Hi,
Cinder almost answered all.
Viewers only use the mesh tools included on the Havok library
For Opensim use, viewers use HACD a open source library, also used by
Bullet for example.
One may be better than other.. but that depends on versions.. meshes
details etc..
It makes sense LL uses havoc, because they are already paying it
And even server side they are not using the latest version, just
because they don't need it.
For Opensim servers, there is no sense in using a paid library product
for physics.
Even PhysX did had (still has ?) license issues.
Many of the advances done on Havok, PhysX, bullet, etc, have not that
great impact our needs for physics engines
Those are great for a traditional game running on the client machine
either a pc or a game console
A example maybe the use of GPU on collisions processing (if they do
manage to make it outperform main cpu). Only a few Opensim users could pay the
extra cost of a server with a good enough gpu installed. Those running Opensim
on home pcs with a good GPU, they need it for the viewer. Fluid dynamics, soft
bodies, etc.. all great for a potential new viewer using then or a engine on
top of them like Unity, etc..
On Opensim server side the limitation is not on the physics engine
used, but on our own code using it
The difference btw old ODE and ubODE is a clear example of that, both
using the same library.
Bullet physics engine is another, Bullet physics engine does perform a
lot better on other applications.
PhysX MOSES effort could not be used by Opensim, because it was still
far from usable (and had license issues at that time)
Even if fixed, it would not be better than our Bullet, because is was
done to just clone it, including its wrong implementation of some features
(itself based on old ODE model), meanwhile improved.
If fact seems even MOSES gave up on it, changing to the much better
implementation of PhysX done by Inworldz on halcyon.
So imo, what is the physics library used on Opensim is still not that
relevant, and if any of those is properly implemented, most bottlenecks will be
at our C# code side.
Regards,
Ubit
(you all know my English is not the best, so take that in consideration
reading...)
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Cinder Roxley
Sent: Tuesday, December 19, 2017 19:33
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Opensim-dev] Question: would it be possible to add Havok to
opensimulator..??
On December 19, 2017 at 9:19:57 AM, Haravikk ([email protected]) wrote:
> On 19 Dec 2017, at 14:31, André Verwijs <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
> i don't think Firestorm viewer devs are paying that.
> or made a deal with SL ..
Firestorm doesn't have to, because they're not the ones running havok; physics
for SL and OpenSim are both handled by the simulator, so they're server side
only. All the viewer has to do is show you what happens.
Mostly true. Firestorm doesn’t use the physics engine itself, but it does
include the Havok convex decomposition module. This is the entire reason there
are two different versions of Firestorm. Havok only licenses their product *per
game*. So more than likely, each and every grid who wanted to use Havok would
need to purchase a $65,000+ license to use it.
I don't think havok is an option unless they ever start offering a free license
for non-profit uses; but as far as I'm aware it doesn't support OpenCL anyway,
so Bullet is actually a better option anyway if you can throw some OpenCL
capable hardware at it.
Havok does support OpenCL as well as DirectX Compute and is lightyears ahead of
Bullet, but it isn’t free. I’m surprised how quickly everyone forgot that MOSES
opensourced their PhysX implementation. It needed some work, sure, but it’s
basically been abandoned.
_______________________________________________
Opensim-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://opensimulator.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev
_______________________________________________
Opensim-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://opensimulator.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev
