Frequently Asked Forum Questions
Search the HBO News Archives Any All Exact		Search the Halo Updates DBs Halo Halo2		Bungie Webcam HBO XBL Gamertags *Ar's Simple HTML Guide Shishka's Guide for Newcomers The Lowdown on Download Accelerators Red Loser's Anti-Spamming Guide Egg FAQ | More Egg Stuff c0ld's Movie Starter Guide Shishka's HaloPC Pre-Release FAQ 3.1 AutoMagic 117 StripzMaker
Search Older Posts on This Forum: Posts on Current Forum | Archived Posts

Re: Bygones and such...
Posted By: Nick <NickHBO@comcast.net>	Date: 1/26/04 11:50 p.m.
In Response To: Bygones and such... (opie301) : So you're saying that, 10 months after Havok's release, 8 months after : debuting a working game engine (with functional physics), and who knows : how many months into a working game it's possible that a video game : developer still has not purchased the lisence to the physics engine it has : decided to use (if, in fact, Bungie is using it). I'm saying they don't need to but they could if they wanted. That or the people at Havok (maybe even Bungie) feel that the physics shown so far are not up to the standards they want to post about. Which is nothing bad, it's just that we haven't seen much gameplay beside the 8 minutes at E3. If Halo 2 sees another E3 that would be a good time to announce the partnership with Havok, since during E3 the world would see (and maybe get hands on play of) Halo 2 much further progressed. The physics we saw at E3 are nothing compared to what I believe Bungie is capable of, that isn't to say they were bad but I know Bungie will do better as development progresses. : I'd like to point out here that the people working on story boarding and : level design are not the people that would be working on building a : physics engine. I know this, it was a bad example. What I was attempting to say is that everybody in a development company doesn't stick to just one purpose. Sure you have those that specialize but there are many people who can serve multiple functions and help out where need be. : I'm not goint to argue that using someone else's physics engine, especially : one as nice as Havok, is not an efficient process. But writing a : proprietary physics engine affords the programmers a greater level of : control over what the the game can do; the programmers can accomplish : specific goals in a specific manner according to a specific vision. Once again I'll say that Havok ships with something like 95% source code so programmers have that flexibility with it. They get everything that makes the physics engine what it is except a few minor parts that Havok wishes to be internal only. Sure this deducts a wee bit of control but they can customize any other part of the engine just how they want it. I agree that when writing your own engine it is easier to go back later and edit it and program in new things. However, when you're getting the source code from another company you still have ability to overhaul almost everything, there's just a learning curve to the other developer's coding style and figuring out how everything works. Good thing Havok is excessively documented code wise and you can always email tech support. : I guess I just don't understand how this evaluation period works (and I'm not : expert in the overall process of video game design). It seems to me the : Bungie has long passed the step where they decide on which physics engine : to use. And if, at that step, they had decided to use Havok, why haven't : they bought the license yet? I agree that it would be strange to not buy the license after such a long evaluation but it isn't necessary until you're going to be distributing the executable which contains the other company's code. This of course varies based on the license agreement signed by Bungie - there could be no set evaluation time period or it would be a 12 month evaluation, nobody but Bungie/MS knows. It does seem to follow logic that since we've not seen tons of Halo 2 gameplay content, Havok may not want to announce that their engine was licensed by Bungie just yet. There were ample Half-Life 2 videos showing gameplay and a physics demonstration before the partnership was announce, if I remember correctly. Without having Halo 2 content that shows off kick ass physics, there is no reason to announce the partnership because other game developers wouldn't see another example of how Havok can be customized. To other game developers, customization is a selling point for middleware, as I said early clones do not stand out and sell copies. : Fair enough. Of course, only technically accurate if Bungie was ever using : the engine. : We are not arguing that Bungie would never use middleware. It's not as if : we're trying to tell you that Bungie is some sort of organic programmer, : refusing to accept any code or tools that were not grown right there on : the Microsoft compound free of pesticides and harsh chemicals. It's just : that, in the specific case of the physics engine, it was the : understanding, of more than a few of us, that Bungie was developing and : implementing their own. And yet nobody can link me to a document that mentions such. At least I have some sort of reputable reference. I wish there was such for what you guys are talking about because then I would shut up or find something wrong with it. : If Bungie were to state tomorrow that they were using Havok it would be a : significant bit of news. But the question of whether they're using it or : not, should not have become this big of an issue. It's gotten blown out of : proportion because you've chosen to defend this position like you're in a : corner and Havok is your pup. This hasn't been an attack on you, just a : little bit of doubt and disbelief. : Simply put, you've found an interesting and puzzling reference. Those of us : who doubt this reference do so because we were under the impression that : Bungie had developed their own Physics engine for Halo 2. There has been : no mention by either party (Bungie or Havok) one way or the other (at : least none that i can easily lay my hands on), so for the moment we'll : just nod our heads, sigh, and move along. The only reason I've bothered replying is because it seems as though people think it's either an impossibility for Bungie to use middleware, people think Havok sucks, etc. I know it's nothing personal and I've not taken it that way. -Nick

