Havok is going to be free. =]

[dawasw]

The basic version of Havok Physics and Havok Animation is going to be free <- according to the latest news from PC Game Alliance.

Havok is a property of Intel, which is a member of PCGA.

These are really good news. We can just hope it's going to happen soon.

[hybrid]

Now that NVidia could define the OpenPhysics API based on Ageia Physx Intel will have to be careful to make something from Havok. Otherwise they will have to follow the market instead of defining it.

[Halifax]

Now that NVidia could define the OpenPhysics API based on Ageia Physx Intel will have to be careful to make something from Havok. Otherwise they will have to follow the market instead of defining it.

I am going to predict that Intel will suffer the wrath of Nvidia. Although the new Havok SDK with that dynamic animation stuff looks cool, I doubt that it is much better than Euphoria's Digital Motion Synthesis. The only difference is the fact that Havok is middleware and not in-house like Euphoria.

Although I don't know if I agree with the merging of a physics processor into a GPU processor. They may be the same, but how can one processor equal the combined ability of both, unless you put them in seperate cores.

[Zeuss]

Although I don't know if I agree with the merging of a physics processor into a GPU processor. They may be the same, but how can one processor equal the combined ability of both, unless you put them in seperate cores.

I assume the idea is that if you make 1 chip that is more powerful (or atleast the same) than the 2 chips combined it gives you a some advantages:

You can divvy up the chip power as needed, I doubt that Ageia's PPU is taxed to its limit all the time, that spare power in 1 all powerful chip can be used to increase the procesing power availble to the graphics pipeline giving you a higher fps. The reverse can also apply, if the physics is being taxed a lot it can take power from the graphics pipeline to try and cope, it will reduce the FPS but hopefully not quite to the stuttering point you can get when the physics processing has reached its limit.

Seeing that graphics chips are now just comprised of a massive array of parallel vector processing units which can be applied to any kind of vector calculation (e.g. physics, graphics) it makes sense to make 1 powerful chip that can be applied as needed to the demands of each task.

[Halifax]

Although I don't know if I agree with the merging of a physics processor into a GPU processor. They may be the same, but how can one processor equal the combined ability of both, unless you put them in seperate cores.

I assume the idea is that if you make 1 chip that is more powerful (or atleast the same) than the 2 chips combined it gives you a some advantages:

You can divvy up the chip power as needed, I doubt that Ageia's PPU is taxed to its limit all the time, that spare power in 1 all powerful chip can be used to increase the procesing power availble to the graphics pipeline giving you a higher fps. The reverse can also apply, if the physics is being taxed a lot it can take power from the graphics pipeline to try and cope, it will reduce the FPS but hopefully not quite to the stuttering point you can get when the physics processing has reached its limit.

Seeing that graphics chips are now just comprised of a massive array of parallel vector processing units which can be applied to any kind of vector calculation (e.g. physics, graphics) it makes sense to make 1 powerful chip that can be applied as needed to the demands of each task.

I just don't agree with that. Especially if you look at it in this respect:

2 GPUs > 1 GPU
1 GPU + 1 PPU > 1 GPU

Overally I think it is better to have modularization, especially since I am banking on the fact that nVidia is probably going to increase the prices of their GPUs by a lot!

Also if you have a PPU, then you have the dedicated 256 MB or 512 MB for just physics, but if you combine that with the GPU, then they are going to need to get 1 GB on that chip, and it becomes unstable.

I just don't think it is a good idea, because a dedicated physics processor opened up the door for a multitude of more great physics things, although I am sure they will possibly find a way, and I hope they do.

Either way I am glad that nVidia acquired Ageia becomes I like their style, but I would be even more grateful if they kept the chips seperate although that isn't going to happen with their CUDA.

[hybrid]

It was really fun to read an NVidia interview about the future of Ageia. The only sentence which was always given when it came to that point was "When there's customer demand we will know what to do". I doubt that they will continue to deliver separate physics cards. Maybe a stripped down gfx card without gfx output. And the interests for an OpenPhysics standard was also not apparent in those interviews. I stil have some hope, though. Collada physics is also a good starter, although it's not an API, yet.

[sp00n]

Yeah, i heard about free Havoc also on playground site. They said that basic Havoc will be free license only for the non-comercial products and plan to open SDK on May, 2008

[Halifax]

Yeah, i heard about free Havoc also on playground site. They said that basic Havoc will be free license only for the non-comercial products and plan to open SDK on May, 2008

Correct Havok Complete will be available. And as pointed out, by Havok themselves, this SDK has been used on games such as Motorstorm (PS3 release title), and other games. I think it's great that they are releasing it free for non-commercial use because it at least gives some insight into what all those companies are messing with, although some are messing with Bullet. Especiall since Bullet is SPU optimized for the PS3 (provided by SCEA iirc), and thread optimzied for Windows PC.

[benny53]

intel is also going to let certain game developers develop with havok for free. All we need is havok behavior! That and havok destruction But I don't know all that much about havok destruction other than it has been announced.

Edit - I now know what Havok Destruction is. Its basically what its name says. It allows for dynamic fracturing, deformation, and shattering. So I think with their releases of Havok Cloth, Havok Destruction, and Havok Behavior, they are trying to make the features in Starwars Force Unleashed more open to other games. They should add havok destruction and havok behavior to the havok complete package

[Halifax]

intel is also going to let certain game developers develop with havok for free. All we need is havok behavior! That and havok destruction But I don't know all that much about havok destruction other than it has been announced.

Edit - I now know what Havok Destruction is. Its basically what its name says. It allows for dynamic fracturing, deformation, and shattering. So I think with their releases of Havok Cloth, Havok Destruction, and Havok Behavior, they are trying to make the features in Starwars Force Unleashed more open to other games. They should add havok destruction and havok behavior to the havok complete package

I really don't get the big deal about Havok Behavior. From the demo I saw with a Havok employee presenting it, all it looked to be was a blending of different actions. It also seemed as though the only thing influencing the blending was input. Overall it did not appear that special.

It is time to move on to Euphoria, Rockstar already has.

[Klasker]

Update: Havok is now free for non-commercial use.
http://www.havok.com