Linux, Gaming and You

[Kasyx]

I thought I would take the time to create a thread dedicated to Linux Gaming, where people can see just what the Linux gaming market actually consists of. I have seen a lot of people posting things like "Well, Linux looks cool, but it just doesn't look like it can run my games... :(", well I have created this thread to assist people who are looking into Linux, and who enjoy gaming. I will probably be updating this post quite often, because (thanks Eskom), I don't have time to write everything down due to my power going out in 20 minutes, so this will look half-finished.

I will try to break this down into "Chapters", if you will.

What you need to know

There are one or two programs I may mention (mostly "Wine" and "Cedega"), these are basically emulators (even though they really aren't, but they achieve emulation) that are able to run Windows software on Linux (although not all software), Wine is generally used for applications (i.e. Photoshop), although WoW works on it as well (as I am sure other games do too). Cedega was originally built off the wine "API", however it includes DirectX integration allowing one to play more "advanced" games on Linux. Cedega, however, comes with a monthly fee (in a sense, you can pay the $5 once off and use Cedega indefinitely, but you will not be entitled to support or updates).

DirectX 10 functionality is not yet available on Linux. Sorry guys, you won't be playing Crysis on full any time soon, but that's just the way life goes, and chances are high that by the time PCs are available that are actually capable of running Crysis on full, DX10 will be out for Linux anyway :D

DirectX is not the only "graphical software" out there. Few people seem to have heard of OpenGL (Open Graphics Library), which is used to power 3D engines for ID software (Quake series, Doom series, etc.). I will discuss this topic a bit later one.

So why aren't more games made for Linux?

Basically, because Microsoft owns the industry. This is pretty much due to the horrifying concept of Vendor Lock-ins (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vendor_lock-in). I would take the time to explain this concept, but isilanes from Handyfloss (http://handyfloss.wordpress.com/) does it so very well, thus I will quote:



Imagine a country with no bicycles.

One day a guy comes up with the idea of making them, and starts to produce, and sell, bicycles that we shall call of type A. Being an empty market, the A-type bicycles quickly triumph, and the maker makes a lot of money.

But some time later, a second guy devises a better bike design (type B), and decides to produce and sell it. The price and the quality are better, so when people buy a new bike or replace an old one, they tend to buy bikes of type B. Soon enough, the market is dominated by the new, better, bicycle.

Now imagine a country with no cars.

One day a guy comes up with the idea of making cars, and starts to produce and sell cars of type A. As cars need petrol to run, A-type gas stations develop in parallel to car sales. Building gas stations is expensive, but sales are guaranteed, as everyone has or will have A-type cars, and they need A-type petrol: their growth is synergistic.

But some time later, a second guy devises a better car design (type B) and decides to produce and sell it. The price and the quality are better, BUT drivers can not buy B-type cars, because there is no B-type gas station. The problem is that, since noone has a B-type car, making B-type gas stations is doomed to bankrupt. So, no B-type cars are sold, because there are no B-type gas stations, and B-type gas stations will not be made until B-type cars are popular!

The result is a vendor lock-in.


Make sense?

Here is how it pertains to Microsoft/Linux:


* Proprietary communication protocols that will not work with any other OS. This includes modifications on the IE web browser, so that web pages had to be done for it, and then be incompatible with other browsers. Or the MSN protocol, that is kept as closed as possible, to make free clones of the MSN client as little compatible as possible.
* Proprietary file formats that will not be possible to modify with tools other than the “official” MS ones: WMV for video, DOC, XLS, PPT for office documents.
* As much “Windows-only” software as possible, including games. Making games for platforms other than Windows ensues the wrath of MS, something that game makers can not take lightly, since their sales depend on the game actually running under Windows.
* As much “Windows-only” hardware as possible. The first idea that someone gets about an OS is that it is the piece of software that interacts with the hardware. If so, it is astonishing why it is not MS the one incorporating the drivers in the OS, instead of the hardware makers (hardware != software) providing them. We have all grown accustomed to buying printers, mice, external CD/DVD/HDs… with a CD with the “Drivers for Windows 98″ or some such. Why? Windows can not make the drivers out of the blue, true. But the hardware makers can just make the necessary data public, so anyone will be able to make drivers. If the maker keeps these specifications secret, they will simply not sell anything.


You can read the full article from which these quotes are taken here (http://handyfloss.wordpress.com/2007/12/04/vendor-lock-in-for-dummies/)

Linux and DirectX

Cedega has managed to "emulate" (or rather incorporate the DirectX API), making most DirectX games playable on Linux. The issue with this, however, is that when a new version of DirectX is released (i.e. DirectX 10), Cedega has to wait for Microsoft to release the DX API to the public before beginning work on it, whereas all other gaming companies locked in with Microsoft have had access to the APIs right through the development of it. This means that games running the new DX version come out too quickly after the release of it (new DX version), that Cedega has not had a chance to incorporate it yet, thus the only way to play games using said DX version is by using Windows.

