Information Unigine CEO Offers Free Engine License for Wasteland 2

[crojipjip]

*fah*
If i had my way I'd stick to windows 2000.

...fuck...I miss linuxs common sense file structure and environment variables
And packetsmanager....GOD! WHY DON'T WINDOWS COME WITH REPOS!

And non-schizophrenic rights and without that retarded file buffering caracas which manages to make memory hogs of simple file operations!


Windows...is...SHIT!
Atleast we have the only IDE in the entire world worth using though.

A client could be built that connects to a central database of worthwhile applications for windows. the database is maintained by trustworthy people . md5 auto-verification could be done in locked down memory before its a program you can run. in summary: database entries of sites with direct links/mirrors.

 

[deus101]

Summar of the summary. A GAME ENGINE IS HIGHER LEVEL THAN OPENGL OR DIRECTX AND YOU SHOULDN'T NEED TO KNOW EITHER ONE AT ALL TO USE IT. If you do it's crap, probably open source crap. Shouldn't have to say things that are this obvious.

 

[Licaon_Kter]

A client could be built that connects to a central database of worthwhile applications for windows. the database is maintained by trustworthy people . md5 auto-verification could be done in locked down memory before its a program you can run. in summary: database entries of sites with direct links/mirrors.

there were such clients, they faded away, i use the Filehippo updater to check the ( most of the good known ) apps for updates then manually download and install them, do it once a month and you're ok

shihonage: you have some ideas, but in the end Fargo & co know what issues they have in front of them and they'll pick the best engine to fulfil our & their dream at the same time

 

[DominikD]

Wasteland 2 has already been announced for Windows, Mac and Linux. This is all old news.

Apparently not: DarkTwinkie, inXile employee said about Linux support that "The Kickstarter moved so fast and furious, we learned a ton about what you guys wanted as we went along. We are looking into this [Linux and OS X -- DominikD] right away and will give you an answer in the next few days." It's from yesterday. So no, it's not obvious, old news.

 

[Infinitron]

Wasteland 2 has already been announced for Windows, Mac and Linux. This is all old news.

Apparently not: DarkTwinkie, inXile employee said about Linux support that "The Kickstarter moved so fast and furious, we learned a ton about what you guys wanted as we went along. We are looking into this [Linux and OS X -- DominikD] right away and will give you an answer in the next few days." It's from yesterday. So no, it's not obvious, old news.

Dude, they set a goal and said a Linux port would be made if it was reached. There will be a shitstorm if they backpedal on that. "Looking into it" doesn't mean it might not happen.

 

[DominikD]

Money's been transfered. "Linux port dome time later than PC/Mac release" is an acceptable stance IMO.

 

[Johannes]

Yes that's acceptable, but there's no doubt that they need to do it on all those OS's - anything less would be a fraud. They're looking into "how" and not into "if" of making them.

 

[DominikD]

But if you don't do it in parallel with other platforms, you can go for an engine without Linux support ATM but with planned one. Same thing Shadowrun guys decided to do (granted, they did not commit to Linux port).

 

[Brother None]

Apparently not: DarkTwinkie, inXile employee said about Linux support that "The Kickstarter moved so fast and furious, we learned a ton about what you guys wanted as we went along. We are looking into this [Linux and OS X -- DominikD] right away and will give you an answer in the next few days." It's from yesterday. So no, it's not obvious, old news.

Please read more carefully. He's responding to a thread about SteamPlay and why inXile is releasing the games separately for each platform, rather than offering each consumer a version/license to use for multiple platforms (as Steam does with Mac+Windows SteamPlay). They are looking into this, where this is the question about how multiplatform ownership works.

Mac and Linux were confirmed weeks ago, they're not backing out of this.

 

[FeelTheRads]

You can even pre-order Mac and Linux versions. Would be pretty retarded to have them for pre-order if they are not sure they'll provide them.

Btw, is it really smart to offer pre-orders at this time? Sure, I guess there won't be many, but money from pre-orders should already be profit, no? But they make it sound like they'd be using the money for the game...

 

[dumuh]

Sure that would make some sense if Mac Linux and Windows didn't all use exactly the same hardware. So does Xbawks for that matter.

I don't think you understand what a driver is.

The whole point for an API existing is so that you don't have to program for specific hardware.

It should be a snap to port to the platforms involved, excepting the driver issues.

Oh, wait, so you do understand. Sort of.

How's this then - there's a lot more stability and optimization to be found in Direct3D drivers than in OpenGL ones.

That depends entirely on the hardware in question. The NVIDIA openGL drivers are very mature and the AMD ones are coming along nicely. While we're on the subject though, AMD and NVIDIAS ultra high end GPUs are optimized specifically for openGL and not D3D.

OpenGL is a fine STANDARD, but on driver level it simply hasn't been war-tested and polished anywhere near enough of what Direct3D went through. There's a fragmentation of extensions, standards, and most importantly, driver polish and performance.

Again it all depends on hardware maker's implementation.

