Microsoft and Game Engines *branch*

Indeed. As you said, given everything included in GameStack, I would not be surprised if IdTech is worked on as something that can be attached to GS to broaden the appeal of their offering.

Interestingly doom eternal already uses playfab so there is already some integration there, it also uses havoc too.

The only major thing that gamefab is missing is an audio engine imo, and the only major one that is not owned by a larger company is fmod. Having a dedicated procedural materials/objects tool would be good too.

It will be interesting to see if microsoft keeps acquiring middleware companies, especially with the middleware market heating up with acquisitions, with epic leading the charge
 
Interestingly doom eternal already uses playfab so there is already some integration there, it also uses havoc too.

The only major thing that gamefab is missing is an audio engine imo, and the only major one that is not owned by a larger company is fmod. Having a dedicated procedural materials/objects tool would be good too.

It will be interesting to see if microsoft keeps acquiring middleware companies, especially with the middleware market heating up with acquisitions, with epic leading the charge

There's nothing about Project Accoustics in GameFab/PlayFab? Or is that not really an audio engine but lower level audio APIs?
 
There's nothing about Project Accoustics in GameFab/PlayFab? Or is that not really an audio engine but lower level audio APIs?
my understanding, which admittedly could be completely wrong, is that the project acoustics stuff is basically a layer that sits above an existing audio engine that adds the acoustic stuff to it. At the moment the standard implementation is built on top of wwise, but when I looked into it previously they also had a beta implementation in fmod for unity games
 
Does anybody use Havok these days? Haven't heard that name for a long time.

Yup, in addition to those listed by others, Sony also use it. For example, HZD and Spider-Man uses Havok. Capcom (Monster Hunter World) also uses it. Quantic Dream as well. I'm pretty sure Square-Enix uses it. And plenty of others. It's quite prevalent among AAA developers.

Regards,
SB
 
Yup, in addition to those listed by others, Sony also use it. For example, HZD and Spider-Man uses Havok. Capcom (Monster Hunter World) also uses it. Quantic Dream as well. I'm pretty sure Square-Enix uses it. And plenty of others. It's quite prevalent among AAA developers.

Regards,
SB
But Unreal Engine has its own physics engine?
 
But Unreal Engine has its own physics engine?

The physics engine that UE includes (PhysX in the past and I guess Chaos going forward) is adequate, but if a developer can afford to use Havok, it's generally the better choice if you use Physics extensively. Alternatively, some AAA developers will choose to do their own physics approximations in house, especially if they are trying something unusual or specifically tailored to their game's needs.

Regards,
SB
 
The physics engine that UE includes (PhysX in the past and I guess Chaos going forward) is adequate, but if a developer can afford to use Havok, it's generally the better choice if you use Physics extensively. Alternatively, some AAA developers will choose to do their own physics approximations in house, especially if they are trying something unusual or specifically tailored to their game's needs.

Regards,
SB

Just to add, Havok (uniquely?) features network synced physics, allowing games to have synchronised physics interactions and animations in multiplayer games. You dont typically need this really for most games, but for things like snowrunner, a game that has a lot of physics based interaction in multiplayer, where you can attach rope lines between player vehicles and operate cranes it is critical to achieve an enjoyable multiplayer experience
 
Unreal engine 2 used Karma for it's physics engine. I think the company they licensed it from went bankrupt, or maybe Epic absorbed them. But there was a modded version that supported networked physics called good karma. I used it in a few maps when I used to make death match and CTF maps back in the day. Thinking back it was pretty insane given that most games now don't have the level of physics that was possible in 2005. I remember I made this one map that had a destructible wall you could blow through with enough firepower to make a shortcut to the flag room. Huge chunks of rocks that were just rounded corner rectangles I built in Maya I think. You assigned everything weight and maybe friction in karma.

The networked version did have less features, though. Items couldn't be connected, so no chains or things with hinges iirc.
 
I'm assuming that gameplay advances like physics took a little bit of a back seat last generation due to crappy CPUs in consoles?
I think most physics middleware, certainly Havok, supported GPU compute from day 1.

 
Why do you think physics and destructible environments that were touted as the next big thing didn't really materialize that much?

Because it can easily ruin level design if done wrong. Next-gen was touted as removing the need for some tricks during last gen's level designs that disguised things such as asset loading. But how would that work if you could take an RPG or a tank and travel in a straight line to your destination?

Enemy placement and a ton of other things become problematic or more complex when you can reach the end of a level through an arbitrary path.
 
I think most physics middleware, certainly Havok, supported GPU compute from day 1.

Bad cpu cuts both ways, though. You don't do physics on your cpu because you can't spare any cpu power -- you don't do physics on your gpu because your game is heavily gpu bound, due to not being able to spare any cpu power, and extra cosmetic physics isn't a high priority for most games. (that said, we saw a ton of gpu physics last gen for particles, destruction, etc)
 
Bad cpu cuts both ways, though. You don't do physics on your cpu because you can't spare any cpu power -- you don't do physics on your gpu because your game is heavily gpu bound, due to not being able to spare any cpu power, and extra cosmetic physics isn't a high priority for most games. (that said, we saw a ton of gpu physics last gen for particles, destruction, etc)

There was some interesting presentation on how Havok's GPU solution worked on for last-gen consoles; for the most part average game physics was a relatively mild hit on the GPU and the compute required tended to interleave between traditional graphics intensive tasks. There was a good presentation on this but I can't put my finger on it at the moment.

edit: it was located at Havok.com/nextgen - but it's gone. :(
 
Back
Top