Jump to content


Havok Physics engine

graphics

  • Please log in to reply
61 replies to this topic

viglundr #1 Posted Jul 11 2013 - 19:42

    First lieutenant

  • Beta Testers
  • 25028 battles
  • 766
  • [T-D] T-D
  • Member since:
    08-16-2010
So we know WoT will be implementing the Havok engine, I was trying to find some more information on it as I was curious so decided to share what I found.

So first off, what is the Havok engine?  Can read more here http://www.havok.com/products/physics

It's a robust collision detection and physical simulation technology, in other words it makes your graphics look better and allows better interaction between objects on the screen.

When is it coming to WoT? Originally people thought 8.6 may be the patch because Overlord stated 8.6 would "contain a major feature" but as we know that was not it. Can't find anything even suggesting what patch it may be in.

What will it do to WoT graphics? (various dates in Off the Record) Turrets getting ripped by explosions, parts of tanks flying off, realistic detracks, realistic destruction of objects and buildings, the independent suspension (each wheel reacts to the surface realistically) and small objects on the tank (antennae, boxes) behaving according to physics. The tools (spades etc.) installed on the tank flying off are also possible, but not guaranteed  

Also they also now included the possibility of moving wheeled vehicles (Off the Record 10.7.2013) " the problem with the wheeled vehicles in WoT was the turning mechanism. Developers were working on one Havok option apparently (“pushing” static objects – namely trucks) and “accidentally” made a mechanism allowing the implementation of wheeled vehicles"

Is it server side or client side? Both, (For the Record 11.7.2013) "WoT Havok is being
Implemented server-side too (some form of synchronization) in order to allow for server-side replays"

Looks like most of it is client side except the above and "the turret flying off after the vehicle destruction will be handled server-wise",

Will Havok just be an graphics option?  Last we heard yes, you can switch it off and on in your settings (For the Record 22.3.2013) "players will be able to switch the client physics (havok) off.

How big is it? Will it take a lot of resources? (For the Record 22.3.2013) it won't increase the size of the client, the client won't be stressed more with the introduction of client physics Also Havok can run on a different core (For the Record 20.4.2013) It is known that the system is planned to stay as it is now, but the additional core will be tasked with computing the client physics (Havok).

Heres a video not from World of Tanks but of a Leopard 2 tank which was done using the Havok engine. the part you want to pay attention to is the tracks and wheels and how they follow the ground much more realistically.



http://www.youtube.c...h?v=fgs3151vrGY


Anyway that's all i found looking around, pretty much everything is from "For the Record".  If anyone has more information on Havok please add (including source)

And if this doesn't interest you then "How terrible...."  :tongue:

venser #2 Posted Jul 11 2013 - 19:43

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 9719 battles
  • 289
  • Member since:
    12-17-2011
Seems pretty neat... new graphics would be fun. And seems to add more realism.

HaikuFoxy #3 Posted Jul 11 2013 - 19:46

    Major

  • Players
  • 5106 battles
  • 11,931
  • [NERP] NERP
  • Member since:
    01-30-2012
I have 3 other cores to spare, so I'm happy with this new engine.

Gwandi #4 Posted Jul 11 2013 - 19:46

    Captain

  • Players
  • 21540 battles
  • 1,398
  • [2BAD] 2BAD
  • Member since:
    05-18-2011
Wasn't it planned for 9.0.0?

okjoek #5 Posted Jul 11 2013 - 19:47

    Major

  • Players
  • 17637 battles
  • 2,753
  • [GR0M] GR0M
  • Member since:
    04-20-2011
Looks cool.

viglundr #6 Posted Jul 11 2013 - 19:50

    First lieutenant

  • Beta Testers
  • 25028 battles
  • 766
  • [T-D] T-D
  • Member since:
    08-16-2010

View PostGwandi, on Jul 11 2013 - 19:46, said:

Wasn't it planned for 9.0.0?

