Ogre Forums

Posted: **Mon Jan 26, 2009 10:56 am**

_tommo_ wrote:But Havok is free only for non-commercial use?

On the PC it's free for all use.

Posted: **Mon Jan 26, 2009 11:38 am**

So PhysX has suddenly found a rival for me

Anyway I was enough sure that it was free for non-commercial only, where did you read that?
EDIT: This states clearly non-commercial...
EDIT2: but This states that you can get a "no-charge" license, if you want. What's the point of a "no-charge" license when you have a "free" license?

Good news anyway.

Posted: **Mon Jan 26, 2009 11:52 am**

_tommo_ wrote:Anyway I was enough sure that it was free for non-commercial only, where did you read that?

Here:

Azgur wrote:
DanielSefton wrote:Things are a bit different if you plan to go commercial though. You need to pay the full price for PhysX and Havok if you wish to commercialize your game.
Did you check this yourself?
Everything I posted in my previous post assumes a commercial game.

If you plan to sell your commercial PC Game above a retail value of $10 USD, (or equivalent amount in other currencies based on prevailing exchange rates at the time of launch), you must first request a no-charge PC Game distribution license from Havok at http://www.havok.com/PCgamedistribution, prior to retail release of your game. This PC Game distribution agreement is required to ensure you have complied with Havok logo, copyright, and attribution requirements, and that your application is a PC game (commercial non-game application distribution is not allowed). There will be no fee associated with this because the license fee has been covered by Intel under a commercial agreement with Havok.
Taken from havok.com.

Posted: **Mon Jan 26, 2009 2:15 pm**

_tommo_ wrote:EDIT2: but This states that you can get a "no-charge" license, if you want. What's the point of a "no-charge" license when you have a "free" license?

Maybe they just want to keep track of projects using the library.

Posted: **Mon Jan 26, 2009 3:23 pm**

Kencho wrote:
_tommo_ wrote:EDIT2: but This states that you can get a "no-charge" license, if you want. What's the point of a "no-charge" license when you have a "free" license?
Maybe they just want to keep track of projects using the library.

This is why:

This PC Game distribution agreement is required to ensure you have complied with Havok logo, copyright, and attribution requirements, and that your application is a PC game (commercial non-game application distribution is not allowed). There will be no fee associated with this because the license fee has been covered by Intel under a commercial agreement with Havok.

Posted: **Mon Jan 26, 2009 4:12 pm**

I just downloaded it, looks really good

It has less features than the others, overall, but the ones it has are the top i think... IE: no cloth or fancy fluids, but the collisions are pixel-perfect, and the ragdolls easy to make and stable...
i think that i'll try it with Ogre.

Posted: **Tue Jan 27, 2009 12:59 pm**

Is newton 2.0 using the same API than 1.53?
Is it easy to port a game done with 1.53 to 2.0?

Posted: **Tue Jan 27, 2009 3:50 pm**

I should check this out. Been mostly a Bullet person till now, Newton looks cool too.

Posted: **Tue Jan 27, 2009 4:17 pm**

I wonder where Newton would have been, if it weren't for Walaber..

Posted: **Tue Jan 27, 2009 4:36 pm**

madmarx wrote:Is newton 2.0 using the same API than 1.53?
Is it easy to port a game done with 1.53 to 2.0?

Overall the API only changed slightly apart from the additions. Only heavier changes are there for joints. Since we only use them rudimentary I can't say much about it.
Conversion was easy, according to our programmer who's done it. Now to only get the convex cast working...

Posted: **Tue Jan 27, 2009 5:05 pm**

jacmoe wrote:I wonder where Newton would have been, if it weren't for Walaber..

Aye, while Walaber has indeed done some impressive and useful things for/with Newton, he's not exactly the only one...

Posted: **Wed Jan 28, 2009 2:45 pm**

haffax wrote:
madmarx wrote:Is newton 2.0 using the same API than 1.53?
Is it easy to port a game done with 1.53 to 2.0?
Overall the API only changed slightly apart from the additions. Only heavier changes are there for joints. Since we only use them rudimentary I can't say much about it.
Conversion was easy, according to our programmer who's done it. Now to only get the convex cast working...

The convex cast problem is solved too, more or less. A bug in Newton that prevent casting of spheres. It will be fixed in next Newton release, till then any other convex primitive will do.

Posted: **Fri Feb 06, 2009 12:32 am**

Only took a couple of days to port flow to Ogre 1.6 and Newton 2. Minimal changes and for the most part it just ran out of the box

. It's MUCH faster. Newton 1 was very slow at stacking.

Here's a little video of our latest Flow example using ogre 1.6.1 and newton 2 beta 18. Stacking with offset layers like a brick wall.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5VE1VnW-WMU&fmt=18

Posted: **Sat Feb 28, 2009 2:56 pm**

Newton is to be CUDA (and later OpenCL) accelerated!

http://www.newtondynamics.com/downloads ... Solver.wmv

As Julio says, this is the very first version of the CUDA solver (solver, not collisions), so there is very much to be done in terms of features and optimizations. But just look at that video, it is instantly smoother on a GF 280 compared to a Core2

Ogre Forums

Newton 2.0 Public Beta

Re: Newton 2.0 Public Beta

Re: Newton 2.0 Public Beta

Re: Newton 2.0 Public Beta

Re: Newton 2.0 Public Beta

Re: Newton 2.0 Public Beta

Re: Newton 2.0 Public Beta

Re: Newton 2.0 Public Beta

Re: Newton 2.0 Public Beta

Re: Newton 2.0 Public Beta

Re: Newton 2.0 Public Beta

Re: Newton 2.0 Public Beta

Re: Newton 2.0 Public Beta

Re: Newton 2.0 Public Beta

Re: Newton 2.0 Public Beta