Linux and OpenGL

You know how sometimes you start dating this relatively pretty girl, and then she invites you over for dinner where you meet her insanely hot step-sister? Well think of DirectX as your date, and OpenGL as her step-sister. So you're sitting there and wondering why you met your date before you met her sister, and then you realise that it's because your date is a total attention whore pretty much being pimped by her father, meanwhile her super hot step-sister is locked in the basement and any guy who wants to get with her better be able to dodge her step-father's shotgun blasts. As you may now have guessed, the father is Microsoft. I may have taken this metaphor a bit too far...

Basically game developers are not using the awesomeness of OpenGL because it would anger Microsoft, and game development companies just can't take that kind of chance because Windows is pretty much 90% of the OS market.
There are, of course, a number of games (and game development companies) who pretty much give Microsoft the middle finger and do whatever the hell they want, which generally includes using OpenGL. Because you are probably too lazy to click on a link, I will list some of these games here:

* America's Army
* Call of Duty
* City of Heroes
* City of Villains
* Counter-Strike
* Doom 3
* Enemy Territory: Quake Wars
* Far Cry – Defaults to D3D
* Half-Life (not Half-Life 2)
* Neverwinter Nights
* Penumbra: Overture
* Prey
* Quake series
* Serious Sam
* Serious Sam 2 – Defaults to D3D
* Starsiege: Tribes
* Star Wars Jedi Knight: Jedi Academy
* The Chronicles of Riddick: Escape from Butcher Bay
* Ultima IX: Ascension
* Unreal series
* Warcraft 3 - Defaults to D3D in Windows
* Wolfenstein: Enemy Territory
* World of Warcraft - Defaults to D3D in Windows
* X-Plane

So yes, if you wish to take a moment to recall just how awesome some of those games look, by all means; I'll wait. If you wanna find out about more OpenGL games, check out this Wikipedia article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenGL#OpenGL_Games).

[Kasyx]

Native Linux Games

There are actually, surprisingly enough, quite a few games that run natively in Linux (either directly, or through being ported from Windows), here are a few:

id Software together with Raven Software ported Doom 3, Quake series, Return to Castle Wolfenstein, Enemy Territory: Quake Wars. Bioware released Neverwinter Nights. Epic Games released Unreal Tournament 2003, Unreal Tournament 2004 and they will port Unreal Tournament 3. Croteam released the Serious Sam series. Introversion released Darwinia, Uplink, and DEFCON. S2games released a Linux client of their title Savage 2 soon after it's launch. Loki Software was the first such company, and between 1998 and 2002 ported Descent³, Heretic II, Heroes of Might and Magic III, Kohan: Immortal Sovereigns, Myth II: Soulblighter, Railroad Tycoon II, Rune, Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri, Sim City 3000, Tribes II, and Unreal Tournament. Linux Game Publishing was founded in 2001 in response to the impending demise of Loki, and has brought Cold War, Postal², and X²: The Threat to Linux. icculus.org has ported Aliens versus Predator, Duke Nukem 3D, Medal of Honor: Allied Assault, and Rise of the Triad.

If you want to find out more about native games, as well as Linux clones, check out this Wikipedia article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux_gaming).

DirectX vs. OpenGL

Right now, the latest version of DirectX is DX10 (as everyone pretty much knows), which is responsible for the sheer face-melting awesomeness of Crysis.

The current stable release of OpenGL is 2.1, which is responsible for the entire Quake series, Doom 3, the Unreal series, and so on.

To give you a comparison:

http://i16.tinypic.com/4lzugkk.jpg

As you can see, OpenGL2.1 and DirectX 10 are pretty close. However, the OpenGL2.1 images are renders, where as some of the DirectX 10 images are in-game screenshots. So yes, right now, DirectX 10 is better than OpenGL2.1. Don't fret, however, as if you compare OpenGL2.1 to DirectX 9, you can see just how much better OpenGL2.1 is. And yes, OpenGL2.1 was released August 2, 2006 to compete with DirectX 9. So what about an OpenGL competitor to DirectX 10, you ask? Well, look no further, being released later this year in direct competition to DX 10, is OpenGL3 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HvuTtrkVtns)
(That video is of id Software's new iTech5 3D engine, built on OpenGL3). If the comparison between OpenGL2.1 and DirectX 9 is anything to go by, OpenGL3 is going to blow DX 10 right out of its vertex-shaded, anti-aliased water.

So how will more games get made for Linux?

Well, this responsibility falls upon you, dear Gamer. If you make the effort to start using Linux to run your games (hell, even dual boot with Vista if you are desperate for some DX10 goodness on occasion), there will be more of a demand for games that run natively on Linux. And if there is one thing I have learned from business strategy it is that demand must be met, and if there are a bunch of gamers whining in forums because the latest Counter Strike: Sandwich-Point Source Pan doesn't run well under Linux, game developers are going to take notice.

Dual Booting, is it worth it?

As much as I would like to say that dual booting is an awesome way to go, I just don't really think it is. See the problems with it is that one should be running Windows for gaming, and then Linux for everything else. But what happens then is that one starts favouring one particular OS over the other, and the effort to boot across into Linux when you can just do the same thing in Windows becomes far too great. So this sort of goes completely against my previous section (how lame is that?), because it's almost a catch-22; Linux needs gamers to use it in order to have games made for it, but gamers will only start using Linux when it has games.