I can't find anything that states that, if you can I will update my info  :)

CAMN #7 Posted Jul 11 2013 - 19:50

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 14575 battles
  • 3,198
  • [HARM] HARM
  • Member since:
    10-11-2010

Quote

Developers were working on one Havok option apparently (“pushing” static objects – namely trucks) and “accidentally” made a mechanism allowing the implementation of wheeled vehicles"

WG: We can't fix things... except when we are not really trying to. These kind of accidents just happen.

Posted Image
(Footage of a WG developer with a problem he can't solve)

A_Defenseless_Kitten #8 Posted Jul 11 2013 - 19:56

    Major

  • Players
  • 22035 battles
  • 6,082
  • Member since:
    07-12-2011

View PostGwandi, on Jul 11 2013 - 19:46, said:

Wasn't it planned for 9.0.0?
it could even get a small chance in 8.8  to 9.0 between those 3 patches

I can't wait to see the Havok Physics engine so now my tracks can fall off when my tank dies in an angle so now it doesn't look like a dead bug anymore.

Edited by A_Defenseless_Kitten, Jul 11 2013 - 19:59.


Bhstamm #9 Posted Jul 11 2013 - 20:01

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 6340 battles
  • 211
  • Member since:
    08-09-2011
Thank god it runs on a separate core, the fact that is won't impact performance (for most people) is great.

Softbody physics would be amazing in a game like this, as well.

PhilDz #10 Posted Jul 11 2013 - 20:03

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 9844 battles
  • 699
  • [CRUXS] CRUXS
  • Member since:
    05-30-2012
Sounds pretty meaningless when you should be focusing on the battles rather then the quality of how the tracks look relative to the ground.

GT500 #11 Posted Jul 11 2013 - 20:08

    Major

  • Players
  • 12649 battles
  • 2,254
  • [HAVOK] HAVOK
  • Member since:
    04-13-2011

View PostPhilDz, on Jul 11 2013 - 20:03, said:

Sounds pretty meaningless when you should be focusing on the battles rather then the quality of how the tracks look relative to the ground.

It is safe to say this would be a parallel team working on this that has no impact on other programmers work on battles.

Think of it as a bonus and not something that is taking away from other parts of the game.

Mydragonsfly #12 Posted Jul 11 2013 - 20:11

    Major

  • Players
  • 5868 battles
  • 3,941
  • Member since:
    05-01-2011
And then maybe one day, we'll beable to use all the cores in our computers...

*dream on* :harp:

CAMN #13 Posted Jul 11 2013 - 20:12

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 14575 battles
  • 3,198
  • [HARM] HARM
  • Member since:
    10-11-2010

View PostPhilDz, on Jul 11 2013 - 20:03, said:

Sounds pretty meaningless when you should be focusing on the battles rather then the quality of how the tracks look relative to the ground.

View PostGT500, on Jul 11 2013 - 20:08, said:

It is safe to say this would be a parallel team working on this that has no impact on other programmers work on battles.

Think of it as a bonus and not something that is taking away from other parts of the game.

You guys are looking at it the wrong way. It's not a purely cosmetic change. Have you ever gone over a broken fence and thought "damn fence made my reticle jump up and down". Well, with better tracks simulation, this shouldn't happen... or at least not as much as it does right now.

Now picture everything in the game that makes your tank jump up and down like crazy, fences, railroad tracks, small bumps on the ground. We would get a better game if that were not to bother us.

Private_Public #14 Posted Jul 11 2013 - 20:12

    Major

  • Players
  • 19635 battles
  • 2,201
  • Member since:
    01-13-2012
Whenever people say "Havok Physics", all I can think of is The Elder Scrolls: Oblivion.  One of it's major selling points was Havok Physics.  Anyone who has played that game knows how messed up Havok Physics can get, and how silly of situations you an create with it.  Grand Theft Auto 4 also uses Havok Physics.  Same thing.  Same silliness.  I expect nothing less than silliness when Havok is introduced.

