Right, Rain, but I didn't say it would be exclusive. I said it would work really well on DX12 HW, which is designed to run physics and lighting. DX12 doesn't make Havok effective, it makes it more effective... or did you forget what a HW accelerator is?

Also, you're really going to call what Nvidia showed at GDC rudimentary math? It is the beginnings of CG quality physics being rendered in real time, and it's far more advanced than any other physics renderers available because of it's use of DX12. They even went as far as to explain that their solution wouldn't run as well on other HW. Besides, the real point is that it doesn't matter how fast physics currently are because there still isn't enough processing power to run complex physics and lighting in real time. Simple ≠ complex.

Furthermore, who says Direct Physics is simply Havok with a new name? MS could have used Havok as a base to build a physics renderer similar to Nvidia's, but MS had mentioned Direct Physics as far back as 2006, so it's likely that MS incorporated elements of Havok into DP and not just changed Havok's name.

As far as the "DX12 ball licking" goes, grow up with that rhetoric. DX12 will make a difference because it's HW >in addition to< being an API. Does PS4 have DX12? Without it, it will have to use emulation of the HW functions in order to render scenes of the same quality, while DX12 will add to the processing of what the XB1 already has. You don't have to believe me, but when XB1 sees parity with PS4 multiplats remember this conversation.

First, let me say I wasn't really trying to dissuage against your comment completely. That wasn't my intent.

But, moving on to address your reply, Havok isn't a hardware based physics engine. That would be something more like PhysX. Havok at it's core is built to be hardware independent. Generally, DX side stuff like this is also hardware independent.

What MS is doing here, is integrating the physis engine into the SDK. That's where it becomes beneficial. Unless MS has greatly revamped the already great Havok tools, I can't see that the way it runs will be changed at all between DX hardware and non DX hardware. It's not to say that certain hardware sets couldn't include processes which run Havok tools functions more effectively, but I feel at this juncture, that is a lot to presume, and outside a couple aspects of the tools, I'm not sure it's necessary due to how efficient the tools already are.

I think it's important to understand just how good Havok tool's are. And I for one am quite excited that it's being implemented into a SDK level solution for many reasons. The socketed approach that has been had to be taken up to now is sufficient, but this just makes everything more streamlined.

Anyhow, onto the math of Nvidia. Yes, I'm going to call it rudimentary math. When I say rudimentary, it's entirely relative to actual complex physics calculations which are used for say actual CG rendering techniques, or real world prediction/application of physics models, which are not practical for in game implementation. The math used in games is simple. It's about as basic as it gets, because that is what works best, and overall, super complex algorithms just aren't needed for any kind of physics that you see in games. Physics, by and large, is made up of "tricks" which uses algorithms which achieve a similar or acceptable result without worrying about exacting precision.

This isn't the same as rendering physics, which is where things like lighting and what not reside. But overly complex algorithms which provide real photo-realistic images are still a long ways off from gaming application. DX hardware or not, you're talking about hundreds of millions of compounding algorithms processed per pixel to abstract how light is reflected, and it takes an exhorbitant amount of time...so even in lighting physics, it uses "simple" math to achieve desireable results.

"who says DXP is merely Havok with a new name"

It's havok tools integrated into the SDK. This is actually known already in the dev community. Many people are excited about it.

If it's more....what would it be? Based on all I've said, what more is needed?

I'm not saying it's all Havok tools, or what MS has changed compared to the Havok tools package, or how exactly it's integrated for development implementation, but it is Havok tools.
As far as growing up....maybe I could have chosen better wording, but NVidia has a history of talking up DX and not taking responsibility for poor performance from anything else because they simply decide not to write drivers. Sorry if my callous description offended you, but that's what NVidia has done for a while now, and it's annoying for devs, and for some people who actually understand that NVidia is often full of sh*t when it comes to this stuff.

"Does PS4 have DX12"

No. But it won't have to emulate it. That's not how API's or tools like this are set up. Havok has run great on PS consoles since it's inception, just as it has on Xbox since it's inception. Havok isn't hardware specific, and despite this new itteration having an SDK level implementation, which is good for Windows hardware support, MS is still going to offer Havok tools in a way that allows for portability. If they don't, they've pretty much just rendered their new toolset useless to any development outside of those which are only meant for windows platform release. Even if they don't offer up Havok, then 3rd party tools will make it more than possible....such as the ones I build which specifically work to port code between platforms where no direct portability is avaiable.

Normally I don't like to list my resume, but consider that I got my first major job in the game industry due to having written my own physics engine, which led to me becoming a tools developer, and I am intimately well versed on how these things work, because it's made up a bulk of my professional career.

That being said, don't take what I say in either comment in this thread as some sort of derision against what MS is doing. This is actually one of the most exciting things I've ever looked forward to on a professional level. It's not something that's going to make a huge difference to the end user, as I assume end results will be on par with what we have now, but from a development perspective, this is pretty exciting stuff.

Sorry if I seem argumentative with you about it, but I actually do understand what's going on here, and I feel that my knowledge on the subject is much more relevant than you're correlations to things which aren't applicable to what is happening here. Going forward, I have no intention of being critical of this, and really look forward to sharing my expertise to those who may wonder what some of all this means for them or development.

So take that for what it's worth.