Ok so I am now thinking about phsics, and after dipping my metephorical tow into the shallow end of the pool, I am already baffled & confused. So I have a few questions that I hope some of you can help me with.

Havok, GS PE, Newton....

From what I can tell Havok is a phsics engine for the high-end developer. With multi-platform support and extream power and flexability. As such to use Havok would require high-cost as well as proving your game to them, to even get a demo. Used in some big titles such as MaxPayne2 (as I am informed). As such it is not available to most of us, but if it was, would it integrate with GS?

As for the other two, PE I know little about, I read here most advice pointed to Newton, so that is what I have looked at (demo level from their site), which is buggy but does showcase some of the phsics needed, including limited Rag-Doll. The demo show (IMHO) that Newton is not really complete but is getting close to it. I have not seen anything using GS PE (If thats its title).

So presuming that Havok is unavailable, and/or does not work with GS, what is the best route to go, when trying to achieve the following:

Rag-Doll for all bi-ped models, including the player and enemies(though this may not be player in the usual GS terms). Material/Fabric that moves accuratly, i.e hanging drapes that move as models pass through it. (Presume this uses bones/key physics points to animate).

Moving water surface, as with the fabric above, but with ripple control, i,e as objects more through the model, waves are created. (I am not talking about graphics that create the illusion, but actually moving the water surface (as seen in the title Prince of Persia for PS2), according to interaction.

Also standard things like object-object collision, weight/mass/velocity modifiers as well other elementary physics are a must. So what route to take? Which Physics engine to use if any of the above?

I would appreciate your comments, thoughts and advice.

Havok is by far the most superior physics engine there is to date. However I very much doubt how it would implement with 3dgs. Might be possible, but I doubt it. Your next best option would be Newton, which is much better than 3DGS PE because it is easier to use and also available for all editions.

-Rhuarc

For basic physics (collisions and dynamical behaivior) ANY physics engine you mention will do that.

The difference is in the details. What exactly do you want the physics engine for? Havok is OVERKILL if you are doing anything but highly intensive and high object count projects. Their demo at GDC 2003 had hundreds of ragdoll biped models falling down (as if dumped into a mass grave) to demonstrate it's power; Newton and 3DGS can acheieve the SAME effect, just not with hundreds of models.

Newton is more stable but 3DGS has more support. Newton is an independent project by less than 5 people (?) and thus it's future is as strong as the comitment of said team. 3DGS obviously has a stronger development base and I don't suspect they will drop PE development in the near future. (in theory anyways)

So, here's my advice. Forget Havok. Too expensive and too powerful for what you want to do most likely.

I use the 3DGS engine and while it's buggy still, I have used it with great success and it looks great when it works.

Use the newton engine if you want (for the moment at least) a more seamless experience. I don't use it, but the buzz has it that it is more stable than 3DGS PE.

I believe it matters on your game. Any of the physics engine's are fine if you want basic physics such as mass/gravity and so on... Currently I am using 3dgs PE in my game, the only major problem I have as of now is that the wheels bend when I reach high altitude, and turn... Marco said he will fix that eventually though. I noticed that you want rag-doll physics, I am unsure if Newtons physics engine can handle this... but it would be quite hard in 3dgs PE. I guess it all comes down to what you can afford, Havok...mega bucks, 3dgs PE... pro version, Newton...Free, also compatability is an issue too.

havok isn't the most superior physics engine out there! i talked to a few people who used or evaluated havok and they stated that it has very similar problems to ODE (which gets used in a6).

what i don't like about ODE is that its algorithm relies on relaxation parameters. this makes it very difficult to get (complex) simulations stable and really rigid joints aren't possible.

another free (but without source code) physics engine to look at is http://www.tokamakphysics.com/ .

...
but for a6 i would recommend newton game dynamics or the built in physics engine. just try out both! ...newton is faster, it doesn't need relaxation parameters, it supports rigid joints and it is totally state of the art! (but the first version of the newton 3dgs integration had some bugs.)

Hi IndiGLOW

We are blessed with two good solutions. GS PE works pretty good and it is getting better. I have an open thread about Rag Doll ideas, which can be accomplished with some work. I was just hoping somebody thought about using GS PE for ragdolls before I had to.

Newton is a great addition and it is getting better also. Newton has a Rag Doll sample that is effective. For most in game effects Newton's idea for Rag Doll will work.

I bought a book called Physic for Game Developers and wrote some C Script for my Bass Fishing game. I got some simple but effective physics.

Havoc is bundled with Director 3D. You can play with it using there 30 day trial gig.

There are some fees associated with Havoc that would prevent me from using it, or writting a DLL that links it to GS.

Finally Physic's needs a good collision system. Until the collision system in GS is finished you will have a great physic's engine that is getting impact data from a primative collision system.

My two cents for what its worth.

Ken

Well I have just finished reading all the posts here so far, and would like to thank everyone for their comments.

As far as I can tell, Havok is one of the industries main physics engines, but as such it is priced out of most devellopers budgets, especially when developing for another platform such as X-Box. Considering A6 does not support (Yet!) multi-platform so the havok's platform fee is not such an issue now.

Without any examples of GS - Havok integration it is difficult to gauge, and may well be overkill for our game anyway.

On the other hand both Newton and PE seem to fall a little short of the mark, when benchmarked against engines such as Havok and so the first dilema. From what I can tell the logical path is to go with GS's engine, simply on a support basis. As a Pro owner, and considering the difference in cost Havok vs GSPro, GS is the clear winner despite its current teething problems (what ever they are )

However I want to throw something into the mix, how does this effect multiplay??? Presuming Rag-Doll could be applied to the player (multi-part-model) and you put the player in a multiplay environment, would the phsics rag doll be calculated on one machine and shared (via the server) or would each machine calculate their own? Technically all should get the same result, but not likely, lag alone could mess this up. Is this why I have not seen rag-doll in a multiplay game?

I have more questions but I must dash now......thanks again everyone

P.S Nardulus I will catch up with you in the near future.

THe way 3DGS does it ( and I can't speak for newton or havok, though I suspect you can set up the same) is that Physics "lives" on the server. The client receives current position visual info and the client can send physics request to the server, but thats it. There is no physics on the Client. This keeps everything tied into the server and all clients in line.

I currently have a physics enabled client/server test levels in User Contribution if interested.