Vae_Victis #15 Posted Jul 11 2013 - 20:15

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 10020 battles
  • 210
  • Member since:
    04-05-2012

View PostPhilDz, on Jul 11 2013 - 20:03, said:

Sounds pretty meaningless when you should be focusing on the battles rather then the quality of how the tracks look relative to the ground.
Quality of Tracks relative to ground isnt necesarrily it but , it helps with faster tanks aka the t-50-2 wont launch on little bumps and may just track over em a bit more smoothly affects overall handling performance and fro someone like me meds and lights  shoooting on the move and not tracking my self as well as more realistic turning and handling can make a world of difference

GT500 #16 Posted Jul 11 2013 - 20:15

    Major

  • Players
  • 12649 battles
  • 2,254
  • [HAVOK] HAVOK
  • Member since:
    04-13-2011

View PostPrivate_Public, on Jul 11 2013 - 20:12, said:

Whenever people say "Havok Physics", all I can think of is The Elder Scrolls: Oblivion.  One of it's major selling points was Havok Physics.  Anyone who has played that game knows how messed up Havok Physics can get, and how silly of situations you an create with it.  Grand Theft Auto 4 also uses Havok Physics.  Same thing.  Same silliness.  I expect nothing less than silliness when Havok is introduced.

Hahah,

Not like the current physics can not do strange things :P



SolDust #17 Posted Jul 11 2013 - 20:19

    Captain

  • Players
  • 9059 battles
  • 1,135
  • [URKOD] URKOD
  • Member since:
    03-09-2011

View PostPrivate_Public, on Jul 11 2013 - 20:12, said:

Whenever people say "Havok Physics", all I can think of is The Elder Scrolls: Oblivion.  One of it's major selling points was Havok Physics.  Anyone who has played that game knows how messed up Havok Physics can get, and how silly of situations you an create with it.  Grand Theft Auto 4 also uses Havok Physics.  Same thing.  Same silliness.  I expect nothing less than silliness when Havok is introduced.

we will have to wait and see. so far it sounds pretty promising, and for the most part a really cool update.  we can complain about it later as we learn more about it and finally see some in game footage.

CAMN #18 Posted Jul 11 2013 - 20:20

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 14575 battles
  • 3,198
  • [HARM] HARM
  • Member since:
    10-11-2010

View PostPrivate_Public, on Jul 11 2013 - 20:12, said:

I expect nothing less than silliness when Havok is BADLY introduced.

Fixed it for you.

Not every developer knows how to work with the tools they are given. Take a look at games with great physics that use Havok:

- Call of Duty: Black Ops II
- Guild Wars 2
- Kingdoms of Amalur: Reckoning
- World in Conflict
- BioShock
- F.E.A.R.

And those are just the PC ones I played that have good physics applied in them... I'm pretty sure the console ones are even better (I only have Ni No Kuni that I can tell has good physics).

Vae_Victis #19 Posted Jul 11 2013 - 20:21

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 10020 battles
  • 210
  • Member since:
    04-05-2012

View PostGT500, on Jul 11 2013 - 20:15, said:

Hahah,

Not like the current physics can not do strange things :P


Posted Image

Vae_Victis #20 Posted Jul 11 2013 - 20:22

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 10020 battles
  • 210
  • Member since:
    04-05-2012

View PostCAMN, on Jul 11 2013 - 20:20, said:

Fixed it for you.

Not every developer knows how to work with the tools they are given. Take a look at games with great physics that use Havok:

- Call of Duty: Black Ops II
- Guild Wars 2
- Kingdoms of Amalur: Reckoning
- World in Conflict
- BioShock
- F.E.A.R.

And those are just the PC ones I played that have good physics applied in them... I'm pretty sure the console ones are even better (I only have Ni No Kuni that I can tell has good physics).
consoles if anything are gonna be worse shit the new unreleased consoles have shittier specs then my 4 yr old comp





Also tagged with graphics

2 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 2 guests, 0 anonymous users