• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

dedicated PhysX GPU...

Heh love the last paragraph.

IMO - tho it could just be the design choices developers have made - havok tends to produce more realistic appearing results... but doesn't suit game environments as well as physx which tends to be a little more flexible.
 
The general design of PhysX is very tight, the fact they saw the need for intermixing of HW and SW scenes from the offset is very intuitive, though I feel they place too strict limitations on the scale of their simulations (something I am trying to overcome in a generic manner myself at the moment.)

With re: to the different engines, sorry OP its very much an aside, but there is quite an interesting paper written by the guy who made PAL (the physics abstraction layer) on the specifics of the different engines. It can be downloaded here for perusal: http://www.adrianboeing.com/pal/papers/p281-boeing.pdf (lots of graphs etc). Interesting to see that the PhysX integrator is closest to the idealised normal, but its joint solver is quite a bit behind. He doesn't seem to consider CCD stuff in the contact detection. It's a few years old now that paper, but I found it interesting nonetheless.

No doubt I will be producing similar material for my thesis when I come round to it, will be interesting to see how things have moved on in terms of accuracy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom