<!--quoteo(post=1936986:date=May 18 2012, 09:01 AM:name=Yuuki)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Yuuki @ May 18 2012, 09:01 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1936986"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->This guy is the lead developer of Overgrowth, he seems pretty good to me :
Also all his claims are supported by relevant references, if you didn't noticed.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
David is amazing, and Wolfire and Ryan Gordon has done more for Linux gaming with their humble bundles, than any large company has in the past (except maybe id).
<!--quoteo(post=1936987:date=May 18 2012, 05:04 PM:name=GaidinTS)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (GaidinTS @ May 18 2012, 05:04 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1936987"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->You do realize that PC gaming itself is considered fairly niche compared to the massive console gaming market right?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm not arguing the popularity or prevalence of one platform over another, but one rendering API over another. If a game is natively rendered using OpenGL, then a DirectX version would not exist, their would be no need for it. Hence why a natively OpenGL game would run in OpenGL, even in Windows. A game which uses DirectX in Windows, but OpenGL on macos, was ported as an after thought.
<!--quoteo(post=1936993:date=May 18 2012, 05:22 PM:name=player)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (player @ May 18 2012, 05:22 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1936993"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Ya I thought I quoted you a couple of excellent-looking solid-running games, yet you're still posting as if you have any credibility left...<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
One company does not prove your point, not by a long shot. It was an eye opener, I grant you, as I was under the impression that absolutely no current generation engines would use OpenGL. Unfortunately, its use is circumstantial and usually not entirely desirable.
If 99% of releases use DirectX, the 1% that use OpenGL do not prove that it is competitive. The numbers do not lie. People need to realise that this is not a corporate conspiracy, money simply means advancement.
<!--quoteo(post=1936992:date=May 18 2012, 09:15 AM:name=Imbalanxd)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Imbalanxd @ May 18 2012, 09:15 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1936992"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I'm not arguing the popularity or prevalence of one platform over another, but one rendering API over another. If a game is natively rendered using OpenGL, then a DirectX version would not exist, their would be no need for it. Hence why a natively OpenGL game would run in OpenGL, even in Windows. A game which uses DirectX in Windows, but OpenGL on macos, was ported as an after thought.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Sorry, I thought you were saying that a AAA title wouldn't be defined as such if it wasn't released on windows.
Either way, the whole argument is a little silly, as the graphics API should be less and less important on a well designed engine. There aren't many technical hurdles to get a game up and running on Linux, but technical hurdles have never been the issue. It's simply a matter of the most bang for the most expensive buck, which is the developers' time, and Linux simply isn't a mainstream gaming platform, and never will be unless you get developers to stick their neck out and make the risky time investment to support platforms like linux.
<!--quoteo(post=1936691:date=May 17 2012, 10:13 AM:name=Imbalanxd)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Imbalanxd @ May 17 2012, 10:13 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1936691"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->OpenGL is great for research and all, but it will never be an API for game graphics. DirectX will always be better.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What? OpenGL was THE API for game graphics. QuakeWorld....Quake2...= OpenGL It took years and plenty of people pressing buttons in MS to make DirectX even worth programming a game on.
As far as the whole Linux client ... until Steam has a Linux client I think you are hoping for the wrong thing. Steam gives them authentication, patch download, voice, so many tools they need.
<!--quoteo(post=1936987:date=May 18 2012, 05:04 PM:name=GaidinTS)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (GaidinTS @ May 18 2012, 05:04 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1936987"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->You do realize that PC gaming itself is considered fairly niche compared to the massive console gaming market right?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Yes, niche that is simply few times bigger than any given console market. (hint, brick and mortar comparisons are heavily biased in favor of console games) Intel estimated size of PC market and you can find that somewhere.
I thought a Linux client was a matter of weeks after release because few parts of the engine depend on Windows. At least I read that in one of those lengthy development diaries. Now it seems to be off the agenda.
TalesinOur own little well of hateJoin Date: 2002-11-08Member: 7710NS1 Playtester, Forum Moderators
Again. A Linux SERVER was (and as far as I am aware, still is) on the priority-list. A CLIENT has never even been noted as even a definite possibility, much less a promise.
