Tuesday, March 12th 2013

Havok Launches Next Generation Physics Engine

Havok, a leading provider of interactive 3D game technology, today announced the launch of a major new version of its industry-leading Havok Physics technology. The release is the culmination of more than 5 years of internal R&D effort. It features significant technical innovations in performance, memory utilization, usability and simulation quality, and represents a major leap forward in physics simulation for games.

Designed from the ground up for the computing architectures that will define games for the next decade, this release targets next-generation home consoles, mobile and PC while continuing to offer full support for current generation consoles.

"This release of Havok Physics marks the third major iteration of our physics technology since the company was founded 15 years ago. Although Havok Physics is widely recognized as the industry's leading physics solution, our R&D team is constantly striving to innovate and push the technology further," said Andrew Bond, Vice President of Technology for Havok. "The result is a new engine core built around fully continuous simulation that enables maximum physical fidelity with unprecedented performance speeds. Beta versions of the technology have been in the hands of a number of leading developers for some time and we have seen dramatic performance gains with simulations running twice as fast or more, and using up to 10 times less memory. Additionally the new core's performance is extremely predictable, eliminating performance spikes. We are genuinely excited to see how game designers will harness the additional power that we are offering with this release."

"At 2K Czech, our games demand a physics solution that can scale efficiently and handle highly detailed interactive environments. Having recently moved to the next generation of Havok Physics, we've been blown away by how Havok's new physics technology is able to make highly efficient utilization of all available hardware cores with a very lean runtime memory footprint," said Laurent Gorga, Technical Director at 2K Czech. "This combination allows us to deliver the high quality simulation at the scale we need and we are really looking forward to making some incredible games with the new technology."

Havok is currently scheduling meetings for technical reviews of its latest Physics technology at GDC March 27th– March 29th.
Add your own comment

46 Comments on Havok Launches Next Generation Physics Engine

#1
valentyn0
by: MAXLD
Well, this is interesting... considering AMD's "nicer" performance on multi-core applications VS Intel (on i5 vs 8xxx), won't this actually help AMD overall in game performance and benchmarks?
I mean, new Haswell i5 models seem to be the same quad-core/quad-thread... VS... the "octa" FX-83xx models that are getting a bit of advantage on high core-dependent games...
Unless Intel plans to push gamers to buy the i7 models instead... getting people to upgrade to the lower i7's for an extra bit of cash.

This all depends on how much the developers will adopt it (and Haswell "horsepower"), but if they do, this seems a good opportunity for AMD... if they could get some lower TDP cpus out there, and if they could maintain and advantage on "multi-core" performance, they could finally have a very nice flag to wave out there and also force Intel to drop the lower i7 prices a bit in response.
Did u just come from AMD forums to hijack the topic? On that note, Intel has no competition from AMD in terms of CPU power.

On this new engine from Havok (that's my actual nickname for a long time in the internet media hehe) I hope we see lots of game devs that adopt this VS nvidia proprietary physx (I own one but i prefer an outsider company to provide for both camps) and get us some nice perfomance driven, high detail physx (see Mafia II from 2k, quite poorly optimized).
Posted on Reply
#2
theoneandonlymrk
by: newtekie1
Again, it doesn't shut out half the customers. The software solution, which is used most, works on all platforms.

The only thing that is going to make Havok become the new standard is if it can truly provide much better visuals than software PhysX, and that is yet to be seen in real world use. We'll have to wait for some new game to come out that actually use the new engine before we can say it is really a better solution than PhysX.
Most of the eye candy uses for physx (the ones I like for eg) req a gpu to use in any useful way so he's quite right about a lot of people missing out on features due to proprietary one make bs, hence im with him... physx is bad , works ok not great witj a gt240 solely for it too so clearly not that efficient an api , tress havoc or bullet ftw imho
Posted on Reply
#3
Xzibit
by: newtekie1
Again, it doesn't shut out half the customers. The software solution, which is used most, works on all platforms.

The only thing that is going to make Havok become the new standard is if it can truly provide much better visuals than software PhysX, and that is yet to be seen in real world use. We'll have to wait for some new game to come out that actually use the new engine before we can say it is really a better solution than PhysX.
Borderlands 2 PhysX.
Shooting at cloth flags and having particles fly = Fail.
Liquid effects were good but ran on low ?
PhysX set to low were extremely basic like anything else but High it was exagerated.