Yet if you choose to do both platforms, you have to use OpenGL on both, and even on Windows it is a fragmented, unoptimized mess because barely any games use it (last time I checked Quake Wars ran like shit, and Rage had launch OpenGL issues, and WoW's OpenGL mode was a joke).

That's your problem, trying to play Windows games with OpenGL is completely retarded. Hardware manufacturers are well aware that OpenGL has no presence on Windows so why waste time coding a half decent openGL implementation for it? If you're playing an OpenGL game on shitty implementation of OpenGL don't be surprised if it runs like shit. It's funny that you mention WoW though, considering the OpenGL version of that when ran through Wine actually outperformed the D3D version on Windows. Again though this just goes back to implementation.

Though current onboard videocards may run Wasteland2-level Direct3D quite snappily (WoW-level graphics?), with OpenGL it will be hit-and-miss in terms of performance and compatibility - on Windows, but moreso on the turmolous, do-it-yourself Linux platform.

Most people who game on POSIX OSes know the boundaries of their own hardware. Secondly, a shitty openGL port is not proof that openGL is a bad API, it's just proof that you're playing a shitty port.

This is a good example of how crossplatform focus impacts the project from the very start - by excluding a great, reliable, optimized API.

You're implying that you can't simply utilize more than one API. Most middle ware graphics engines already have support for more than one API.

The biggest goal of a game engine maker is to make things work properly across platforms and with driver versions. Some do a better job than others, and you should select one that does it properly. Unreal 3 does a good job with this, even though it has some serious defects because of this. Why make things that run and look as good as they can on PC and are easy and powerful to use when all you make is corridor console shooters?

An undoubtedly cozy worldview, but not a realistic one. That's why there are "porting teams" and "porting departments".

How does that conflict with anything he just said? Who'd have thought a company that produces cross platform game engines would have specific divisions dedicated to optimizing cross platform performance?

We can talk about this all day though, but what it really all boils down to is that inXile and Fargo have already promised a Linux and Mac version provided they reached a certain donation total. If they go back on their promise I'll never donate to them again.

 

[Jaesun]

Yes Drog, we know you are the resident computer programming expert.

 

[deus101]

Christ on a Throne! There is so much to grab onto here but fuck If I'm gonna bother with most of this vague fanboy nonsense.

But this stands out like a sore thumb.

Hardware manufacturers are well aware that OpenGL has no presence on Windows so why waste time coding a half decent openGL implementation for it?

Its incredible how the entire fucking CAD industry have passed you, half the Khronos group have products on PC with windows or provide hardware with windows support.
All the graphic hardware manufactures are there with them in all this.
So to say that they have no incentive to create optimized drivers, as well as developing OpenGL for windows is as retarded as it gets.

The reason why DirectX support comes out better is because directX only has one vendor, Microsoft. They focus on windows, and can develop new versions straight forward.



In contrast to OPENGL which has for years abused its extension system. Vertex buffer extension, shaders extension, instancing extension.
Then you have the Nvidia, matrix, Ati...all wanting to show off their shit...which meant having to make sure handles for vendor extensions didn't step on any toes...so you have GL_ARB. GL_EXT, GL_ATI, GL_NV, GL_APL..etc, etc.

Now, I have never touched embedded programming far less developed any drivers.
But it dosen't take a genius to see why manufactures support DirectX better then OpenGL. The job is simply easier.

What more, Opengl's move away from fixed functionality to a proper programmable pipeline, as well as removing decade of junk have been hampered by its insistence on providing backwards compatibility.
Now...I use strictly a core profile which have remove most of the obsolete shit, I don't have do any legacy shit (nor am i going to corner myself with any extension bling).
But driver support will still be problematic.

Things have improved and it will get better since everyone is going to need WEBGL or GLES.

But your fanboyism is still delusional.

 

[dumuh]

Christ on a Throne! There is so much to grab onto here but fuck If I'm gonna bother with most of this vague fanboy nonsense.

But this stands out like a sore thumb.

Hardware manufacturers are well aware that OpenGL has no presence on Windows so why waste time coding a half decent openGL implementation for it?

Its incredible how the entire fucking CAD industry have passed you, half the Khronos group have products on PC with windows or provide hardware with windows support.
All the graphic hardware manufactures are there with them in all this.
So to say that they have no incentive to create optimized drivers, as well as developing OpenGL for windows is as retarded as it gets.

The reason why DirectX support comes out better is because directX only has one vendor, Microsoft. They focus on windows, and can develop new versions straight forward.



In contrast to OPENGL which has for years abused its extension system. Vertex buffer extension, shaders extension, instancing extension.
Then you have the Nvidia, matrix, Ati...all wanting to show off their shit...which meant having to make sure handles for vendor extensions didn't step on any toes...so you have GL_ARB. GL_EXT, GL_ATI, GL_NV, GL_APL..etc, etc.

Now, I have never touched embedded programming far less developed any drivers.
But it dosen't take a genius to see why manufactures support DirectX better then OpenGL. The job is simply easier.

