Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Havok Releases Free Version For PC Developers

Posted by kdawson on from the let-slip-the-dogs-of-physics dept.

An anonymous reader writes "Havok has released the free version of its widely-used physics and animation engine (but without source code), including tools that integrate with Autodesk 3ds Max and Maya. Developers may use Havok for free for non-commercial games, middleware, and academic projects. Here are the SDK and tools."

26 of 86 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Only gratis, by tomhudson · · Score: 2, Insightful

    You mean "free as in crack cocaine - the first hit is on the house".

    Still, it's a valid way to get developers interested in using your tools. Not everything in life is free, and they have the right to do this, same as other softwae companies did in the past (eg: Borland with Kylix licensing).

  2. Re:cool by tomhudson · · Score: 4, Funny

    gonna render a babe for this saturday night!

    Why not go to Soviet Russia, where babe renders YOU!

  3. Re:Only gratis, by .orvp · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Havok is indeed being released as 'free' under certain circumstances. Yes, it is 'gratis' but 'gratis' is indeed 'free', just not 'Free'. Throughout the blurb, the software is referred to as 'free', not 'Free', it is only capitalized in the Headline, as per standard Title Conventions (although, I think 'for' should be lower case).

    Just because the FSF doesn't consider it to be 'free' does not mean that it is not. To the average user, consumer, and non GNU evangelist, this release is indeed 'free', as there is no financial cost to use.

    --
    My other sig is just as lame
  4. Re:Only gratis, by Kalriath · · Score: 3, Funny

    Yes, free (AND gratis - which only has one definition).

    Stop trying to redefine English you frigging Nazis. Free means whatever every English dictionary in the world says it means.

    --
    For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
  5. Re:Only gratis, by c_forq · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I beg to differ. Slashdot is very familiar with free as in beer. Unless an article is specifically about the GNU, FSF, or Stallman I think it is safe to assume the average slashdotter will interpret free as in beer, and Free as in freedom.

    --
    Computers allow humans to make mistakes at the fastest speeds known, with the possible exception of tequila and handguns
  6. Don't complain by Enderandrew · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Havok wasn't obligated to do this. It is a kind (and perhaps savvy) gesture. I can't wait to see all the open-source Linux shooters integrate Havok. How long before it is in Ogre 3D and common engines like that?

    I think it might be savvy, that if physics become common even in free games, that consumers won't want to pay for a commercial game unless it features physics as well.

    I recall a while back someone was trying to create a homebrew engine that would play Jedi Knight levels, and it was a fairly impressive engine, except they couldn't finish it because they couldn't find a coder who could integrate even basic physics stuff. People looked and looked on all the usual sites, but it seems not many people know that stuff.

    --
    http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
    1. Re:Don't complain by Enderandrew · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Not everything OSS is GPL. And I don't want to start a GPL-flame-fest here, but this is another example of GPL restricts as much as it protects freedom.

      --
      http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
    2. Re:Don't complain by Rycross · · Score: 2, Interesting

      As others have pointed out, its going to be hard to integrate this with other FOSS libraries. Even though Ogre is LPGL and not GPL, I don't think its possible. But we do have ODE (Open Dynamics Engine) to work with. It'd be interesting to see how Havok compares to ODE.

    3. Re:Don't complain by Rycross · · Score: 3, Interesting

      True, I think you could integrate this with BSD code. How many game libraries are available in BSD though? I think most of them tend to be GPL or LGPL. Ogre is LGPL as is Crystal Space. OpenTNL (game networking) has both LGPL and commercial licenses.

      Of course, you could probably integrate this with a slew of commercial engines.

      I'd say GPL restricts certain freedoms for the sake of others that are, in the opinion of the FSF, more important. Not a big deal from my perspective.

    4. Re:Don't complain by cduffy · · Score: 2, Informative

      The copyright holder of a work can make an exception for Havok; it doesn't restrict them, but rather third parties (from creating a combined work under a license which restricts the user more tightly than the GPL itself).

      Yes, though, the GPL is restrictive. I think people understand that (and the purpose of those restrictions) when they decide to use it.

    5. Re:Don't complain by nhaines · · Score: 3, Informative

      The point of the GPL is to produce software which is freely redistributable. But if you integrate non-Free software, then you lose the rights that the GPL is meant to protect. You can no longer share the entire project. You can no longer examine the way the entire project works. You can no longer sell the project. You can no longer fix and support the project.

