Archive for the ‘Bullet’ tag
Pieere Terdiman has announced the release of Physics Engine Evaluation Lab or PEEL – a handy tool (previously only used internally by PhysX team), that can be utilized to test performance, identify bottlenecks and determine simulation bugs of a physics engine in a number of specific use cases, thus providing a basis for further optimization and improvements.
Update: PEEL source code is now available on GitHub
PEEL 1.0 release is available for free with source code included, and features a default integration of various physics engines (Newton 3.13/3.9, Bullet 2.79/2.81/2.82, PhysX 2.8.4, a number of PhysX 3.x releases, even an early PhysX 3.4 branch) and collision libraries (OpCode 1/2).
A quite interesting, unexpected and a little emotional article – The Evolution of PhysX – was published today by Pierre Terdiman, senior software engineer in NVIDIA and one of the developers of the original NovodeX engine.
The article provides in-depth performance comparison between various versions of PhysX SDK (2.8.4, 3.2 and 3.3 Beta), using well-known open-source Bullet physics engine as as a reference point.
The performance tests were performed using PEEL – Physics Engine Evaluation Lab, a specialized tool that is using within NVIDIA to research behaviour and performance of various physics engines using a set of standartized scenes.
“Game Engine Survey 2011″ article, that can be found in May 2011 Issue of Game Developer Magazine is containing some interesting information about developer’s preferences regarding middleware solutions.
91.4 % of traditional (big-budget) developers prefer to use middleware libraries, and PhysX SDK is holding #4 place – it’s the only one physics engine in this category (we were surprised that Havok was not mentioned).
Far fewer casual developers (48.6 %) are relying on middleware solutions, so unexpensive or free (but good) libraries – FMOD, open-source Bullet engine and PhysX SDK – are the most popular.
Previosly, Game Developer Magazine has performed similar survey in Year 2009.
Decent article called “AMD and NVIDIA butt heads over physics” emerges on Atomic MPC website yesterday.
Richard Huddy, AMD’s Worldwide Developer Relations Manager, Ashu Rege, Nvidia’s Senior Director of Content and Technology, and Nadeem Mohammad, Nvidia’s Director of Product Management and PhysX, are speaking out against physics engines support strategies of their rival companies. During discussion, Bullet physics SDK is opposed to PhysX SDK.
Apart from slight pro-AMD tone and some factial mistakes in engines descriptions, it’s interesting read. Conclusion we are complitely agreed with:
Whether or not Bullet takes off remains to be seen, but the next few years will certainly be an interesting challenge for both companies.
However, as we’ve already took a view at AMD and PhysX relationship history, future of that AMD-promoted GPU Bullet and it’s implementation in games (not Bullet SDK itself) isn’t looking so bright and clear for us.
Year ago AMD’s opinion on PhysX was clear enough – it will die, if it remains a closed and proprietary standard.
Recently Bit-tech.net has published massive interview with Richard Huddy, AMD’s Worldwide Developer Relations manager, on game development, competition’s progress, DX11 and other technologies. Of course, few words were said about PhysX – let’s focus on that and see what has changed for the past year.
About Batman Arkham Asylum (Link)
[Nvidia] put PhsyX in there, and that’s the one I’ve got a reasonable amount of respect for. Even though I don’t think PhysX – a proprietary standard – is the right way to go, despite Nvidia touting it as an “open standard” and how it would be “more than happy to license it to AMD“, but [Nvidia] won’t. It’s just not true! You know the way it is, it’s simply something [Nvidia] would not do and they can publically say that as often as it likes and know that it won’t, because we’ve actually had quiet conversations with them and they’ve made it abundantly clear that we can go whistle.
However, PhysX is a piece of technology that changes the gameplay experience and maybe it improves it. What I understand is that they actually invested quite a lot, Nvidia put in a hefty engineering time and they tried to make a difference to the game. So, in that aspect, I have respect for it; it’s a reasonable way to handle the situation given the investment in PhysX. Nvidia wanted a co-marketing deal and put forward PhysX, and Rocksteady and Eidos said, OK, as long as you do it – which they did.
Our commentary: It’s now hard to call PhysX irrelevant, when you have played Batman, isn’t it ? Another interesting part is different look on that ATI-NV PhysX licensing situation.
About ATI+NV PhysX setups ban (Link) | Nvidia’s position
They don’t want to QA it. The PC is an open platform, though – you’re meant to take any two parts and put them together. Intel don’t say “we’re not prepared to QA our CPUs with Nvidia or AMD’s graphics parts” when they obviously spend time QAing them because you want to build a system that works.
Our commentary: Yes, it’s looking, let’s say, not right for us too. That’s why we are doing our best to support PhysX Hybrids idea.
End of the year is proper time to gather some statictics and summarize what PhysX SDK has archieved in past 4 years. So, we woud like to present our new article “Popular Physics Engines comparison: PhysX, Havok and ODE“, in which we are trying to compare PhysX SDK with other physics engines presented on the market not in terms of features, quality, performance or something like that – but released game titles.
Article includes basic statistics for Bullet and Newton physics engines, and advanced statictics for PhysX SDK, Havok and ODE – released games quality, platform distribution, and release dynamics for past years.
Expreview asked its readers recently, about which physics acceleration technology looks more promising to them.
Now, after 5 days and 281 votes, Nvidia PhysX is leading, Bullet is going second (probably, thanks to AMD users and all recent hype, as Bullet was listed as “AMD Bullet”, while being independent development), Intel Havok comes third.
Polling is not over, so you still can lend your vote.
Ervin Coumans, creator of “Bullet” open-source physics engine, has posted some interesting facts at bulletphysics.com recently. According to article in August 2009 issue of Game Developers Magazine, covering middleware survey results (over 100 senior developers of various development companies surveyed), Physx SDK have the lead with 26.8% in physics libraries rating, next is Havok with 22.7%, third – Bullet at 10.3%, and finally – Open Dynamic Engine at 4.1%.