Havok in reality is way older than Nvidia PhysX, Havok came in 2000 and was used in more than 600 games, but IMO only really got famous when Valve used it for Half life 2 and the source engine, Nvidia PhysX came way later and from the acquisition of Ageia PhysX that in its turn came from the Novodex physics engine that was developed in 2004.
It is old. I remember the first time I saw Havok in action in Painkiller. It made a big impression on me when I was a teenager. The game itself was brilliant, but Havok added even more fun.
@@N3ur0funk_Infinity Indeed but I'm sure modern Havok is not exactly like old Havok, apart from the name. But the older version was a game changer for games indeed, all games that add ragdolls and cool advanced physics in the early 2000's used Havok physics, apart from Unreal 2 and some other games made on Unreal 2 engine that add its own inhouse physics engine, but like you said painkiller was a famous game where Havok played a large part in the fun, as was in Max Payne 2 and many others. :)
Nice sum up of the options. Dots definitely has a steep learning curve. But I would argue that If you have no prior experience you would be better off starting using it now instead of learning Monobehavior. One of the hardest part about DOTS is to get out of the OOP mindset of Monobehavior.
@@longiusaescius2537 No DOTS is not ECS. DOTS is larger than ECS it also includes the job system, the burst compiler and hopefully soon other packages such as animation, audio,... But in any case with ECS or the job system the way to think about your data is different from what most people are used to with mono behavior.
@@thereeg1073 Unity lost their way. Fortunately all the bad upper management is gone now and the new team seems to be making good decisions. There is hope.
Isn't Havok still available for free on older versions of DOTS (0.51 and below)? I guess if you really wanted to use it and don't wish to go Pro then that's an option.
Seems like Unity could easily use PhysX for DOTS as physx is highly threaded (you can see it in the jobs profiler). I wonder why they don't? Also I presume there's zero collision interaction between PhysX and Unity Physics?
Havok in reality is way older than Nvidia PhysX, Havok came in 2000 and was used in more than 600 games, but IMO only really got famous when Valve used it for Half life 2 and the source engine, Nvidia PhysX came way later and from the acquisition of Ageia PhysX that in its turn came from the Novodex physics engine that was developed in 2004.
It is old. I remember the first time I saw Havok in action in Painkiller. It made a big impression on me when I was a teenager. The game itself was brilliant, but Havok added even more fun.
@@N3ur0funk_Infinity Indeed but I'm sure modern Havok is not exactly like old Havok, apart from the name. But the older version was a game changer for games indeed, all games that add ragdolls and cool advanced physics in the early 2000's used Havok physics, apart from Unreal 2 and some other games made on Unreal 2 engine that add its own inhouse physics engine, but like you said painkiller was a famous game where Havok played a large part in the fun, as was in Max Payne 2 and many others. :)
Thanks. That was very enlightening. Have a wonderful day
Ex-game developer coming back to gamedev after 5 years. This video was exactly what I was looking for. Short, concise and very informative. Thanks!
Glad you liked it!
I literally just googled about unity havok, and you uploaded 22 minutes ago. very strange
Excellent timing
Same here. Weird
Nice sum up of the options. Dots definitely has a steep learning curve. But I would argue that If you have no prior experience you would be better off starting using it now instead of learning Monobehavior. One of the hardest part about DOTS is to get out of the OOP mindset of Monobehavior.
Dots is ECS?
@@longiusaescius2537
No DOTS is not ECS. DOTS is larger than ECS it also includes the job system, the burst compiler and hopefully soon other packages such as animation, audio,...
But in any case with ECS or the job system the way to think about your data is different from what most people are used to with mono behavior.
@@WAYNGames thanks for the explanation
I don't know how I ended up here, but that was quite interesting.
Great video!
Thank you, Jaden!
Didn't think I would see you here, love your vids.
glad to see you here
One of the main reason I stick to Unreal. Atleast they dont keep main features behind a paywall.
@@thereeg1073 Unity lost their way. Fortunately all the bad upper management is gone now and the new team seems to be making good decisions. There is hope.
I've ran some tests, theres really no good reason to go with Unity Physics as of now, only small performance gains over PhysX.
Isn't Havok still available for free on older versions of DOTS (0.51 and below)? I guess if you really wanted to use it and don't wish to go Pro then that's an option.
Good thinking there. I haven’t tried but seems doable unless it’s been deprecated.
Isn't the default physics engine in Unity already PhysX?
I think you should mention that on mobile platforms, PhysX + game-objects outperforms Unity Physics + DOTS. 😞
How to convert unity particles to .par file?
Seems like Unity could easily use PhysX for DOTS as physx is highly threaded (you can see it in the jobs profiler). I wonder why they don't?
Also I presume there's zero collision interaction between PhysX and Unity Physics?
I chose dots