Cry Havok ! its not available on the Mac! (Re: Havok physics game code)

[aka_tom_w]

Ok OK

sorry this post is NOT CMx2 specific but it does have to do with the state of the union in Mac Games

and that Damn Havok physics middle wear game engine code

havok wants HARD cash to offer the Mac Code for games on the MAC

Quote:

State of the Game - Wreaking Havok

May 6, 2005 | Tuncer Deniz

"If you've owned a Mac for as long as I have (20 years to be exact), you know that being a Mac gamer can be challenging at times. We've had our ups and downs over the years but recently, especially in the last few years, things have been looking pretty good for Mac gaming. Apple is selling a ton of iPods and Macs and game publishers are cranking out as many games as possible.

But as good as things have gotten, major bumps along the road have appeared. One that has crept up recently has been the discussion of many Mac gamers and developers alike. How bad is this bump? Well, let me put it this way. Today's second biggest threat to a healthy Mac gaming market is Havok (piracy, in case you were wondering, is the first), the physics game engine used by popular games such as Medal of Honor: Pacific Assault, Halo 2, and oh yes, Half-Life 2. In at least a few cases, a few Mac ports have been shelved because of a lack of a Mac version of Havok. Ever wonder why Deus Ex 2 never made it to the Mac? Havok. To make matters worse, upcoming games such as Age of Empires III and HellGate and possibly dozens of other games will be using Havok.

It takes no genius to see that the Havok problem is now dire. So, what exactly is said problem? Why isn't Havok available for the Mac? As you might expect, it comes down to money. According to industry sources, the folks at Havok want a six figure dollar amount for Havok Mac. The issue, of course, is that there's no way any Mac game publisher could afford this, especially when you consider that the Mac publisher has to pay a PC publisher the rights for a game. Imagine having to pay $50,000 for the Mac rights to a title, then having to turn around and pay $150,000 just to have Havok on the Mac (my dollar figures are just examples, folks, I don't know the actual numbers).

Ok, now here's the worst part of it. According to my sources, the Havok code is already available on the Mac. That's right. It's pretty much ready to go. Havok just needs to get paid. The issue at hand, it seems, is the amount of money Havok wants for their precious physics code.

With the Mac gaining popularity, it seems to me that companies such as Havok and GameSpy are trying to take advantage of the situation by raising their prices to such astronomical levels that just don't make sense. Would you charge $100 to feed one dog or $5 each to feed 100?

But as we all know, man is not always rational, especially when it comes to money. Sure, we could just say, "man, those Havok guys are f'ing greedy", but I'm sure in their own little world, and in their own business sense, in order to have Havok on the Mac, they need...no...demand to hear that magical term: "return on investment."

But hey, the Mac is cool! You have to let us have Havok! Pfft, no way. Sympathy isn't going to work either. Havok is run by super smart mathematicians and PhD's who are in the business of calculating how much money they can make with their spiffy physics code. Can you blame them for trying?

Let us for argument's sake say that Havok won't budge on the price unless someone ponies up the big dough and pays Havok what they want. In today's Mac gaming market where piracy is rampant (well, on all platforms), a publisher like Aspyr can't afford to pay that kind of money for a physics engine. Hmm, ok, who else has gobs of money and billions of dollars in cash? How about Apple? Apple is interested in seeing more Mac gaming titles appear on the Mac, so why not have Apple pick up the bill? Certainly if Apple had thoughts of buying Bungie at one point for a few million dollars a few years back, then they can sure afford a paltry hundred grand to pay for Havok on the Mac.

Apple has been deeply involved in getting Havok on the Mac. How deep is something I'll leave up to your imagination. But Apple simply has no business paying for physics engines. This is not a purchase the Board of Directors is going to approve. "You want us to buy a physics engine so that someone like Aspyr can benefit from it?" As much as it might makes sense to you and I, Apple is not in the business of paying every 3rd party developer that comes along just for the sake of having them bring their tools to the Mac."

END Quote.

there's more at the web link

What does this have to do with CMx2 ???

Absolutely nothing as long as Charles is not using the Havok physics engine, AND given the outrageous licensing fee I would bet BFC has NOT licensed the Havok code.

Please correct me if I am wrong

-tom w

[ September 10, 2005, 07:23 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

[aka_tom_w]

havok news from sept 2000

Havok GDK 1.2

Features: Havok provides an underlying rigid body simulator and a toolkit for higher-level access layered on top. Havok's constraint system is weak compared to the other libraries, supporting only spherical joints and point-to-path. The collision subsystem is full-featured, supporting simple collision volumes as well as convex hulls and true concave objects. A number of contact-solver friction types are included. In addition to basic rigid body dynamics, the system simulates soft body objects (such as blobs and cloth) and particles, as well as a simple fluid model; however, we didn't test these features and can't vouch for their completeness.

Documentation: Havok provides a nice set of documentation along with updates on Havok's web site. While not as thorough as MathEngine's documentation, the documents were useful. There were a few minor consistency problems with function names and terms. There is a great variety of well-documented examples of various levels of complexity. The underlying simulator API is not as well documented.

Ease of use: The Havok GDK toolkit is very easy to use, with the code organized in an easy to understand class hierarchy. The system provides helper utilities for common math functions. The underlying simulation API seems slightly more difficult to use and not quite as completely exposed as MathEngine's, but is more complete because of the advanced collision detector.

Production: Because the system provides a plug-in for 3D Studio Max, artists can easily start using it. They can create models with boundary volumes and run them in the simulation without programmer involvement. Another nice feature allows you to dump the state of the objects in the simulation at any point to a file to reload later or examine for debugging purposes. When trying to debug a physics-heavy game, features like this are very useful. The library is available for the PC, Macintosh, and Playstation 2 platforms. Havok does not license the engine source code, though they will discuss full source-level needs individually.

Dynamically controlled objects in a scene in Havok.

Integration: Havok breaks the package up into several libraries. While it may be possible to leave out unused portions, they are very tightly integrated. This makes programming easier at the expense of modularity.

Input and feedback: Input to the simulation is through "action" classes that are called back during integration, and through a complete set of access functions on the bodies. Because the constraint system only supports one type of constraint, there are no constraint actuator functions. The Havok GDK provides a complete set of event callbacks and access functions to determine what is happening inside the simulator.

Cost: The Havok 3D Studio Max plug-in is $495 per seat with multi-seat discounts available. The Havok GDK is available for $65,000 to $75,000 per title without royalties. Royalty pricing and other pricing options are available on an individual basis.

Technical support: Like MathEngine, the Havok web site has a developers' forum for discussion of the toolkits. Technical support was very good, but again, it was not attained anonymously.

[melb_will]

This is all very interesting but it is in the wrong forum. as you said yourself

Originally posted by aka_tom_w:

Ok OK

sorry this post is NOT CMx2 specific

What does this have to do with CMx2 ???

Absolutely nothing

-tom w

please try to keep your posts on topic. We are all very grateful at your attempts to bring us topics that are hidden in other threads. But in doing so we are dramatically increasing the number of topics. As soon as a topic gets pushed off the front page the information often disappears.

Cheers

Will