Andrew said this the other day -
"When we actually get around to making the port we'll most likely be working with Havok3 since Havok Inc is no longer 'supporting' Havok2. That's okay, since there is very little difference between Havok3 and Havok2, whereas there is a big difference between Havok1 and Havok2. The only thing relevant to us that was added in Havok3 is a feature called 'continuous collision detection' which allows for more correct collision details and prevents accidental interpenerations during the integration step of the physics engine. Unfortunately, it costs extra CPU cycles, and it isn't clear to us that we'll be using it (it can easily be disabled to fall back on Havok2 behavior).
Incidentally, we're thinking we might stop supporting 'joints' in Havok1 before we move to Havok3. Joints are buggy but very difficult to fix while supporting the legacy format, which is why we haven't fixed them yet. Joints are in desperate need of a complete redesign, and would be much easeir to re-implement after Havok3 rather than trying to provide legacy support during the port. Eliminating joints would remove a big chunk of the work required for the final transition from Havok1 to Havok3, making the whole project easier to break up into achievable pieces."
It's all good - can't make an omelet without breaking eggs - and those "eggs" are buggy and weird anyway. The only things I use joints for at the moment are my weathervanes, which are just me messing about anyway. I wonder how many people use joints, and what they use them for? I'd guess the number of uses is small given their buggy nature. Havok3! W00t!
posted by - 10:04 AM