration? Which is most likely to be the more mainstream (i.e. dominant) solution over the next few years?

Not sure about v3 of havok but previous versions were not gpu accelerated and were run completely on the cpu. That limited the number of objects on the screen that could have physics to very few (less than 50 usually). Most other operations were pre-scripted (anyone remember the HL2 demo door kick fiasco?) and things like tiny pieces of metal or a tree could stop a tank (sadly this is still true in 99.99% of all games).

Nvidia (formerly Ageia, formerly some other company I cant remember right now) changed that by putting physics calculations on the GPU through a software platform called CUDA. Cuda is on every GPU since the 8800gt so there's no worry about not being able to run it these days unless you REALLY need to upgrade. Anyway, what nvidia's physx does is use the huge pipeline of the pci-e x16 slot and the nature of the video card's processor to render tens of thousands (in the Unreal engine 4 demo there's reportedly over a million particles being rendered real time) of objects that all have physics at once.

Then there's the price difference. Nvidia (like Ageia before them) gives out the physx SDK for free. Havok costs 250,000 dollars to add to your game.... and its not hardware accelerated!

How does nvidia physx work on amd gpus? Because its a software package that handles interactions in the game... it doesnt matter what gpu you have it will still render the basic smoke/ragdoll/destruction interactions. Its only accelerated on nvidia gpus because well nvidia says so first of all and second of all nvidia has the physx drivers with its cards (and unless they were to offer it separately again like they used to when it first debuted you cant get it any other way currently and an nvidia driver wont install on a computer without an Nvidia card in it), and the AMD gpus cant install CUDA because IIRC its hard coded into the card and they would have to license it from Nvidia to do so... Could they do that? yeah... will they? no probably not. Why? Probably because nvidia wont let them more than likely.

So what do we do about this? Well we have been hearing about amd's solution to hardware accelerate physics on any hardware (not sure if its cpu or gpu accelerated cause its been years since I looked at it) called bullet physics. It looks better than nvidia's physx (less stuff sticking to stuff its not supposed to and clipping through things its not supposed to) and is hardware independent. But if youve run the new 3dmark11 benchmark then youve seen bullet physics. For my money its way too much of a performance hit compared to nvidia's physx but thats just my opinion.
Score
1
!