What more, Opengl's move away from fixed functionality to a proper programmable pipeline, as well as removing decade of junk have been hampered by its insistence on providing backwards compatibility.
Now...I use strictly a core profile which have remove most of the obsolete shit, I don't have do any legacy shit (nor am i going to corner myself with any extension bling).
But driver support will still be problematic.

Things have improved and it will get better since everyone is going to need WEBGL or GLES.

But your fanboyism is still delusional.

My post was in reference to his point about openGL games on Windows being shitty. Most people who play games on Windows exclusively use D3D. While openGL has matured on Windows in recent times, it doesn't change the fact that most people who previously tried an openGL mode on Windows were left with a bad taste in their mouth.

 

[deus101]

How'd this turn into DirectX vs. OpenGL and why do you think anyone is a fanboy? But fine I'll bite.

Sure it's easier to make a library for a single platform, but nonetheless there's a neverending supply of derp ideas when it comes to DirectX. Such as not changing the DirectX version number for 8 years now, and a million other crazy things that don't even have a purpose.

And the recent specs for OpenGL are disappointing but it has no real effect on anything. It's not hard to support that old stuff from CAD, it's already supported. Card makers are just butthurt they have to continue using the die space for old CAD stuff. But guess what? The die space is used up when using DirectX as well. More obviously, the die real estate has grown like 50 times since those days, so it's like Mc Donald's bitching they have to pay for 2 pickle slices per hamburger instead of one. Cry me a river. If you're not a cardmaker you don't need to care.

The other fear is that it's fallen behind DirectX. Again, so what? Every time NVidia adds a directX feature they then add an extension for OpenGL that does the exact same thing at the same time. Then ATI adds it in like 6 months later. And the problem is what? A small annoyance for engine makers. If you don't want to use extensions, fine, but it's like being stuck in 1999 if you don't use any of them at all. And it's always been the card makers who spurn development, not the other way around. You can make whatever spec you want, doesn't mean it will be supported.

It wasn't meant to turn into DX vs OG, but when Carmack of all people comes out and declares that DirectX has the better API...well you should have realized something was wrong a bit before that.
Supporting multiple platforms isnt OpenGL's main challenge, its adding 3 different opaque handles pointing to three different hardware which basically use the same function, while developers wait for ARB to get of their asses to add a common extension, and when they do they still retain the hardware specific plus all the willy nilly vendor specific shaders. So while the developer wait he can either try to predict the end users hardware and wrangle the right context, which basically means testing on 3 different hardware if he's going to bother at all. That or be a complete retard and add a function which only works on one fucking vendor.

Now here it gets interesting, while we wait for some measly synergy, directX has then probably added(given that its actual functions which has a good chance to be implemented for all vendors) a straightforward function with a straightforward handle.
Rinse and repeat, until you have universal support for Pixel Shaders, vertex and index buffers that work together(oh...and if this is what you were referring to "shit draw calls" you're a bigger moron then i gave you credit for, fyi). Its just ridiculous how far ahead they were in Opengl in terms of expanding their API to the hardware...it dosen't matter who got there first, it matter who did it RIGHT and proper first.
So the years go by, your api gets bigger and bigger, then they find the next marketing hype to jump on, freeze the API, then they grab the more swag functions and jump ship to the next paradigm version.
The old API will still be around.

But here is the thing you are not getting, writing drivers that connects to the API becomes so managable that they can do more then pay lip service, they can work on optimizing. Fewer handles with fewer functions means developers isnt all over the place, all of them using the same functions, testing same handles...and the bugs are easier noticed and dealt with.

As for the guy who took the time covering for several extension...well...you know what happened to Rage? A prestige project pushed by vendors.

Its come to the point that if the games/programs are prestige enough...nvidia or ati will come and "Patch" the game...They can promise all their blood and toil in creating and supporting drivers...but they fail again and again...and that's a problem with OpenGL! because at the moment its a MESS.

I can blaim CAD jews or whatnot, and maybe the fixed function shit will be seperated in time.

But the absurd lack of hardware portability and shitty drivers is a cancer!

" It's not hard to support that old stuff from CAD, it's already supported. Card makers are just butthurt they have to continue using the die space for old CAD stuff. But guess what? The die space is used up when using DirectX as well. More obviously, the die real estate has grown like 50 times since those days, so it's like Mc Donald's bitching they have to pay for 2 pickle slices per hamburger instead of one. Cry me a river. If you're not a cardmaker you don't need to care."

....Die space? Oh god! CARDMAKERS DOES NOT provide functions to DirectDraw or Opengl!

Its the APIS job to know the specs and write the functions...also OpenGL and DD still call for the same addresses/hardware.

You fucking idiot...wheter an api or spec gets frozen or even abandoned most graphics card retain the functions it provides for MANY years to come.



This has nothing todo with the the topic at hand, but i just can let stupid comments like that go.

 

[Jaesun]

You really need to put some skill points into spotting shitposters deus101.

 

[Jaesun]

Oh OK.