• Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
    Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.

PhysX + Havok !?!

P

pawstar

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jul 2, 2005
Messages
465
Alright, I'm another one of those people waiting for a PCIe x1 version of Ageia's PhysX card. Regardless, we see Havok as the number 1 competition to Ageia's product. Now, AFAIK its just a set of API calls, correct? So why can't Ageia write a port or translator that will take a game that uses the Havok engine and run it on the PhysX card rather than on the ATI video card. :confused:
 
And the fact that Havok wants money for all it products, while the PhysX API is free as long as you implement support for the PPU...

Terra...
 
AGEIA haven't ruled out supporting other physics middlewares and have said that if there is an opportunity for them with that they'd do it.

I hazard a guess they'll need some hefty co-operation to do that, and given Havok's current stance towards dedicated hardware acceleration it seems unlikely.
 
MrNasty said:
AGEIA haven't ruled out supporting other physics middlewares and have said that if there is an opportunity for them with that they'd do it.

I hazard a guess they'll need some hefty co-operation to do that, and given Havok's current stance towards dedicated hardware acceleration it seems unlikely.
Click to expand...

yea i have heard thay talked to Havok about that and Havok said no since Ageia would need to see there API source code

should MS come up with a physics API you can bet your PPUs will work with it
 
Elios said:
yea i have heard thay talked to Havok about that and Havok said no since Ageia would need to see there API source code
Click to expand...

Link? From a development perspective, it's the software that has to be written for the hardware, not the other way around. If Havok was to make their physics work with the PPU, it's Havok that has to see the Ageia source code, not the other way around.
 
I'd think Havok would benifit from hardware acceleration, I dont see why they wouldn't entertain the idea if presented to them.
 
InorganicMatter said:
Hence sleeping with ATI lately...
Click to expand...

That acceleration is completley different from what Ageia does, it is only for particle / debris effects and NOT physics that alters the game world.

As far as getting Havok to work on the PPU, it would require Havok to have a flexible physics processing system for its gameplay physics. It would need to be able to choose between multiple physics APIs. I believe Ageia has created Open Dynamics Engine drivers for the PhysX PPU so any game using that physics engine should be able to support acceleration. However for Ageia to force Havok's engine to support its card, it would have to reverse-engineer their code and re-implement parts of it, which would be a huge copyright violation. Havok would have to make the decision to allow their calculations to be accelerated. However their philosophy seems to be that "only effects physics need acceleration, gameplay physics can be handled by multi-core CPUs" so that may not happen any time soon. Of course I'm sure there were people saying 3d could be done in CPU when the 3DFX Voodoo 1 first came out...
 
Alright, so if Havok is a subset of what Ageia does, accelerate that subset. As for the "legalities" of reverse engineering code, rewritting parts of it, why would that be such a big issue? If game calls a routine from some havok library say physics.dll, why would Ageia not be able to rewrite their own version of physics.dll so that it contains a routine that just matches the call but has their own algorithm that uses the PhysX hardware? Isn't that what DLLs (Dynamically Linked Libraries) are all about, update useful routine code without changing the actual application?

Furthermore I don't understand why Havok would be against Ageia - it should be thrilled to license their code after all its a profit for them since it boosts the performance of games using their APIs and a gain for Ageia as they would have a bigger selection of games that benefit from their hardware rather than the measly few that are currently available!

:mad:
 
pawstar said:
Alright, so if Havok is a subset of what Ageia does, accelerate that subset. As for the "legalities" of reverse engineering code, rewritting parts of it, why would that be such a big issue? If game calls a routine from some havok library say physics.dll, why would Ageia not be able to rewrite their own version of physics.dll so that it contains a routine that just matches the call but has their own algorithm that uses the PhysX hardware? Isn't that what DLLs (Dynamically Linked Libraries) are all about, update useful routine code without changing the actual application?

Furthermore I don't understand why Havok would be against Ageia - it should be thrilled to license their code after all its a profit for them since it boosts the performance of games using their APIs and a gain for Ageia as they would have a bigger selection of games that benefit from their hardware rather than the measly few that are currently available!

:mad:
Click to expand...

Reverse engineering without permission is a big legal landmine - especially if the end results are commercially distributed!

I think co-operation with Ageia would be a great idea - even if they only enabled the physics effects portion of acceleration. Unfortunately I doubt this will happen as it will take both companies to co-operate and while more supported api's/middleware boosts Ageia's PPU in terms of attractiveness it does little for Havok selling more software.

There are 2 factors here: Ageia allowing acceleration of Havok and Havok allowing its SDK to be accelerated.

The first is already done in the form of the open dynamics framework mentioned elsewhere, which I believe supports collada (can't remember where I read that). Think of this as a slightly less than industry standard OpenGL for physics and you won't be too far off.

The second has been rejected out of hand by Havok, as they have said on numerous occasions that they believe hardware physics acceleration is unnecessary - just google it.

HavokFX is a completely different type of physics acceleration, and while one could run SM3 programs through an interpreter to the PPU and then feed the results back through the CPU, it's just not going to be a) fast and b) efficient on resources.
 
Even if Ageia could do the Havok API on their system and even if Havok was interested in it, I doubt Ageia would do it right now. I'm sure Ageia would rather get everyone using their API and beat out Havok, rather than 'share the pie' with Havok.

If the Ageia API starts loosing out to HavokFX, then we might have a different story...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top