Message Index

Halo 2 Uses Havok 2 Physics Engine	Nick	1/25/04 9:24 p.m.
Re: Halo 2 Uses Havok 2 Physics Engine	HaloNater	1/25/04 9:28 p.m.
Re: Halo 2 Uses Havok 2 Physics Engine	Slimby	1/25/04 9:35 p.m.
Re: Halo 2 Uses Havok 2 Physics Engine	HaloNater	1/25/04 9:43 p.m.
Re: Halo 2 Uses Havok 2 Physics Engine	Alexander Valient	1/26/04 9:32 a.m.
Havok 2 Physics Engine - Movies	Neurotic	1/25/04 9:38 p.m.
Re: Havok 2 Physics Engine - Movies	Mantis819	1/25/04 9:50 p.m.
Re: Halo 2 Uses Havok 2 Physics Engine	Rip-Saw	1/25/04 10:22 p.m.
Re: Halo 2 Uses Havok 2 Physics Engine	Nick	1/25/04 11:23 p.m.
Re: Halo 2 Uses Havok 2 Physics Engine	Dark Bastion	1/25/04 10:27 p.m.
Re: Halo 2 Uses Havok 2 Physics Engine	Nick	1/25/04 11:36 p.m.
Oh my.... thats cool.....	Mr.Mongoose	1/25/04 10:53 p.m.
Re: Oh my.... thats cool.....	Nick	1/25/04 11:46 p.m.
Re: Halo 2 Uses Havok 2 Physics Engine	Dan Chosich	1/25/04 10:58 p.m.
Re: Halo 2 Uses Havok 2 Physics Engine	Lt Devon	1/25/04 11:01 p.m.
Re: Halo 2 Uses Havok 2 Physics Engine	Spartan_-X-	1/25/04 11:07 p.m.
Re: Halo 2 Uses Havok 2 Physics Engine	Dylan	1/26/04 8:18 a.m.
Re: Halo 2 Uses Havok 2 Physics Engine	Nick	1/26/04 12:20 a.m.
Re: Halo 2 Uses Havok 2 Physics Engine	Count Zero	1/26/04 12:31 a.m.
Re: Halo 2 Uses Havok 2 Physics Engine	Nick	1/26/04 12:56 a.m.
Re: Halo 2 Uses Havok 2 Physics Engine	Walshicus	1/26/04 10:22 a.m.
Re: Halo 2 Uses Havok 2 Physics Engine	Nick	1/26/04 3:01 p.m.
Not true.	Blitzkrieg	1/26/04 12:07 p.m.
Re: Not true.	Nick	1/26/04 3:05 p.m.
not to mention	oddworld18	1/26/04 3:18 p.m.
Re: not to mention	BOLL	1/26/04 3:26 p.m.
Nop, it uses Havok	Nick	1/26/04 4:11 p.m.
Re: Nop, it uses Havok	opie301	1/26/04 5:27 p.m.
Re: Nop, it uses Havok	Nick	1/26/04 5:37 p.m.
Re: Nop, it uses Havok	Aztec	1/26/04 6:33 p.m.
Re: Nop, it uses Havok	Nick	1/26/04 6:36 p.m.
Re: Nop, it uses Havok	KOPD	1/26/04 6:49 p.m.
Re: Nop, it uses Havok	Nick	1/26/04 7:30 p.m.
End of the Evaluation	opie301	1/26/04 6:37 p.m.
Well said. *NM*	XLNC	1/26/04 7:07 p.m.
Re: End of the Evaluation	Nick	1/26/04 7:24 p.m.
Re: End of the Evaluation	Aztec	1/26/04 7:41 p.m.
Bygones and such...	opie301	1/26/04 8:35 p.m.
Re: Bygones and such...	Nick	1/26/04 11:50 p.m.
Re: Bygones and such...	KOPD	1/26/04 11:58 p.m.
Re: Bygones and such...	Nick	1/27/04 12:14 a.m.
Kind of a jerk, aren't ya.	KOPD	1/27/04 12:18 a.m.
Re: Kind of a jerk, aren't ya.	Nick	1/27/04 12:35 a.m.
Re: Kind of a jerk, aren't ya.	Aztec	1/27/04 12:40 a.m.
Re: Kind of a jerk, aren't ya.	KOPD	1/27/04 12:44 a.m.
Re: Kind of a jerk, aren't ya.	Aztec	1/27/04 12:54 a.m.
Re: Kind of a jerk, aren't ya.	KOPD	1/27/04 12:55 a.m.
Re: Kind of a jerk, aren't ya.	Stefander	1/27/04 1:36 a.m.
Re: Bygones and such...	Aztec	1/27/04 12:02 a.m.
Re: End of the Evaluation	Count Zero	1/26/04 9:53 p.m.
Re: End of the Evaluation	Nick	1/26/04 10:23 p.m.
Re: End of the Evaluation	Wado SG	1/27/04 12:32 a.m.
Re: End of the Evaluation	Nick	1/27/04 1:12 a.m.
Re: End of the Evaluation	Count Zero	1/27/04 3:01 a.m.
Re: End of the Evaluation	Nick	1/27/04 4:02 a.m.
Enough.	Louis Wu	1/27/04 5:56 a.m.
A final retort.	Nick	1/27/04 7:02 a.m.
Re: A final retort.	Louis Wu	1/27/04 7:26 a.m.
This is exactly what I'm talking about.	Nick	1/27/04 1:51 p.m.
For the record...	KOPD	1/27/04 2:06 p.m.
Re: This is exactly what I'm talking about.	Count Zero	1/27/04 9:15 p.m.
Lies!	Lt Devon	1/26/04 7:12 p.m.
Re: Halo 2 Uses Havok 2 Physics Engine	Sledgefare	1/26/04 11:19 a.m.