Gamebryo 2.3 revealed, supports DX10, VSM and PhysX

Tuesday 19th June 2007, 06:06:00 PM, written by Farid

Click for a bigger version
Emergent Game Technology’s middleware solution Gamebryo, which we presented in earlier articles (part 1, part 2), announced yesterday the release of the 2.3 version of its famous game engine.

Amongst the refinements introduced in this new version, such as updated versions of Floodgate, a multi-cores code optimiser, and of Rendering Framework, which is used for programming specific rendering effects; as well as the integration of AGEIA’s PhysX SDK. The most eye-catching one is the pre-release of Gamebryo’s Direct3D 10 renderer. This not-yet-final re-architected version of the renderer supports most DX9 (sic) features in its current version. The Shadow System tool of the renderer was not left on the side of the road for this upgrade since it has seen some changes as well, with now the complete support for VSM, edge tap smoothed PCF and obviously other more basic shadow mapping technologies..

Discuss on the forums

Tagging

± emergent, gamebryo


Latest Thread Comments (10 total)
Posted by Sobek on Tuesday, 19-Jun-07 23:30:56 UTC
Oh Elder Scrolls V, thee shall chunk more than ever.

I hope that PhysX support isn't the end-all-be-all...Havok can still be used with this new version of Gamebryo, right?

Posted by AlexV on Wednesday, 20-Jun-07 07:41:24 UTC
Why?I`m guessing they`re using AGEIA's SDK(which is actually quite good, and free) instead of Havok's expensive one, not restricting physics to PhysX cards. There are a number of other devs doing this, without having any PhysX card exclusive/specific stuff in their software.

Posted by Sobek on Friday, 22-Jun-07 00:10:24 UTC
So...they're essentially using the PhysX libraries and coding it all to function happily on any old system, regardless of whether they have a PhysX card or not? Wouldn't this be far more performance costly than just sticking to Havok? Or are they fine tuning these PhysX libraries (or whatever you may call them) to be more performance-friendly than just a straight out PhysX-software solution?

Just seems to me like Havok would still be the easier, and more widely compatible choice to go with.

Posted by Skrying on Friday, 22-Jun-07 02:21:31 UTC
Quoting Sobek
So...they're essentially using the PhysX libraries and coding it all to function happily on any old system, regardless of whether they have a PhysX card or not? Wouldn't this be far more performance costly than just sticking to Havok? Or are they fine tuning these PhysX libraries (or whatever you may call them) to be more performance-friendly than just a straight out PhysX-software solution?

Just seems to me like Havok would still be the easier, and more widely compatible choice to go with.
The PhysX SDK covers more than the card, much more. For instance, Sony licensed it for the PS3 even I believe and that certainly does not have any PhysX hardware inside. The SDK should provide useful ways to cover both those with and without the add-in card and contain advanced physics in the game... hopefully. PhysX makes the SDK free because it widens the market greatly to their hardware (which I assume they make very large margins on).

Posted by AlexV on Friday, 22-Jun-07 06:44:20 UTC
Quoting Sobek
So...they're essentially using the PhysX libraries and coding it all to function happily on any old system, regardless of whether they have a PhysX card or not? Wouldn't this be far more performance costly than just sticking to Havok? Or are they fine tuning these PhysX libraries (or whatever you may call them) to be more performance-friendly than just a straight out PhysX-software solution?

Just seems to me like Havok would still be the easier, and more widely compatible choice to go with.
The SDK is just like Havok's SDK(generally speaking). The dev chooses wheter or not he implements anything specific for PhysX cards.

Posted by Sobek on Friday, 22-Jun-07 06:59:17 UTC
Right...so, they're just strictly using PhysX libraries, or do they still use Havok too?

It's just that you say they don't have to implement anything specifically for PhysX cards...which would mean if they chose to use nothing for PhysX at all (or PhysX-card only) then they would have to have a fallback physics platform (for those without PhysX cards), which I assume is still Havok, right?

If not, then what i'm getting at is all of these (normally PhysX-only) libraries would have to be re-tooled to work with any old system irregardless of whether it has a PhysX card or not, and I was under the impression that would be extremely performance-costly.

Am I way off the beaten path here? :razz: I'm just trying to work out if they've incorporated PhysX support just for those with PhysX cards, and if they are still using Havok for those without.

Posted by Skrying on Friday, 22-Jun-07 08:24:39 UTC
You don't need a PhysX card to use the PhysX libraries! There is no need for a "fallback" because the PhysX SDK is a all around solution. There would be no need for Havok and therefore a reduction in costs and still (probably) the same amount if not MORE support all around. Not only do you have the free SDK that provides in areas for those without a PhysX card but also provides for those with. It is a better solution I would assume and a much cheaper one.

Posted by AlexV on Friday, 22-Jun-07 08:44:42 UTC
QFT. But this also shows what proper marketing can achieve for a firm:for the consumer, physics=Havok. Kudos to them for that.

Posted by Sobek on Friday, 22-Jun-07 09:18:07 UTC
Yeah allright calm down, sheesh.

I was just under the impression that a PhysX based physics solution required a PhysX card to perform optimally. I wasn't aware that it was also designed to just do run-of-the-mill average physics work like Havok right off the bat.

Posted by AlexV on Friday, 22-Jun-07 09:26:12 UTC
What makes you think I am not calm?My respect for Havok marketing was not an attempt at irony, it was sincere appreciation.

Run-of-the mill average physics like Havok right off the bat-see, that`s exactly what I`m talking about!When ppl read Havok they go:ooomph, rag-doll, physics, coool!When they read Ageia, they go:crap expensive card, no good etc. That`s why I think Ageia flopped in their approach, and they should`ve pushed their SDK harder to the forefront, instead of trying to push the PhysX cards. If they would`ve achieved considerable recognition as a Physics solution provider, the card would`ve had a far easier life, IMHO.


Add your comment in the forums

Related News

Nvidia's 2x Guaranteed Program
It's Dead Jim - a debate about the future of the graphics API
Book reviews: The Magic of Computer Graphics and 3D Engine Design for Virtual Globes
A new approach to graphics performance analysis
A speculative look on the Wii U GPU
RWT: An Updated Look at Intel's Quick Path Interconnect
RWT Analyzes AMD's Fusion and Llano
CUDA 4.0 and Parallel Nsight 2.0 released
Sony: PSN is Down, Personal Information Compromised
RWT: Memory Bandwidth and GPU Performance