NVIDIA PhysiX VS HAVOK What is The Choice
Author
Hello Again
I Want To Help Me To Choice One Of Those Engine Physics :
1- HAVOC
2- NVIDIA PHYSICX
Can Any One Tell Me What are The Features Of The Two Engine
And what Is The Best Engine For Games Creator
I Just read Havoc Have More Details for Physix
and Havoc Use CPU But Nvidia PhysiX Use GPU
The Most Game Used HAVOC
And I Do not Understand What I Will Learn so Please Help
Both libraries are very capable and have similar feature sets. Both offer excellent performance. Both would be a good choice. Both have tools that are built to make it easy for game developers to incorporate the library into the game. I think the GPU support for PhysX is going to be limited for nVIDIA GPU's, so if you were interested in GPU acceleration you would need to consider that limitation. My recommendation, if you are working a large project, would be to spend time to evaluate both libraries. If you are new to physics integration, on a large project I'd try to spend at least a month on each library to learn about physics integration and experiment with the libraries to learn how easy they are to use for your project. If you are working on a hobby project, or a small indie game, I personally would suggest just picking the one that you have a better feeling about. Does that make sense?
And as a side note, in English we only capitalize the first letter of a sentence, as well as words that are names. Don't use a capital for every word.
I personally prefer Havok. The interface is much more desireable. Especially related to collision primitives, their containers, asyncronous queries, their examples, the ragdoll package, the documentation, the prestige. The only thing you lose is the GPU acceleration but it comes with a threading package so it shouldn't really matter.
Quote:Original post by bzroom
I personally prefer Havok. The interface is much more desireable. Especially related to collision primitives, their containers, asyncronous queries, their examples, the ragdoll package, the documentation, the prestige. The only thing you lose is the GPU acceleration but it comes with a threading package so it shouldn't really matter.
So, Does that library use multicore processors? Is it easy to activate it?
Thanks.
Pros for Havok
1) If you use havok you can even sell your game for free as long as its under $10
2) When using havok you dont need to install extra software.
3) The default vechiles are better for Havok (they wont flip over).
4) Havok has a barrel primitive shape, whereas physX doesnt.
5) Default character controller for Havok is slightly better. It has 4 states (climb, fall, walk, jump). It can also handle slow moving platforms.
Pros for PhysX
1) the tutorials are alot better. With Havok everything is dumped into one huge project and it becomes quite time consuming to figure it out.
2) You can use PhysX cloth (whereas you cant use havok cloth without paying for it).
I actually like PhysX better but thats probably because I am more used to it.
1) If you use havok you can even sell your game for free as long as its under $10
2) When using havok you dont need to install extra software.
3) The default vechiles are better for Havok (they wont flip over).
4) Havok has a barrel primitive shape, whereas physX doesnt.
5) Default character controller for Havok is slightly better. It has 4 states (climb, fall, walk, jump). It can also handle slow moving platforms.
Pros for PhysX
1) the tutorials are alot better. With Havok everything is dumped into one huge project and it becomes quite time consuming to figure it out.
2) You can use PhysX cloth (whereas you cant use havok cloth without paying for it).
I actually like PhysX better but thats probably because I am more used to it.
Quote:Original post by ricardo_ruiz_lopezQuote:Original post by bzroom
I personally prefer Havok. The interface is much more desireable. Especially related to collision primitives, their containers, asyncronous queries, their examples, the ragdoll package, the documentation, the prestige. The only thing you lose is the GPU acceleration but it comes with a threading package so it shouldn't really matter.
So, Does that library use multicore processors? Is it easy to activate it?
Thanks.
Yes, and yes. It's easy to activate, but it requires some planning to actually use. That is to respect the data synchronization.
Quote:Original post by Aiursrage
Pros for Havok
1) If you use havok you can even sell your game for free as long as its under $10
Do you know what the current license terms are for PhysX? For a while (pre-nVIDIA acquisition and maybe afterwards) it was free for commercial use as well as hobby/R&D/open source projects. But, that may have changed. It is unclear from the nVIDIA web pages I've seen. The current EULA (publically available from their developer website) implies there may be a fee for commercial use, but it also reads like fees may be waived if you give them a reciprocal license to use your application to demonstrate and market their technology. If there is any current publically available information about the terms for commercial projects, I'd be interested to know. (Of course, one can always ask nVIDIA directly, but I haven't found nVIDIA to be super quick about answering questions.)
I too am intersted in this. For a while the license was very easy to find and very clear. You could sell your pc game for *any* value, if it's over $10 then you have to display the havok logo.
However, i looked for the license details a few months back and was unable to find them. I fear they may have ended that promotional offer.
However, i looked for the license details a few months back and was unable to find them. I fear they may have ended that promotional offer.
Author
Quote:
Both libraries are very capable and have similar feature sets. Both offer excellent performance. Both would be a good choice. Both have tools that are built to make it easy for game developers to incorporate the library into the game. I think the GPU support for PhysX is going to be limited for nVIDIA GPU's, so if you were interested in GPU acceleration you would need to consider that limitation. My recommendation, if you are working a large project, would be to spend time to evaluate both libraries. If you are new to physics integration, on a large project I'd try to spend at least a month on each library to learn about physics integration and experiment with the libraries to learn how easy they are to use for your project. If you are working on a hobby project, or a small indie game, I personally would suggest just picking the one that you have a better feeling about. Does that make sense?
Both libraries are very capable and have similar feature sets. Both offer excellent performance. Both would be a good choice. Both have tools that are built to make it easy for game developers to incorporate the library into the game. I think the GPU support for PhysX is going to be limited for nVIDIA GPU's, so if you were interested in GPU acceleration you would need to consider that limitation. My recommendation, if you are working a large project, would be to spend time to evaluate both libraries. If you are new to physics integration, on a large project I'd try to spend at least a month on each library to learn about physics integration and experiment with the libraries to learn how easy they are to use for your project. If you are working on a hobby project, or a small indie game, I personally would suggest just picking the one that you have a better feeling about. Does that make sense?
This topic is closed to new replies.
Advertisement
Popular Topics
Advertisement