I must be honest, I tried setting up a dual boot system on my home pc just this weekend and it failed miserably. I installed Windows XP to play my games, and then I installed Kubuntu 7.10 to do everything else. However, the next time I attempted to boot into Windows, it bitched about a corrupt/missing file (which was probably due to my partition scheme). See that's the thing; Windows is not the type of kid who will wonder out onto the playground to make friends, but rather sits in the corner of the sandbox eating mud and crying whenever any of the other kids get too close. Windows does not like having friends, especially when they are sharing the same hard drive (yeah, that's not anti-competitive in the least). So my suggestion? Use Windows... On your gaming machine, for everything else; use Linux :D

After my dual boot fiasco, I just went back to Windows XP SP3 on my main (gaming) pc (which is what I am typing on now). However, I run Linux on my laptop and my work pc. So that right there is my suggestion (obviously I understand if you can't run Linux at work); if you have a laptop or a spare pc that you use, load Linux on that (my suggestion is some flavour of Ubuntu), and keep your main pc on Windows for gaming because yes, right now Windows is still best for gaming, and I don't think anyone can deny that. But that shouldn't stop you from at least trying Linux out. It all depends on the games you play; WoW and Warcraft 3 run on Linux just fine, as does Battlefield 2. So if you are a WoW-addict, give it a try on Linux. Who knows? Your framerate might just be that much higher :D

Disclaimer: I, by all means, do not know everything to do with this topic and some of the things I have said may be a complete load of crap. However if you feel this is the case, or you want to mention something I neglected to, by all means let me know and I will try add it in when I get a chance in an attempt to make this Linux Gaming thread as useful as possible.

Happy fragging.

[milomak]

i must revive my interest in AA.

[HavocXphere]

Anybody know how the FramesPerSec compare in UT2004 in windows and linux? Would be interesting.

OGL3 sounds interesting. I coded a few OGL1 apps a few years back. Was fun.

[fskmh]

Anybody know how the FramesPerSec compare in UT2004 in windows and linux? Would be interesting.

OGL3 sounds interesting. I coded a few OGL1 apps a few years back. Was fun.

I've [-]played[/-] researched ut2004 quite a bit on Windows and Linux and in my experience they both performed the same, whether it was the more hardware intensive onslaught and assault or a small 1-on-1 deathmatch.

<OT>
I had the same experience with Doom 3.
</OT>

[milomak]

from my doom3, quake4 and ut2004 experiences, i would say my linux install had the slighter edge. the games felt smoother on my hardware that should be retired very soon.

[jaarik]

does anybody know if the old Unreal Tournament II will run under wine? I was capped yesterday, so I can't check it out on winehq

[Kasyx]

does anybody know if the old Unreal Tournament II will run under wine? I was capped yesterday, so I can't check it out on winehq

There is actually a Linux port of all the UT games (except for 3, which is coming soon).



Yeah, you can play UT in Linux without having to deal with wine.... You've probably heard of the software company called Loki , which ports some very good game titles over to Linux. Anyways, Loki offers a 100% free Linux port of UT (total port, no wine involved).

I think on my machine, UT runs better in Linux than it does in Windows. What You'll Need:

* It's good to beat the minimum hardware requirements by at least double if you want to play it at its highest settings. The requirement are in the readme file.
* You'll need to already own the UT installation CDROM, which goes for CAN these days.
* You can download the Linux installer which is about 6MB, the links are below.
* No serial number required.

The readme file will tell you how to run the installer. Basically, the installer is an executable shell script with the installation files embedded into it. The Linux installer will use the data files from the Win CDROM to install UT on your Linbox. Oh yeah, once it is installed, you don't need the CDROM anymore. :) If you like it, you should support Loki Software by buying one of their other great games they ported to Linux. I heard that they have filed for Chapter 11 a while ago. Loki's UT page: http://www.lokigames.com/products/ut/ here's the D/L link if you're interested: ftp://ftp.lokigames.com/pub/patches/ut/ut-install-436.run and the readme file: ftp://ftp.lokigames.com/pub/patches/ut/ut-install-436.run.txt


(taken from http://www.plug.ca/article.php?story=20020108132402283)

[Skeptik]

does anybody know if the old Unreal Tournament II will run under wine? I was capped yesterday, so I can't check it out on winehq
Excuse me, but why would you want to take a Windows game and run it on an emulator running on a Windows machine??:confused:

[milomak]

skeptik is jaarik running his linux in a virtual environment?

[jaarik]

skeptik is wrong. i am running linux on my laptop natively.

[Nick333]

I'm guessing friend skeptic was trying to imply that a PC is a windows machine. In other words: why not just run your games on Windows?

[Asha'man X]

Slightly off topic, but there was a series running in NAG magazine not to long ago that detailed the history of DirectX (which actually means more Direct3D for gamers) Wikipedia also has some interesting articles on OpenGL vs D3D.

I intend to install Mandriva 2008.1 on my soon to be finished computer, and try to play what games I can. I'll have to re-enable onbord sound, as my X-Fi won't be supported, but I can live with that.

