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."

11 of 86 comments (clear)

  1. 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!

  2. 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".
  3. 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
  4. 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 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.

    2. 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.

    3. 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.

    4. 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.
  5. 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
  6. Re:Strike one! by johannesg · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It does not support Visual Studio 6. Only 2003 and 2005. Boo! Fixed that for you...
  7. 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)?