3 ms·
Havok also strikes me as a rather difficult piece to replace. A physics engine will often have hardcoded handling of special cases, and things can be sensitive
by magicalhippo 2y ago
Havok also strikes me as a rather difficult piece to replace. A physics engine will often have hardcoded handling of special cases, and things can be sensitive to lots of numerical details.
Haven't played TF2 but at least HL2 relies heavily on physics for gameplay, so while replacing the rendering engine might lead to rendering artifacts which can be annoying but tolerable in many cases, replacing the physics engine will probably lead to game-breaking issues.
One could reverse engineer it, but then you're into copyright territory...
- jamesfinlayson 2y agoThere have been a few attempts to replace VPhysics (Valve's library built on top of Havok: https://vghe.net/source-engine.html#vphysics https://vghe.net/source-engine.html#vphysics They seem fairly functional but not fully drop-in replacements.
- account42 2y agoIt's not like the Havok-using version of HL2 right now on Steam is free from physics bugs. Bugs can be fixed.
- magicalhippo 2y agoOf course, just feels like a physics engine is a few steps harder than many other dependencies. For example, one of the bugs might be inadvertently relied on in one of the map puzzles, unbeknownst to the map creator.
- jamesfinlayson 2y agoYeah I've heard that it's Havok with a bunch of Valve changes and fixes on top. So presumably it's a fairly outdated version of Havok.