Phoronix.com also has updates on Linux gaming stuff from time to time.

[jaarik]

I'm guessing friend skeptic was trying to imply that a PC is a windows machine. In other words: why not just run your games on Windows?

at least because it is not a challenge.

[Devill]

Thanks for the info / tips / pointers ect ect, very helpful :D

[ShockG]

As you can see, OpenGL2.1 and DirectX 10 are pretty close. However, the OpenGL2.1 images are renders, where as some of the DirectX 10 images are in-game screenshots. So yes, right now, DirectX 10 is better than OpenGL2.1. Don't fret, however, as if you compare OpenGL2.1 to DirectX 9, you can see just how much better OpenGL2.1 is. And yes, OpenGL2.1 was released August 2, 2006 to compete with DirectX 9. So what about an OpenGL competitor to DirectX 10, you ask? Well, look no further, being released later this year in direct competition to DX 10, is OpenGL3
(That video is of id Software's new iTech5 3D engine, built on OpenGL3). If the comparison between OpenGL2.1 and DirectX 9 is anything to go by, OpenGL3 is going to blow DX 10 right out of its vertex-shaded, anti-aliased water.

This is incorrect. You can't make a direct comparison between APIs using a screen shot or different software titles. If any graphic's element is written using Cg+ for example then it can compile to DX or OGL compliant code. So a screenshot can never be a representation of which API is better. If you're dealing with real time rendering you have to see any comparison in motion with its associated resource use. Both OpenGL and DirectX use an immediate mode rendering approach which means speed is directly tied to visual quality.

For the same features employed in each game, which API between the two has a larger overhead? you can't tell that from a screen shot.

The last picture on the bottom left is from NVIDIA's human-head demo which indeed makes use of OpenGL, but uses proprietary vendor extensions to render that image. It's a showcase of hardware not an API...

90% of NVIDIA's tech demos are in OpenGL and that is because they can use custom hardware features through OpenGL's extensible extension function. Also it's a means of stopping their tech demos from running on other hardware. The demo can just check for extension support in the installed ICD, when it reads certain extensions aren't supported and the ICD version is correct then its obviously not Nvidia hardware or the GPU does not support the features. Either way the rend result is the tech demo will not work. ATi uses a similar method, but reads device and vendor id from the API and system driver.


Making games for platforms other than Windows ensues the wrath of MS, something that game makers can not take lightly, since their sales depend on the game actually running under Windows.
That's not true either. There were many variations of DOS before and games written for DOS worked in all these different DOS versions. For developers its about numbers, the open source community simply doesn't have the number that would justify making a game for that market. Where possible most games that make use of OpenGL as the chosen graphics API will work under Linux. Those that buy the game for use under Linux are looked at as a bonus not as a primary source of revenue.

For any given API Microsoft provides better tools for its own API than the competition does for theirs. As a developer, better tools mean a shorter production time and lower costs. Microsoft's' DirectX SDK is free, well documented and many people are proficient at it. Which is why it becomes the obvious choice for many developers.


Basically game developers are not using the awesomeness of OpenGL because it would anger Microsoft, and game development companies just can't take that kind of chance because Windows is pretty much 90% of the OS market.
There are, of course, a number of games (and game development companies) who pretty much give Microsoft the middle finger and do whatever the hell they want, which generally includes using OpenGL. Because you are probably too lazy to click on a link, I will list some of these games here:
No, this is not right. This is misleading people and it would have been better if you didn't say anything at all. Microsoft couldn't care which API you use to render you game. Be careful that you don't mix up a platform and an Open standard API.
Majority of those games run in a windows platform and believe it or not, all of them install DirectX updates when running on a widows platform. Why? Because they make use of DirectSound, DirectInput, DirectPlay, DirectDraw etc... they use OpenGL as the graphics render but hand over everything else to DirectX.
This flexibility is in directX that you can use any renderer you want, but still have access to the rest of the structures under the DirectX banner.

Choosing to use OpenGL over Direct3D has nothing to do with giving Microsoft the finger, but is based purely on technical merit. What that list fails to mention the way you have contextualized it is that; the Direct3D render in FarCry for instance is faster than OpenGL mode on a a Geforce 6800- class accelerator.
What that list also doesn't tell you about FarCry is that HDR isn't supported in OpenGL.

That list also doesn't tell you that a number of those games use either the Quake or Doom3 engine so it stands that all these games will use the rendering mode of choice that the original engine was based on. In essence that list has duplications which make it bigger than it really is.

Here is an example for you.
Splinter Cell: Chaos Theory used a heavily modified Unreal2 engine and that was the best the Unreal2 engine ever looked. However, what was done to the engine shifted it into a DirectX9.0c game and away from its traditional OpenGL/DirectX roots when used in Unreal2, Unreal 2K3 and Unreal 2K4. At its best it had parallax mapping added to it, true 128-bit HDR and other features that made it a Direct3D exclusive.


Windows is not the type of kid who will wonder out onto the playground to make friends, but rather sits in the corner of the sandbox eating mud and crying whenever any of the other kids get too close. Windows does not like having friends, especially when they are sharing the same hard drive (yeah, that's not anti-competitive in the least). So my suggestion? Use Windows... On your gaming machine, for everything else; use Linux
Now that's just not fair... Why the bashing?
================================================== =========
Anyway I appreciate what you are doing and as you said you welcome some input. So this is my input above. You are tackling a matter that is not only technically involved but has pure business reasons behind it. It is not fair to present misconceptions about Linux and its state of gaming because some things may be unknown to you. Rather have it as it is straight and take it from there.

Otherwise good read :)

[fskmh]

That's not true either. There were many variations of DOS before and games written for DOS worked in all these different DOS versions. For developers its about numbers, the open source community simply doesn't have the number that would justify making a game for that market. Where possible most games that make use of OpenGL as the chosen graphics API will work under Linux. Those that buy the game for use under Linux are looked at as a bonus not as a primary source of revenue.


I assume you mean MS-DOS. What does the MS stand for again?
Market share plays a role, you can twist and turn as much as you like, but that is a fact.



For any given API Microsoft provides better tools for its own API than the competition does for theirs. As a developer, better tools mean a shorter production time and lower costs. Microsoft's' DirectX SDK is free, well documented and many people are proficient at it. Which is why it becomes the obvious choice for many developers.


That's the whole point of any SDK. Obvious choice is one opinion, mine is that it's based on economics.



No, this is not right. This is misleading people and it would have been better if you didn't say anything at all. Microsoft couldn't care which API you use to render you game. Be careful that you don't mix up a platform and an Open standard API.


Then why did they first opt to move OpenGL down the software stack when Vista was being developed?



Majority of those games run in a windows platform and believe it or not, all of them install DirectX updates when running on a widows platform. Why? Because they make use of DirectSound, DirectInput, DirectPlay, DirectDraw etc... they use OpenGL as the graphics render but hand over everything else to DirectX.


See above. Not exactly helping your argument about MS being API agnostic.



This flexibility is in directX that you can use any renderer you want, but still have access to the rest of the structures under the DirectX banner.


Once again, please read the thread title again before posting. It's about gaming on the Linux platform. Does DirectX exist (natively) for Linux? No.



Anyway I appreciate what you are doing and as you said you welcome some input. So this is my input above. You are tackling a matter that is not only technically involved but has pure business reasons behind it. It is not fair to present misconceptions about Linux and its state of gaming because some things may be unknown to you. Rather have it as it is straight and take it from there.

Otherwise good read :)

Now suddenly we have an acknowledgement that "pure business reasons are behind it".
Turning a thread on gaming on the *Linux* platform into OpenGL vs DirectX simply allows you to justify your own misconceptions and present them as fact with technical details on DirectX, which, once again is irrelevant on the *Linux* gaming platform.

[ShockG]

I assume you mean MS-DOS. What does the MS stand for again?
Market share plays a role, you can twist and turn as much as you like, but that is a fact.
It is your assumptions that lead you astray. Maybe you're not aware of it but DOS stands for Disk Operating System and there were many versions. Who said MS anywhere there? Focus please


That's the whole point of any SDK. Obvious choice is one opinion, mine is that it's based on economics If you're not aware of it gaming has become a business. In any development studio you try and do the most you can with as little cost as possible. It is economics, its cheaper to go with Microsft because there are more people proficient in dealing with high level tessellation shaders for example in a DirectX background than there are in OpenGL for instance. These individuals cost less so the whole project costs less.


Then why did they first opt to move OpenGL down the software stack when Vista was being developed? Your question has no relevance to what your quoted. Anyway OpenGL because it is API and driver cannot manage its own context switching, so Vista's Aero could not co exist with a GL accelerated application in a window. With Microsoft having added DWM, this is now possible as it could manage the 3d resources.


See above. Not exactly helping your argument about MS being API agnostic.huh? how is allowing you to use a renderer of choice not API agnostic by DirectX? You don't have to go through directX to make use of audio hardware or input and network capabilities. These developers chose too because DirectX makes their lives much easier by handling all of that which means they don't have to deal with it internally.


Now suddenly we have an acknowledgement that "pure business reasons are behind it".
Turning a thread on gaming on the *Linux* platform into OpenGL vs DirectX simply allows you to justify your own misconceptions and present them as fact with technical details on DirectX, which, once again is irrelevant on the *Linux* gaming platform.
Wrong, the thread starter is blatantly wrong about several things. I am pointing out where he is wrong in as semi technical a manner as possible. You're not not equipped to have this debate with me on this. Please come with something a little more credible.

[chiskop]

ShockG, this thread about gaming on linux and is in the linux forum.

Until DirectX is released natively for linux, your superior technical knowledge is not relevant.

[Kasyx]

For fsck SAKES!

ShockG, are you INCAPABLE OF READING?!

And I quote:


I just don't feel like typing this out yet again, so I will direct you to this thread (http://mybroadband.co.za/vb/showthread.php?t=114111)

Also, I think we would all appreciate it if you would create your own threads in which to argue your complete lack of facts, so don't reply in the thread I just linked, it's for helping, not arguing and I don't really want you derailing that.