The game engine/physics has to be combine more then it is now to take advange of elements.
Posted on Reply
#4
Prima.Vera
Mass Effect 2 and 3 have really good and discreet software implementation of Physx and with no slowdowns on AMD cards....
Posted on Reply
#5
newtekie1
Semi-Retired Folder
by: theoneandonlymrk
Most of the eye candy uses for physx (the ones I like for eg) req a gpu to use in any useful way so he's quite right about a lot of people missing out on features due to proprietary one make bs, hence im with him... physx is bad , works ok not great witj a gt240 solely for it too so clearly not that efficient an api , tress havoc or bullet ftw imho
Well then I hate to break it to you, but Havok isn't capable of the eye candy that you like, so move along, nothing for you to see in this thread.

by: Xzibit
Borderlands 2 PhysX.
Shooting at cloth flags and having particles fly = Fail.
Liquid effects were good but ran on low ?
PhysX set to low were extremely basic like anything else but High it was exagerated.

The game engine/physics has to be combine more then it is now to take advange of elements.
It all comes down to the implementation. Hardware accelerated PhysX isn't that great, it adds nothing to the game that we can't live without. Software PhysX offers a lot to a game developer, and is why it is used in so many games.

by: Prima.Vera
Mass Effect 2 and 3 have really good and discreet software implementation of Physx and with no slowdowns on AMD cards....
The software implementation never has a slowdown on AMD cards.
Posted on Reply
#6
theoneandonlymrk
by: newtekie1
Well then I hate to break it to you, but Havok isn't capable of the eye candy that you like, so move along, nothing for you to see in this threads.



It all comes down to the implementation. Hardware accelerated PhysX isn't that great, it adds nothing to the game that we can't live without. Software PhysX offers a lot to a game developer, and is why it is used in so many games.



The software implementation never has a slowdown on AMD cards.
Ill read what I want move along hmmff indeed
I am aware of what has been possible , im just optimistic for what could be possible ..
You don't know any more than I do about this new havok and yet nay say away ? It Might be good ya neva knooooo.
Posted on Reply
#7
newtekie1
Semi-Retired Folder
by: theoneandonlymrk
Ill read what I want move along hmmff indeed
I am aware of what has been possible , im just optimistic for what could be possible ..
You don't know any more than I do about this new havok and yet nay say away ? It Might be good ya neva knooooo.
Be as optimistic as you want, I've seen the tech demo they put out and it isn't anything amazing.
Posted on Reply
#8
Xzibit
by: newtekie1
Be as optimistic as you want, I've seen the tech demo they put out and it isn't anything amazing.
:confused:

by: newtekie1

It all comes down to the implementation. Hardware accelerated PhysX isn't that great, it adds nothing to the game that we can't live without. Software PhysX offers a lot to a game developer, and is why it is used in so many games.
If your judging by implemintation. Havok is above PhysX. Its used more widely.
Posted on Reply
#9
RejZoR
Plus, for Havok you don't need some stupid extra software. Which if you play games decades later as well, means a lot (questionable PhysX software compatibility). With built in physics, they'll always work right as they are part of the engine.
Posted on Reply
#10
theoneandonlymrk
by: newtekie1
Be as optimistic as you want, I've seen the tech demo they put out and it isn't anything amazing.
And anyone else's implementation is? Rigght ..
Ill just go sit in a corner dreaming, give me a shout when you're nvidia overlords have cracked it in ten years with the ps5 then eh ta.
Posted on Reply
#11
Recus
by: Xzibit
It looks like it was the one previewed at the PS4 announcement

Youtube: v1hoVCZZOd0



JINXS!!!
Probably we will see Havok GPU physics again during PS5 launch. Oh wait, we won't. :laugh:

by: Prima.Vera
Mass Effect 2 and 3 have really good and discreet software implementation of Physx and with no slowdowns on AMD cards....
Also Spec Ops: The Line. (not only sand)

by: RejZoR
Plus, for Havok you don't need some stupid extra software. Which if you play games decades later as well, means a lot (questionable PhysX software compatibility). With built in physics, they'll always work right as they are part of the engine.
So maybe you wish to remove GPU drivers to avoid drivers crashes, game optimisation problems?
-----------
Basically how I see Physx vs Havok.
Posted on Reply
#12
the54thvoid
Physx implementation has always been underwhelming. I saw it first in Mirrors Edge, then Cryostasis then in Metro 2033, then in Batman AA. I've said before, it's nothing more than tinsel. I enjoyed walking through some dynamic smoke and kicking a piece of litter about. Then got bored when i couldn't smash a telephone or interact with the environment. Like I say, tinsel.

