Why Havok2 when Hacok3 is already out.

Man by the time they finish porting Havok 3.... Havok 4 will be out!

Thanks for the heads up Andrews, it makes things much clearer than the rumors we were all feeding on.

Best,

Thank You Andrew. The forum will be a far better place when frequent frank postings from the office keep us occupied with reasonably informed discussions about the state and future of the software.

When you all aren't participating, we start making stuff up, arguing about it, and calling each other stupidheads. Keep it up, encourage your colleagues, please.

wat good is a physics engine when your lagged to fouk!

Well, there are a lot of things that can be done with the current physics engine.. I'm not sure a lot of people have given it the attention it deserves.

That being said, restarting projects isn't as bad as it sounds. You develop an immense amount of expertise and refactoring is often the best solution.

Agreed, I've remade bots for Furcadia 5 times over and each time they got more and more general purpose, more and more modular. My latest incarnation was a step below "put new class in directory, tell running bot to load class." (as in, don't shut down and restart the bot, dynamically load the new class)

If joints are being a major pain in the ass for the engine upgrade, I too agree that we should ditch them. We can always get them back at a later date, in the meanwhile the other upgrades far overshadow the loss of a buggy but fun physics tool. I'd say put up a public poll asking if people agree on this stance, I'm pretty sure you're going to get an overwhelming response in favour of the update.

Hey, Andrew!

Keep up the good work! Someday in SL: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8926325136071596338

I would be satisfied if I could make four-bar linkages. They wouldn't even need to interact physically with anything outside the linkset, in fact they could even operate purely in the client in non-physical movement driven only by llTargetOmega (for vehicles) and avatar movement between two attachment points (for attachments), so they dont have any effect at all on the sim, and I'd be happy.

Why?

Because then you could build realistic jointed multi-legged beasties using pantograph links between the leg pairs, and tails and snake bodies that twist as you move. Anything from centaurs to centipedes...

I just want to ask...

They have you trying to do this ALONE?

Just want to confirm this, or be told I'm a fool.

I think this would be cool to have sometime.