Can you do that for me? Thanks ;)

I created this thread to give people a basic idea on the state of GAMING... in... LINUX. Keep your annoying "I'm so technical, look at me!" arguments to your own damn threads, just as I REQUESTED you do when linking you to this thread. You are arguing SYMANTICS against a post giving one a ROUGH idea of the STATE of LINUX in GAMING.

I APOLOGISE for my over-abundance of CAPITALIZATION, but it APPEARS that when I type NORMALLY you do not seem to GET IT.

Now keep your annoying arguments out of my thread.

[ShockG]

Stop spreading untruths about it and I'll stop...
You want to blatantly lie to people to push your myopic views on a situation you have not the slightest clue about? get real...
You have incorrect and flawed statements that you want ignored. At every turn you say something untrue about Windows in the context of gaming and related technologies I will be there to make sure you're telling the truth.

Argue the merits of Linux based on what you know, don't try pull a fast one. ;)

[Avatar_5]

Good thread, equally in terms of original content and sensible discussion and not-so-sensible discussion (read: entertainment)

Seriously though, for someone who switched over to Ubuntu about a month ago, like myself, this is a very informative thread. Thanks.

And I agree with Chiskop, until DirectX runs natively on Linux, there is no place for or use of a OGL vs DX argument in this thread..

[DarthCat]

Linux = :sick:

[Kasyx]

Linux = :sick:

Brilliance! Pure Brilliance, someone get this man a Nobel Prize for his informative, well-stated and clearly well-researched article.

Go troll somewhere else, philistine.

[DarthCat]

Well that is how I feel about Linux. Have too many problems with drivers and games. Have no problems in windows

[chiskop]

Well that is how I feel about Linux. Have too many problems with drivers and games. Have no problems in windows

If you have questions, ask away and plenty of people will try to help.

Otherwise maybe its best you stick to windows, seeing as that works for you. This thread is an attempt to help those who want to game on linux, for whatever reason.

If you don't have anything constructive to say, rather don't.

[Kasyx]

Stop spreading untruths about it and I'll stop...
You want to blatantly lie to people to push your myopic views on a situation you have not the slightest clue about? get real...
You have incorrect and flawed statements that you want ignored. At every turn you say something untrue about Windows in the context of gaming and related technologies I will be there to make sure you're telling the truth.

Argue the merits of Linux based on what you know, don't try pull a fast one. ;)

Again, I say, you are arguing symantics in a rough-guidlines post. I am not going to go into intricate detail on every little thing to satiate your appetite for in-depth technical ****ery. I am trying to keep it simple, something you seem completely incapable of doing lest someone, somewhere have any doubt that everything you say is of PHD-level. People don't care about the intricacies of APIs and graphical politics. It's like I am describing a car as "red, with a leather interior and air-con", and you are ripping it to pieces because it is in fact "maroon with a pleather interior and a fusion-cooled hydro-splatter o2-condensing unit, V8 engine, 17 gears, nitros-injection and a gold-plated fuel cap".

Let's keep it simple ;)

[fskmh]

Well that is how I feel about Linux. Have too many problems with drivers and games. Have no problems in windows

So go play in that subforum then ;).

[milomak]

As has been stated, if DarthCat asked for help with his problems he would find willing help.

[milomak]

Any of you guys running Linux games in 64-bit?

[ShockG]

I am not going to go into intricate detail on every little thing to satiate your appetite for in-depth technical ****ery. I am trying to keep it simple, Keeping it simple and keeping it true are not mutually exclusive. What you have done is keep it untrue and that's where the problem arises. Instead of fixing the errors you rather defend them. Worst part if you use these incorrect assumptions as a spring board from which you make your points.

People don't care about the intricacies of APIs and graphical politics. That may be true and if that is the case rather don't discuss them then. Why bring them up, find that you're ill equipped to tackle them, then turn around and say people don't care. Make you point without untrue reference to them and that's all there is to it.
If you say things like

As you can see, OpenGL2.1 and DirectX 10 are pretty close. However, the OpenGL2.1 images are renders, where as some of the DirectX 10 images are in-game screenshots. So yes, right now, DirectX 10 is better than OpenGL2.1. Don't fret, however, as if you compare OpenGL2.1 to DirectX 9, you can see just how much better OpenGL2.1
then you bring a technical element into it which you shouldn't and as you've said people don't care about it.

Statements such as the one below

There are, of course, a number of games (and game development companies) who pretty much give Microsoft the middle finger and do whatever the hell they wantIs it not possible for you to champion gaming on linux and assist people without talking ill of Microsoft? I mean just from that statement you make it seem as if there are devs who set out to stick it to Microsoft and the games which you have listed are from proof of this. That's not right sir, it is untrue.

[fskmh]

It is your assumptions that lead you astray. Maybe you're not aware of it but DOS stands for Disk Operating System and there were many versions. Who said MS anywhere there? Focus please


Once again, try focussing yourself. You know vey well which DOS I meant, you're just trying to muddy the water ;). Were all those games meant to place nicely with DR-DOS and FreeDOS?



