In answer to your question, Havok provides c++ SDK I believe and thus is perfectly integratable with 3DGS WMPs and WDLs through the SDK.

Now then, what about the 3DGS PE? You sweep aside Newton PE, but what about 3DGS PE? Where does it fall short?

As to your choice,, I guess it comes down to how important certain key features are to you. If ragdolls and the full spectrum of PE support is what you need, Havok is the only professional solution. If not, then you can find a professional solution in either Newton or 3DGS. All I've seen of havok are their demos at the GDC and few things it can do that you can do with 3DGS PE or "fake" physics.

Also, wouldn't your monies be better spent in other areas of your Game Development rather than putting down $70k for non royalty based liscence alone??? Are you using a another liscense?

@fastlane69:

I stated above, I have not seen "anything" from GS PE, and was simply using Newton as a benchmark, that I presumed that GS-PE was of an equal standard and thus may suffer from the same problems as Newton. In all fairness until I see PE first hand, I will not be able to draw any solid conclusions as to its potential.

As we develop our title we are aware that the industry standards in many ways shape the expectations of the buyer. So to commercially compete for these buyers we must be able to deliver what they expect from a game. Titles like Max Payne 2, only touch the surface of the Havok PE's potential, and new titles like the eagerly anticipated Doom3 undoubtably will push the buyers PR expectations further than before, (I am not saying Doom will use Havok or that it will feature physics, just a hypothetical example ).

So from our point of view, it is not the price tag of the PE that matters, it is the capabilities, reliability, support and ease of integration that is the deciding factor. Not forgetting the public awareness of said PE. We are already expecting costs of $100K-150K to fully realise our title, including the $10K royalty-payoff for A6 to conitec. So IF we signed up with Havok, royalty free or otherwise, it would not be a financial question. That said we are not going to give $70k for a PE if what we need is already possible in GS-PE or for that matter Newton.

Finally to even talk to Havok they need to see your development on your title first, before they will talk PE and costs, and if Havok was the only viable PE for us, but it could not integrate with GS, this entire 'you-show-me-I'll-show-you" would be irrelevant, and thankfully the first sentance of your reply answers this question, so thank you for that.

Interestingly today I showed a colleague the Newton PE demo, and they were reasonably impressed, though it stopped working after 10mins, and a few other niggles, but generally ok. If you have anything similiar developed in GS-PE, we would love to look at it as this would greatly help our forward planning.

Thanks for all your comments and questions.

I see. Yeah, exposure for both engines is inadequate atm really. There are few projects that use the 3DGS PE successful: one is the crane demo, another is the fx ball demo, and I think there is a game based off the fx demo. I think all of these are in teh download section.

You're doing the right thing then sniffing around as you are. Another way to look at this debate is from teh angle of development and deployment time. Both the 3DGS and Newton engine have been out for less than a year. Havok has been out for ages (at least 3 years??) and thus it's not unreasonable to pay more for the guarantee of a stable usable product.

GL bro. Keep us posted on your decisions. Even if you go for Havok, your reasoning and decision making that would be really useful posted on the forums.

@indiGLOW:

Quote:

---

Interestingly today I showed a colleague the Newton PE demo, and they were reasonably impressed, though it stopped working after 10mins, and a few other niggles, but generally ok.

---

I see that you are still running Newton's old demos. Those were put together in a day or so right after the integration of Newton with 3DGS to show the capabilities of the engine. Newton has improved significantly since those demos were released. You should download the "Newton stress test 1" from Newton Game Dynamics

I have seen several videos showing off the features of the "big" engines, but I have not seen many playable demos. With the videos you don't see the bugs.

It is a good thing you are shopping around before spending a lot of money and resources on your project. You will need plenty of time and effort if you are planning to integrate your game with a new physics engine. Me, I take the easy route: Newton has done the work for me

Good luck!
Robert

Yes I will download the latest Newton demo, very soon. As I say earlier in this thread, I am simply researching the current market, looking for what the buying public expect from a new title, and ultimatley how to achieve this.

The more I 'chew-the-fat' on this issue, the more i realise that there is much more time to be invested before I settle on a workable solution. It is of course possible that we may stump to NOT choose a PE and to simply code the maths for the specific action we require (explosion physics etc).

As I understand it, PE can be implemented much later in a project due to the plug-in method, i.e models rag-doll can be left until later, and so I do not expect to resolve this question until later in our project, (maybe later this year, or early next.), and that I am simply getting feedback from those who are already there.

I envision 'Shopping-Around' for some time yet!

@Cauchy: Yes I downloaded the latest tech demo of Newton, and after playing with it, (with a big on my face), I can see that Newton is a serious contender for a PE. I will explore it more..... thanks for the heads-up!