Search Unity

  1. Unity Asset Manager is now available in public beta. Try it out now and join the conversation here in the forums.
    Dismiss Notice

PhysX 4, Unity DOTS Physics, and Havok physics

Discussion in 'Physics Previews' started by PhilSA, Mar 19, 2019.

  1. PhilSA

    PhilSA

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2013
    Posts:
    1,926
    I have a few questions regarding the current and future physics engines revealed during the GDC keynote.

    1- PhysX4.0 unity integration seemed to be brand new. Is it going to be abandonned in favor of the two others? Are the 3 engines going to coexist?

    2- According to this article, the havok version will need to be paid by users. Is this accurate?
    http://gamasutra.com/view/news/338719/Unity_partners_with_Havok_to_roll_out_new_physics_systems.php

    3- Will DOTS physics have things like cloth and softbodies? Or will these things be havok only?
     
    Last edited: Mar 19, 2019
    PhilSA, Mar 19, 2019
    #1
    Iron-Warrior, AlanMattano, Jick87 and 2 others like this.

  2. Cynicat

    Cynicat

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2013
    Posts:
    290
    I really hope they add a physX 4.0 integration into ecs. I really can't afford Havok, and the new "Unity Physics" engine does not inspire confidence in it's early build. It's framerate dependent (time moves faster with Vsync off... by a lot), it's pretty unstable, has some pretty huge lag spikes throughout. It seems cool but I really hope they don't expect us to move over to it or havok. =<
     
    Cynicat, Mar 19, 2019
    #2

  3. snacktime

    snacktime

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2013
    Posts:
    3,356
    They made it sound like they were ditching Physx in 2019, although that can't possibly be right.

    Havok is pretty cool but their whole business model is based on larger studios. They have talked about being indie friendly for quite a few years but never delivered. The whole contact us for pricing thing is when you know you are about to be screwed. Will see if Unity can change their minds.
     
    snacktime, Mar 19, 2019
    #3
    Cynicat and nxrighthere like this.

  4. Maeslezo

    Maeslezo

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2015
    Posts:
    331
    Yes, this part of the keynote was too short and it left more questions than answers.
    I could understand that Unity moves to its own open source/dots physics engine, but I don't get the Havok decision, even more with Physx 4.0 integration on its way.
    I think it is more a marketing decision, caused by the idea that the new/exotic is always better.

    Or maybe Havok is really much better and it worths the effort, but I can't find any paper or serious study comparing the two engines.
    I hope we'll have more information soon.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_novelty
     
    Last edited: Mar 19, 2019
    Maeslezo, Mar 19, 2019
    #4
    nxrighthere and Cynicat like this.

  5. nxrighthere

    nxrighthere

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2014
    Posts:
    567
    The biggest benefit for users that I see is potentially better support of determinism but it's debatable, and I wouldn't pay for that. Better integration with data-oriented tech stack, well, MonoBehaviour is not gone anywhere. So yea, seems like a marketing move.
     
    nxrighthere, Mar 19, 2019
    #5