If you're not aware of it gaming has become a business. In any development studio you try and do the most you can with as little cost as possible. It is economics, its cheaper to go with Microsft because there are more people proficient in dealing with high level tessellation shaders for example in a DirectX background than there are in OpenGL for instance. These individuals cost less so the whole project costs less.


No, really? BTW, check the thread title again ;).



Your question has no relevance to what your quoted. Anyway OpenGL because it is API and driver cannot manage its own context switching, so Vista's Aero could not co exist with a GL accelerated application in a window. With Microsoft having added DWM, this is now possible as it could manage the 3d resources.


My question was relevant, it goes to motivation and leveraging of market dominance. You simply don't want to face these questions, you'd much rather hide behind the DirectX technical detail and try fob us off with that.



huh? how is allowing you to use a renderer of choice not API agnostic by DirectX? You don't have to go through directX to make use of audio hardware or input and network capabilities. These developers chose too because DirectX makes their lives much easier by handling all of that which means they don't have to deal with it internally.


Way to avoid the issue. I asked if it's really true that MS don't care about what does the rendering then why did they initially move to put OpenGL above D3D in the software stack. Are you sure that *you* are technically up to this debate?

http://www.osnews.com/comments/11489


Microsoft's current plan for OpenGL on Windows Vista is to layer OpenGL over Direct3D in order to use OpenGL with a composited desktop to obtain the Aeroglass experience. This means that OpenGL performance will be significantly reduced - perhaps as much as 50%. It would be technically straightforward to provide an OpenGL ICD within the full Aeroglass experience without compromising the stability or the security of the operating system. Layering OpenGL over Direct3D is a policy more than a technical decision.




Wrong, the thread starter is blatantly wrong about several things. I am pointing out where he is wrong in as semi technical a manner as possible. You're not not equipped to have this debate with me on this. Please come with something a little more credible.

Check the thread title. It's you that's not equipped for this debate.

Here's a quote from Wikipedia. Are you going to tell the writer that he should also bow to your vapourous technological superiority?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_OpenGL_and_Direct3D


Most of the time, the developers would favor Direct3D because of the dominance of the Windows operating system in the desktop gaming market.

[ShockG]

Once again, try focussing yourself. You know vey well which DOS I meant, you're just trying to muddy the water . Were all those games meant to place nicely with DR-DOS and FreeDOS? Claifornia games and almost all dos games I have play play fine on FreeDos and on Dr-Dos. In fact I use FreeDos when I sue dos ;)

And the dangers of Wikipedia surface again. :) You're wrong (this is getting to be common)

Microsoft's current plan for OpenGL on Windows Vista is to layer OpenGL over Direct3D in order to use OpenGL with a composited desktop to obtain the Aeroglass experience. This means that OpenGL performance will be significantly reduced - perhaps as much as 50%. It would be technically straightforward to provide an OpenGL ICD within the full Aeroglass experience without compromising the stability or the security of the operating system. Layering OpenGL over Direct3D is a policy more than a technical decision. At first yes Microsoft had said they would layer OpenGL over Direct3D, but that wasn't the case in the end. As I told you before the use of DWM meant that you didn't need to wrap GL in Direct3D.


Hardware-accelerated OpenGL is fully supported on Windows Vista with the Windows Aero compositing desktop user experience - just as with Direct3D.

OpenGL hardware acceleration is handled in exactly the same way in Windows XP and Windows Vista - through an Installable Client Driver (ICD) provided by graphics card manufacturers. Without an OpenGL ICD installed, Windows XP and Windows Vista both revert to rendering OpenGL in software on the CPU rather than using GPU acceleration.

The DWM is a key element of the Windows Vista user experience and one of its main functions is to manage the presentation of the Windows desktop by compositing the outputs of multiple applications to the screen. As a complete 3D application in its own right, the DWM uses GPU memory and resources and places an additional load on the GPU, which impacts application graphics performance by approximately 10% for typical applications. End users should weigh the benefits of the DWM and the Windows Aero user interface against this performance cost. An easy way to experiment with a particular application is to disable the DWM, by selecting the Windows Classic or Windows Basic user interface style.
OpenGL was supported in Vista in full screen mode always, it was only with aero where it was going to be wrapped however because of the DWM there was no wrapping required any more. This is what I'm getting at your understanding is so poor that even the things you quote don't help your cause at all. Then to make matters worse you go to Wikipedia for referrals...

[fskmh]

Claifornia games and almost all dos games I have play play fine on FreeDos and on Dr-Dos. In fact I use FreeDos when I sue dos ;)


Open source ftw :D. BTW, how was FreeDOS support back during the timeframe when these games were new? I remember playing with DOSEMU back then.



And the dangers of Wikipedia surface again. :) You're wrong (this is getting to be common)
At first yes Microsoft had said they would layer OpenGL over Direct3D, but that wasn't the case in the end. As I told you before the use of DWM meant that you didn't need to wrap GL in Direct3D.


Go and correct them too then ;). I only quoted the bit that has to do with market dominance. You seemed to be having a problem acknowledging that, so I produced a source just to show the delusion is apparently shared amongst other people too.
Interesting that your rant from yesterday about SGI was also covered on that Wikipedia page. Did they get that bit wrong too?