      If you do not want to grant others the freedom to your software that the GPL offers, then you should not license your code under the GPL and instead you should pick a more appropriate license.

    6. Re:Don't complain by Toonol · · Score: 4, Interesting

      How is it possible to write GPL code for windows, then? All windows software links to proprietary win32 libraries.

    7. Re:Don't complain by p0tat03 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Warning: It's been a few months since I've touched physics engines... so maybe things have changed somewhat since then.

      ODE's solver is horrendously slow compared to commercial physics packages. The plus side is that it has a more physically accurate solver... which unfortunately most games simply do not need. ODE is geared towards physical SIMULATIONS, whereas Novodex/PhysX and Havok are built more towards *looking* physically correct, as opposed to being *actually* correct. The difference is in the scale of physics problem they can solve. Havok has proven itself able to crack thousands of interacting rigid body objects, while ODE buckles on the same hardware.

      As for Bullet, I really don't know... It's a very young project and I haven't had much experience with it.

    8. Re:Don't complain by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative
      Correct. However, there is a clause (at least in GPLv2, and a similar clause should exist in GPLv3) that states:

      However, as a special exception, the source code distributed need not include anything that is normally distributed (in either source or binary form) with the major components (compiler, kernel, and so on) of the operating system on which the executable runs, unless that component itself accompanies the executable.


      In other words, it's fine to create GPL software that links with standard Windows libraries. If, however, you want to link it with libraries that are add-ons - like WinG was back in Windows 3.1 days (to pull an example off the top of my head) - you're violating the terms of the GPL.
  7. Better late than never by simonloach · · Score: 2, Funny

    Although, when they said May I didn't think they would release it with only an hour to spare..

  8. Licenses are hard to read! by PhasmatisApparatus · · Score: 2, Informative

    From the Terms and Conditions (http://tryhavok.intel.com/terms.php), it seems as though:

    You can distribute a Havok-enabled game, as long as Havok cannot be separated from it by the end user.

    You can distribute game middleware/game engines/game tools as long as Havok is not included in them at all (I guess the end user will have to get their own license)

    Where game mods fit into this I am not sure.





    I'm not a lawyer, blah blah blah

    The above sentence is self-contradicting)

  9. Ok, I'll bite: by JSBiff · · Score: 2, Informative


    I don't know that the GPL expressely forbids linking to non-GPL libraries. However, there is definitely a license conflict between Havok and the GPL. . .

    From the Havok license:

    "i. publicly demonstrate, and publicly distribute a Havok-enabled non-commercial end-user compiled, binary executable software application or game for the Windows PC Platform, in which the Software is compiled and distributed within the software application or game in an integral, non-separable way, for no direct or indirect commercial value;". Notice, particularly, "compiled, binary executable. . .in which the Software is compiled. . . in an integral, non-seperable way".

    From the GPL v3 (GPL v2 is basically identical in this regard): See section 6 (not copied here because it's fairly long). In a nutshell, if you distribute binary/object code of the GPL'ed work, you MUST offer recipients access to the source code. So, if you honor the terms of the Havok license, you violate the GPL, or vice-versa.

    Also from the GPL v3: See section 5, wherein the user is given permission to modify the work and distribute copies, but those copies MUST be licensed with the GPL (and so the user gets permission to modify the work). Access to the source code, and the right to modify it, means that end users could seperate Havok from the GPL'ed software. So, again, you would have to either violate the Havok license (by providing users access to the source and the right to modify it), or violate the GPL.

    There's absolutely no way you can simultaneously abide by the terms of both the Havok license and the GPL.

    1. Re:Ok, I'll bite: by chromatic · · Score: 3, Insightful

      There's absolutely no way you can simultaneously abide by the terms of both the Havok license and the GPL.

      From the GPL side, you can -- but you cannot distribute the resulting work.

      I don't know that the GPL expressely forbids linking to non-GPL libraries.

      It doesn't. The GPL only governs redistribution.

      --
      how to invest, a novice's guide
  10. The problem is more the Havok license than the GPL by JSBiff · · Score: 2, Interesting


    The thing is, the Havok free license requires you to distribute your whole software package as binary only. That's incredibly un-friendly to Open Source. Sure, there could potentially be an open source license which doesn't require shared libraries you link to be open source as well (actually, in reading the GPL, I think you could make the case that you could even distribute your software under the GPL if it links to proprietary libraries, because in as much as those libraries are not really part of your program, they wouldn't have to be covered by the GPL), but even if you used such a license for your software, you STILL couldn't link your software with Havok, because the Havok license *requires* you to NOT distribute source code to people. The Havok license is FAR, FAR more restrictive and obnoxious than the GPL ever was or will be.