According to http://unknownworlds.com/ns2/spark-engine-questions-and-answers-1-2/ a dedicated server should be already there. Where is it? The client for Mac and Linux was listed as target for a long time on the website when it was in alpha-funding. At that time it was improbable because of Steamworks being Windows only and finalizing the game was more important, but things have changed now. Valve releases a source engine game after another for Linux in collaboration with the community. I know that UWE does not have the experience and manpower of Valve software. Still I had hope that this would come soon.
I would rather see them simply improve the performance of the Windows client. At that point, the game would run in Wine, which is something any real Linux user is comfortable with.
Unfortunately, I get only ~60 fps on a complete beast of a system in Windows (on Ultra of course, no vsync). That should be the focus of improvement, which should return an improvement in the function of the game within Wine.
As it is, the game flickers terribly at anything above 1024x768 windowed in wine. Still unplayable even at that and, there's little interest in improving wine to run NS2, especially when big titles run better in wine than they do in windows (WoW, D3, Source titles, etc.)
I really don't think the developers of NS2 have much to stand on, other than the fact that it does work on Windows. Though just barely (I should have massive framerates....), I don't see anything that makes me think they can move it to another platform with much success.
Get the client to perform well and these requests will disappear.
I would rather see them simply improve the performance of the Windows client. At that point, the game would run in Wine, which is something any real Linux user is comfortable with.
It is something John Carmack is comfortable with because he does not want to make the effort and it is the reason I won't buy IdTech titles in the future and stick to Valves great native OpenGL ports of their source engine which performs well even on older systems.
Comments
<a href="http://blog.wolfire.com/2010/12/Overgrowth-graphics-overview" target="_blank">http://blog.wolfire.com/2010/12/Overgrowth-graphics-overview</a>
Also all his claims are supported by relevant references, if you didn't noticed.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
David is amazing, and Wolfire and Ryan Gordon has done more for Linux gaming with their humble bundles, than any large company has in the past (except maybe id).
I'm not arguing the popularity or prevalence of one platform over another, but one rendering API over another. If a game is natively rendered using OpenGL, then a DirectX version would not exist, their would be no need for it. Hence why a natively OpenGL game would run in OpenGL, even in Windows. A game which uses DirectX in Windows, but OpenGL on macos, was ported as an after thought.
One company does not prove your point, not by a long shot. It was an eye opener, I grant you, as I was under the impression that absolutely no current generation engines would use OpenGL. Unfortunately, its use is circumstantial and usually not entirely desirable.
If 99% of releases use DirectX, the 1% that use OpenGL do not prove that it is competitive. The numbers do not lie. People need to realise that this is not a corporate conspiracy, money simply means advancement.
Sorry, I thought you were saying that a AAA title wouldn't be defined as such if it wasn't released on windows.
Either way, the whole argument is a little silly, as the graphics API should be less and less important on a well designed engine. There aren't many technical hurdles to get a game up and running on Linux, but technical hurdles have never been the issue. It's simply a matter of the most bang for the most expensive buck, which is the developers' time, and Linux simply isn't a mainstream gaming platform, and never will be unless you get developers to stick their neck out and make the risky time investment to support platforms like linux.
What?
OpenGL was THE API for game graphics. QuakeWorld....Quake2...= OpenGL
It took years and plenty of people pressing buttons in MS to make DirectX even worth programming a game on.
As far as the whole Linux client ... until Steam has a Linux client I think you are hoping for the wrong thing.
Steam gives them authentication, patch download, voice, so many tools they need.
Yes, niche that is simply few times bigger than any given console market. (hint, brick and mortar comparisons are heavily biased in favor of console games) Intel estimated size of PC market and you can find that somewhere.
Unfortunately, I get only ~60 fps on a complete beast of a system in Windows (on Ultra of course, no vsync). That should be the focus of improvement, which should return an improvement in the function of the game within Wine.
As it is, the game flickers terribly at anything above 1024x768 windowed in wine. Still unplayable even at that and, there's little interest in improving wine to run NS2, especially when big titles run better in wine than they do in windows (WoW, D3, Source titles, etc.)
I really don't think the developers of NS2 have much to stand on, other than the fact that it does work on Windows. Though just barely (I should have massive framerates....), I don't see anything that makes me think they can move it to another platform with much success.
Get the client to perform well and these requests will disappear.
It is something John Carmack is comfortable with because he does not want to make the effort and it is the reason I won't buy IdTech titles in the future and stick to Valves great native OpenGL ports of their source engine which performs well even on older systems.