please don't always use 'next-gen' it's more a kind of marketing trick than something real(nearly as bad as 'web 2.0'). Really everyone is using that words to describe their products...

@topic
I voted for newton because it's easy to handle, really robust and exact AND with version 2.0 there will be a linear solver = more SPEED. Also it will have particle physic afaik

The main reason because I didn't choose ageias physiX is the driver size which is currently enormous big.
With

It has to be Havoc if your aiming GS at semi-pro developers for 2 main reasons:

- It's a good, well known engine, also gives you extra clout with publishers; it really is a well known brand.
- Its that well known for a good reason, its a very good physics engine, it has wide support accross a large number of 3rd party tools available out there.

Of course it comes with the major downside that it can be expensive and that cost would likely be born out to the end user, so most likely this is not a viable option.

Therefore I would cast my vote to Newton simply because it has been a part of GS for a long time, all be it, as a 3rd person tool/plugin. So if any engine has earned its inclusion with GS it's that one.

Other than that, the floor is very much open

Just my random £0.02 for the day

I was browsing around for some videos in an attempt to avoid work:

Newton:
Balls and bricks: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PDYrcl_i3AA
27,000 balls in realtime: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VmQgKqEF-s8
Animated ragdolls: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FUjLx5DAb5k
Train: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XUkbYGxvHu0
Tracked vehicle: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L_dqMUPeO3w

PhysX:
Deformation: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Ht_FZYeUlQ
More balls and bricks: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KTy9MKkRlsI
Cloth: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dviWZcphcIQ
Accelerated: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RNYLkwxF2EM
In C4: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1H4bH4YPVyk

Bullet:
2006 contest: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ojW93DmLkps
800 spheres/cubes: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3gpcCWKyrGA
Rube Goldberg: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gie7x_nRkq0
Fluids (non-realtime but fun): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bhnZIxjuxvs

And finally, actual physics in action:
Cars: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BM2gLjfE_3Y

I think that most of the PhysX demos you'll see will be a) accelerated, and b) stuffed to the gills with fancy-looking models, so take them with a grain of salt. :-)

As Ichiro said, PhysiX is owned by Nvidia, and Nvidia I believe already released support so that the 8800 series(and possibly 7800 series) can do additional Physics work like a seperate PhysX card would have done. Then there are plans for their future graphics cards to have this much more solidly implemented. That's why I choose PhysX, I think it will be around for a while, many big dev houses already used it, and probably most people already have this driver installed on their computer. If not, it's not hard install it on your computer, you don't need a Nvidia card or PhysX card to get the demos working either.

The PhysX/Newton/... implementation won't change the way you work with the physics engine in GS. PhysX is very robust, has a nice interface, tons of documentation, is fast (probably faster than the others) and it does provide a particle solver too. PhysX provides even more features then Newton, these are no arguments against PhysX.

A nice feature PhysX also provides is an remote debuger. With this, you can watch your world as physical shapes in an standalone application, interactively change params like the mass or add forces with your mouse _while running the game_. This helps you to fine tune your physical values and to find seldom bugs.

The only downside of PhysX is the current driver size, at this point I absolutely agree with you. But as I said, more and more games will need the driver. It would be interesting to see some statistics how many people have it installed.

thought more on this.
as TWO said if you look from feature and performance side Physx is better than others. Its more likely has more Pros than others but has a Con. like driver size.

I d still prefer Havoc over Physx if it was currently available.

And i find "soft bodies and cloths in realtime applications" fun :P Physx seems to have best softbody support.

Havoc or PhysX.

There is no other choice if you want GS to be taken seriously and you dont' want to have this conversation next year with "bullet" replacing "ODE" (it's not this enough, it's not that enough, it doesn't do this easily, it doesn't do that).

Let's get off the "Open Source For Free" bandwagon and pony up some cash (or MB) to be in the big leagues!

I will predict that it is more likely that Physx and Havoc will be around for the next five years than any of these other (comparatively) backyard solutions; no such guarantee with Bullet (never heard until now), Newton 2.0 (it's been 2.0 for HOW long and still not part of GS even through a plug in?), or anythng else that will come up.

The 20MB Physx driver. Yea, that's pretty much a deal breaker if you want to make casual games. But do you NEED Physx for a casual game? I dare say not.

However consider every other game. 20 MB is, what, 3, 4 animated MDLs? If you put it this way, it doesn't seem like much at all! And considering those of us making RPGs with game size in the 100's of MB, this driver would harldy be noticed!

So my solution I have not heard people mention: go hardcore. go for Physx (or havoc) BUT KEEP ODE AS A DLL. That way, people like me that NEED the best physics processing out there and could USE the PPU can take advantage of the e-Next-Gen-2.0-etc-etc solutions and others who don't NEED that much power can rely on ODE (or bullet if Conitec or Community has the time to integrate both).

Don't short change yourself community. You are being given an option (even if not taken) for GS to "grow up"... don't stunt it by making the same "cheap" decisions as in the past.

Hold on here...

The driver only needs to be DL'ed once right?
If there are updates you may need to patch or reinstall but am I correct that once you DL the Ageia driver for one game, you don't have to do it for others?

Because if the above is true, then ALL arguements against Physx for it's driver size are moot! I mean a 20MB download may not be right for your target market (casual games or dial up users) but I think the majority of gamers have no problem doing so if you make it easy for them to find it.

Seriously, if this driver is once per version and not once per game, there is NO reason not to vote for physx.

This is what I wanted to tell you, it's once per version. All gamers should have the driver already installed. Downloading and installing the new driver is very easy too, no manual uninstalling or any other problems.

Much ado about nothing then!

The physx driver issue is then somewhere in annoyance between Automatic Updates and DX... not quite as common or invasive as the Updates but still requiring updates like DX does for the most current games to play.

P'shaw... I don't see why anyone (except those developing casual blah blah and dial blah blah) would not want to vote for Physx now!

And let's face it, none of the others even DARE use PHYS in their name!