I would prefer the scripted environment damage of BF3 over the extremely limited re-active physx on offer so far.

In Crysis 3, this time running under 2 7970's, I was amazed by the water reflections and the way the light flowed across the walls of areas coinciding with the movement of objects in the water.

Havok is in the same boat in that it needs to be used globally in game to make it useful.

In game physics is all too often used by people to attack Nvidia for keeping it proprietary or attacking AMD for not having a suitable alternative. Point is - it's all nothing more than window dressing until the games adopt a more universal immersion.

Once again it's down to developers to make the effort and for AMD/Nvidia to build upon that to code for all of us.
Posted on Reply
#13
newtekie1
Semi-Retired Folder
by: Xzibit
:confused:



If your judging by implemintation. Havok is above PhysX. Its used more widely.
No, PhysX is used more widely. PhysX is currently used in about twice as many games as Havok is.

by: theoneandonlymrk
And anyone else's implementation is? Rigght ..
Ill just go sit in a corner dreaming, give me a shout when you're nvidia overlords have cracked it in ten years with the ps5 then eh ta.
No, that is my point, they are all about the same. What is possible in software, running off the CPU, is all about the same. Doesn't matter if you are using PhysX, Havok, Bullet, or a custom solution the end result look pretty much the same.
Posted on Reply
#14
Prima.Vera
by: newtekie1

The software implementation never has a slowdown on AMD cards.
LOL. Where do you want me to start. Ok, let's see: Mirror's Edge, Mafia 2, Batman (all), Borderlands 2, etc. All those games cannot run properly when PxysX is enabled on AMD cards...
Posted on Reply
#15
newtekie1
Semi-Retired Folder
by: Prima.Vera
LOL. Where do you want me to start. Ok, let's see: Mirror's Edge, Mafia 2, Batman (all), Borderlands 2, etc. All those games cannot run properly when PxysX is enabled on AMD cards...
Do you understand what the words "software implementation" means? You just listed a bunch of games that use the hardware accelerated implementation.:ohwell:

If you need an explanation I already went over this several posts up, try reading the thread.
Posted on Reply
#16
Prima.Vera
by: newtekie1
Do you understand what the words "software implementation" means? You just listed a bunch of games that use the hardware accelerated implementation.:ohwell:

If you need an explanation I already went over this several posts up, try reading the thread.
Please wake up. Those games use hardware impl on nVidia and software on AMD. So yes, software impl on AMD cards is deliberately broken.
Posted on Reply
#17
tokyoduong
Ok, all this tension over nothing. Physx sucks and havok sucks at the moment. We're all hoping that Havok 2 would be better and universally embraced by all developers. Right now, even hardware accelerated PhysX adds nothing to the game.
I want good physics that is part of the game instead of dressing on the game. If i blow up the tank, the tracks better fly off and decapitate my head instead of looking like the tracks flew off and goes right past me.
Physics in game is pretty pathetic right now and we want more. That is all.
Posted on Reply
#18
newtekie1
Semi-Retired Folder
by: Prima.Vera
Please wake up. Those games use hardware impl on nVidia and software on AMD. So yes, software impl on AMD cards is deliberately broken.
No, the software implementation worked just fine on AMD cards. Thats why the games were playable with AMD hardware.
Posted on Reply
#19
Xzibit
by: newtekie1
No, the software implementation worked just fine on AMD/Intel CPUs. Thats why the games were playable with AMD hardware.
Fixed.
Posted on Reply
#20
newtekie1
Semi-Retired Folder
Ok, I'll rephase, the software implementation worked fine with AMD cards. It was certainly not broken intentionally when an AMD card was present.
Posted on Reply
#21
Xzibit
by: newtekie1
Ok, I'll rephase, the software implementation worked fine with AMD cards. It was certainly not broken intentionally when an AMD card was present.
It wasnt broken but it wasnt accelerated either. PhysX accelerates through CUDA API which you need Nvidia hardware.

From the small clip it looks like Havok will be able to accelerate with out dicriminating on GPU. We'll find out more by the end of the month since they have 2 boths planned at GDC.

If thats the case its a nice step forward.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment