Friday, March 20th 2009
AMD to Demonstrate GPU Havok Physics Acceleration at GDC
GPU-accelerated physics is turning out to be the one part of specifications AMD is yearning for. One of NVIDIA's most profitable acquisitions in recent times, has been that of Ageia technologies, and its PhysX middleware API. NVIDIA went on to port the API to its proprietary CUDA GPGPU architecture, and is now using it as a significant PR-tool apart from a feature that is genuinely grabbing game developers' attention. In response to this move, AMD's initial reaction was to build strategic technology alliance with the main competitor of PhysX: Havok, despite its acquisition by Intel.
In the upcoming Game Developers Conference (GDC) event, AMD may materialize its plans to bring a GPU-accelerated version of Havok, which has till now been CPU-accelerated. The API has featured in several popular game titles such as Half Life 2, Max Payne II, and some other Valve Source-based titles. ATI's Terry Makedon, in his Twitter-feed has revealed that AMD would put forth its "ATI GPU Physics strategy." He also added that the company would present a tech-demonstration of Havok technology working in conjunction with ATI hardware. The physics API is expected to utilize OpenCL and AMD Stream.
Source:
bit-tech.net
In the upcoming Game Developers Conference (GDC) event, AMD may materialize its plans to bring a GPU-accelerated version of Havok, which has till now been CPU-accelerated. The API has featured in several popular game titles such as Half Life 2, Max Payne II, and some other Valve Source-based titles. ATI's Terry Makedon, in his Twitter-feed has revealed that AMD would put forth its "ATI GPU Physics strategy." He also added that the company would present a tech-demonstration of Havok technology working in conjunction with ATI hardware. The physics API is expected to utilize OpenCL and AMD Stream.
226 Comments on AMD to Demonstrate GPU Havok Physics Acceleration at GDC
Only reason why you are not seing that kind of utilisation is because of the pressure of Intel and AMD.
Havok: moving boxes that the player can use/jump on. Hell look what they can do in Gmod with the engine, i built a flying spaceship using in game havok physics, then crashed it into the moon. epic.
Ageia/Nvidia Physx: glass and cloth, hailstorms and a tornado map in UT3 I'm yet to see INTERACTIVE physx. Why? is it because it'd be too similar to Havok, or is it because it just cant do it?
What I want to see if fluid dynamics! I want to be able to pour water into a box, and have boxes float on water because of displacement and not a pre-set bouyancy level!
I've considered upgrading to an ATI card once I have some money, and this would be a great reason for me to get one.
Just checked, and my Orange Box pack has the ATI logo on it.
NVIDIA, on the other hand, focus on "eye candy." They don't see the value nor necessity in collision detection and thus, assume it will be handled separately. It takes twice as much work for the programmer because they have to wrap collision detection code around the PhysX.
At the same time, what you saw could just be a graphical demonstrator and not really be about gaming/development. It's hard to say. What is certain is Havok is well received in developer circles and NVIDIA is going to have a very, very hard time unseating it.
So, Intel and AMD are both involved in Havok. Havok is already implemented at a CPU level with palpable results in the gaming world. Convincing developers to use their already accumulated expertise to implement these at a GPU level using AMD's SDK is far easier than it is for nVidia to convince them they should ditch everything and come join the green side of physics.
Fans will always say PhysX is better because it's "green" but I think we should let developers decide...
In the future, I hope to see games that have collisions like ricocheting bullets and shrapnel, or even the ability for props to warp or shatter realisticly under impact, instead of just disintegrating or a image of a bullet hole appearing.
That would be frickin awesome! :rockout:
The thing is, most (if not all) games can get by with very simplified physics including collision detection. It is literally as simple as this:
Even simulating a bullets motion isn't very hard. What makes it hard is details:
a) Is there wind blowing?
b) Is gravity involved?
c) Is there humidty?
d) What's the air pressure and density?
e) What is the muzzle velocity?
f) Do we make objects react to impact? If so, how complex?
etc.
Add on top of that, the volume of bullets created by a minigun. Then add on top of that 20 enemies firing mini guns at you at the same time. Do you make the enemies all show and their hits just a probability with no physics at all? Do you just not allow that many miniguns in the scene at a time? etc.
The early games broke down the physics of firing to as simple as this:
As the average computer grows more powerful, developers are adding more and more physics calculations, triangles on characters/walls/objects, and more objects that aren't attached to something.
But, as always, it is the graphics that are still killing performance more than anything else (binary sucks for graphics). So the more physics calculations you add, it is still the ability to render graphics that is dragging the performance down. Physics, except in games that are centered around it like World of Goo and Portal, just aren't that high of a priority.
I have seen Havok on loads of games, especially on the 360, but hardly ever physx.
Look at mirrors edge, the physx does nothing but make glass and cloth look better when shot.
Ragdoll physics of havok on the other hand are quite spectacular.
EDIT:
Ahh wait here it is:
DMM Engine
That game used three physics engines! :eek:
Havok - General Physics
Euphoria - Character physics
DMM - Environmental Physics