  11. Re:Strike one! by johannesg · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It does not support Visual Studio 6. Only 2003 and 2005. Boo! Fixed that for you...
  12. How does it compare by PhrostyMcByte · · Score: 3, Interesting

    What I want to know is: how does it compare to the existing Open Source physics libraries, such as Bullet (which was made by an ex-Havok developer)?

  13. why not GPL it? by RiotingPacifist · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Given that no closed source game is going to GPL themselves instead of pay for a license why didnt they just GPL the thing and let open source games benefit? I'm no Stalmanist but in this case there is no down-side to GPLing it only extra geek credit.

    --
    IranAir Flight 655 never forget!
    1. Re:why not GPL it? by Haeleth · · Score: 2, Interesting

      They don't want anyone to profit from the free version.

      It would be entirely possible for someone to use a hypothetical GPL version to make a commercial game; they would have to distribute the full source code to the game engine, of course, but the artwork, soundtrack, gameplay, etc could all remain non-free, so the game as a whole would be commercially viable.

      Of course, it's true that only a tiny minority of commercial developers would be interested in that kind of business model, so maybe the open-source game development community should get together and petition Havok to go the extra mile. Maybe they don't understand the protections the GPL would give them, or just hadn't thought of it. It can't hurt to ask, right?

    2. Re:why not GPL it? by TomorrowPlusX · · Score: 2, Informative

      Because there is an absolutely unfathomable amount of brilliant mathematics running behind the scenes. The kind of stuff that competitor physics engine authors would love to pore over.

      Even if they can't use that work, they can certainly learn some of the tricks that Havok uses.

      Now, if what you want is open source physics, check out ODE ( http:://ode.org ) and bullet ( http://www.bulletphysics.com/ ) both are fully open source, both are well documented, and both are quite good, but aim at different usages.

      ODE is great for robotics simulation, and is decent for games. ODE's strength is in joint types ( motors, sliders, etc ). ODE has a clean C api and is very easy to use.

      Bullet is faster and more stable than ODE; however it is targeted more towards gaming. It's weak in joint types, but has much better performance when dealing with large groups of bodies. Bullet also has soft-body simulation as well, which is very very impressive. Bullet has a C++ api which, well, is well designed but perhaps over-designed. Finally, bullet supports Collada export, so you can wire up rigs in Blender and use them in your game.

      I've been using ODE for five years. I love it. But recently I worked with the bullet folks to port their demo app to cocoa ( they have a windowsy demo, which uses GLUI, but was fugly on OS X ). I learned a lot about bullet doing that and I can see myself moving that direction in the future, when the joint types mature.

      Anyway; I just wanted to make it clear that there are valid open source physics engines out there.

      --

      lorem ipsum, dolor sit amet
  14. Re:Strike one! by johannesg · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I use that ten years old IDE because it is more pleasant to work with than the more recent versions.

    Something really simple that *really* annoys the hell out of me in any later version: in VS6, you can cancel the message window (i.e. make it disappear) by hitting escape. In later versions, you cannot.

    In VS6 you can create keyboard macro's and bind them to any key you want. I've been looking for this option in later versions and could not find it.

    In VS6, DevStudio was first and foremost a C++ environment with some other stuff thrown in. In later versions it is the other way around: the normal C++ stuff seems to be an afterthought, and the focus is on lots of other stuff I don't use and don't care about, like HTML and .NET.

    The list was longer, but it has been a while since I last used those later versions.

    Oh, and those "free" versions of yours? They aren't free for corporate use...

  15. Re:Strike one! by ichigo+2.0 · · Score: 2, Informative
    Ok, so you really hate the newer VS versions. I still think it's unreasonable to expect that companies like Havok spend time making their SDKs compatible with VS 6 when even Microsoft doesn't support it.

    Oh, and those "free" versions of yours? They aren't free for corporate use...
    Actually, they are:

    7. Can I use Express Editions for commercial use?

    Yes, there are no licensing restrictions for applications built using Visual Studio Express Editions.