Yes Microsoft did buy Havok.Didn't Microsoft buy Havok?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Yes Microsoft did buy Havok.Didn't Microsoft buy Havok?
They have announced PhysX 5.0 and was scheduled to have it out already with its new and shiny features but <insert COVID delay story here> so it's not out yet but they say soon, they are making some pretty grand promises about it so far and if half of them are true it should at long last give Havok a serious contender.
No it’s still there, it’s just Havok is so much better at the moment so it’s a distant second choice for any major titles.wow PhysX is still alive!...I thought Nvidia might have abandoned it
Only due to not hitting critical mass. You couldn't do any gameplay impacting physics with it because most didn't have it yet.PhysX wasn't for regular game physics, just superficial eye candy.
Yea... from Intel, many years later. Havok showed off GPU accelerated Physics running on AMD and nVidia hardware at GDC March 2006. Intel bought Havok in 2007 and after that *poof*, no more GPU accelerated Havok.Didn't Microsoft buy Havok?
That and if you really tied the game-play to the GPU only PhysX part you would be making your game nVidia only. No one wants to return to that crap.Only due to not hitting critical mass. You couldn't do any gameplay impacting physics with it because most didn't have it yet.
Only due to not hitting critical mass. You couldn't do any gameplay impacting physics with it because most didn't have it yet.
There’s also the fact that more often than not your GPU just doesn’t have the resources to spare to do physics and AI in conjunction with the graphics it’s already doing.I doubt it.
It's possible it would have evolved to that, but it was made specifically for superficial things that CPUs could not do.
Like thousands of sparks realistically flying off a wall from machinegun fire and hundreds of bullet casings getting ejected from a chaingun. A GPU can do a whole ton of individual calculations because it has thousands of "cores" that can handle each one versus a CPU that has very few cores (especially back then).
It doesn't make sense to use GPU to do basic things like player collision and hit detection because a CPU can do it much faster.
If there was a critical mass adaption you could have seen games actually utilize it as part of core gameplay, but it would not have been for normal physics CPUs aren't capable of doing.
Now I remember that, wow, I had almost completely forgotten that somehow.Yea... from Intel, many years later. Havok showed off GPU accelerated Physics running on AMD and nVidia hardware at GDC March 2006. Intel bought Havok in 2007 and after that *poof*, no more GPU accelerated Havok.
That had more to do with AMD, AMD/ATI was working with Havok for Havok-FX which was the OpenCL variant https://web.archive.org/web/2008120...m/news/multimedia/display/20051028224421.htmlYea... from Intel, many years later. Havok showed off GPU accelerated Physics running on AMD and nVidia hardware at GDC March 2006. Intel bought Havok in 2007 and after that *poof*, no more GPU accelerated Havok.
This is made in Unity but is still in experimental phase of development.
Only problem is these experimental features are taking too long to reach development version.Very impressive for Unity, we're heading towards the golden age of high quality cinematography/games without the need for high dollar studios.
Something I have yet to see is how the file sizes will be handled. Without low poly models, how much larger do the art assets become in file storage?
From what I understand of how Nanite works it will lead to smaller file sizes, in a talk they put up on Youtube they say that 1M triangles of Nanite data is about 13.8MB of data. That is going to be quite a bit less than the file size of that same object as an HD 4K render, at the same perceivable image quality.Something I have yet to see is how the file sizes will be handled. Without low poly models, how much larger do the art assets become in file storage?
Starts coming down to compression tech and the ability to rapidly access that. From my understanding, on Windows we should start seeing games using stuff like MS's DirectX "DirectStorage" to help with that.The artist renders a high polygon model and then it's optimized and rendered again as the "low poly" which is smaller by orders of magnitude. The high poly model is kept in the developer storage and the low poly is the one that's used in-game. But as I understand it, UE5 allows this part of the pipeline to be completely eliminated which is absolutely incredible. But then without those optimizations in polygon count I would assume the storage issue is passed onto the user. I haven't seen anything addressing this but with UE5 released we'll probably see any issues aroudn this in the next few months I'm guessing. A high poly model is so much larger in size than a few LoDs combined for any specific asset. Maybe I'm out of date with my knowledge, I wonder if anybody has made anything with UE5 yet and can chime in!
The Nanite data compress better as well and decompresses faster (with the help of the GPU), from what I am seeing from the source the assets from Valley of the ancients are about 100GB raw and only 26GB compressed and compiled, using a normal technique on those assets would probably have landed the demo in the 60GB range.Starts coming down to compression tech and the ability to rapidly access that. From my understanding, on Windows we should start seeing games using stuff like MS's DirectX "DirectStorage" to help with that.
Most of the new projects that have been announced for the upcoming release cycle are all UE5 titlesWow that's absolutely incredible! I can't imagine what kind of wizardry is happening under the hood. This is going to change the industry. I have a strong feeling there are going to be lots more indie games produced with UE5 now that a huge chunk of the art pipeline is just eliminated. That makes for faster and cheaper development which should mean more quality games!
Awesome!The Nanite data compress better as well and decompresses faster (with the help of the GPU), from what I am seeing from the source the assets from Valley of the ancients are about 100GB raw and only 26GB compressed and compiled, using a normal technique on those assets would probably have landed the demo in the 60GB range.
Yes, this is one thing that helps Nanite saves space.Wouldn't that help with file size if there aren't lower LoD models?
This is going to get interesting, the smaller resources means more fit in memory, which means fewer fetch requests and faster ones at that. Which frees up more room for other effects.Yes, this is one thing that helps Nanite saves space.
The rest is you maybe being able to get away with avoiding high resolution textures. Even at over a million triangles, the Nanite mesh is smaller than a single 4k normal map.
Plus Epic also bought RAD Game Tools, the company. One of their products was... extremely fast compression. They were the authors of the compression scheme the PS5 and Xbox implement in hardware.
Probably 3060Ti raw, with ray tracing maybe 3070What GPU is optimal for playing games on Unreal Engine 5 at 1080?
Oh, yes yes, quite a powerful card! /sIs RTX3050 enough to do optimal raytracing in UE5 at 1080p?
Based on the demo’s you can expect a 3060TI to average in the mid 40’s. So a stock 3050 would be averaging in the upper 20’s with an occasional dip into the single digits.Is RTX3050 enough to do optimal raytracing in UE5 at 1080p?