OpenGL was supported in Vista in full screen mode always, it was only with aero where it was going to be wrapped however because of the DWM there was no wrapping required any more. This is what I'm getting at your understanding is so poor that even the things you quote don't help your cause at all. Then to make matters worse you go to Wikipedia for referrals...

Yes, I did say "initially". At least you're not trying to twist that and attribute it to my poor understanding too. So much for not sidestepping issues etc, I see you've dropped that chorus now. Do you have anything else left?

[ShockG]

Go and correct them too then . I only quoted the bit that has to do with market dominance Anybody can write on wikipedia...
As for a rant about Silicon graphics I don't remember it. when SGI filled for Chpt11 they relinquished control over GL to the Khronos group Quote me again where I ranted about SGI?
you're osnews link says...

Microsoft's current plan for OpenGL on Windows Vista is to layer OpenGL over Direct3D in order to use OpenGL with a composited desktop to obtain the Aeroglass experience. This means that OpenGL performance will be significantly reduced - perhaps as much as 50%. It would be technically straightforward to provide an OpenGL ICD within the full Aeroglass experience without compromising the stability or the security of the operating system. Layering OpenGL over Direct3D is a policy more than a technical decision.
The Khronos group says different (as I quoted above). I would like to believe the people who control the standard are more in tune with it than a wiki page is.... ;)


Yes, I did say "initially". At least you're not trying to twist that and attribute it to my poor understanding too. So much for not sidestepping issues etc, I see you've dropped that chorus now. Do you have anything else left?
huh? what chorus. Sir, the text you have written in the first page of this thread is wrong, I have explained how it is wrong, but you insist on debating me rather than the merits of your text. If you are going to defend what you have written, defend it by all means, but please try stay relevant. The quote you have from osnews is old, incorrect and describes a situation that never came to be. I offer a rebutal from the people who control the standard where's the confusion there?

[fskmh]

Anybody can write on wikipedia...
As for a rant about Silicon graphics I don't remember it. when SGI filled for Chpt11 they relinquished control over GL to the Khronos group Quote me again where I ranted about SGI?


http://mybroadband.co.za/vb/showthread.php?p=1660074#post1660074
Next time, check your own post history.



The Khronos group says different (as I quoted above). I would like to believe the people who control the standard are more in tune with it than a wiki page is.... ;)


'k so you won't accept my link, boohoo. I'm am busy reading the Khronos site though.



huh? what chorus. Sir, the text you have written in the first page of this thread is wrong, I have explained how it is wrong, but you insist on debating me rather than the merits of your text. If you are going to defend what you have written, defend it by all means, but please try stay relevant. The quote you have from osnews is old, incorrect and describes a situation that never came to be. I offer a rebutal from the people who control the standard where's the confusion there?

So now you are going to twist my words. I said "initially", once again, to show that it was originally MS's intention, and there is no smoke without fire.

No you haven't offered any rebuttal. Edit your post and put the quote in there please.

I won't even attempt to catalogue all the questions you have dodged and the cheapshots about me not being able to tell the difference between an API and programming language.
http://mybroadband.co.za/vb/showthread.php?p=1661555#post1661555
You didn't even realise that it wasn't me you were replying to.

It is clear that relevance is a concept that completely escapes you, but if it makes you feel better to accuse me of posting irrelevant stuff, go ahead. I'm getting quite bored with getting pulled down to your tit-for-tat level, so I'm washing my hands of this.

Troll away "sir".

[Kasyx]

*sigh*

So much for keeping this bull**** out of this thread.

[fskmh]

@Kasyx

Sorry to spam your Linux gaming thread man. Maybe you can cut and paste the stuff that is not being disputed into a new thread and ask for a sticky. Would be nice to have some of this stuff to point to as a reference. That was probably your original idea but perhaps 2.0 will do it :D.

Edit: Perhaps we need one for commercial apps that run natively, apps that run with Wine etc.

[ShockG]

You had the pioneer of the industry to spring board from (SGI) In your link on that page that's my only mention of SGI. In fact that's the ony time I ever mentioned SGI. Which part of this is a rant about SGI?


I won't even attempt to catalogue all the questions you have dodged and the cheapshots about me not being able to tell the difference between an API and programming language. You claimed to be a programmer so it stands that you should know the difference between an API and a programming language. I didn't introduce qualifications or professions into anything. You did.

It is clear that relevance is a concept that completely escapes you, but if it makes you feel better to accuse me of posting irrelevant stuff, go ahead. I'm getting quite bored with getting pulled down to your tit-for-tat level, so I'm washing my hands of this. Yet you have still not addressed the issue of incorrect information in the first two posts of this thread. You spend so much time trying to prove me wrong instead of dealing with proving the statements made by the topic starter correct.

So it's okay that the thread starter has misled and mis-informed. Never mind that, focus on the person who would tell you something is wrong. Even if you had proved me wrong, that will never make the thread starter correct written the way he has written it.

Either way I will make my exit here. If anything I hope I have cast doubt on the statements made by the thread starter at the least so that those who want to find out the truth can seek it for themselves. What was posted there is wrong and to defend it then makes it a lie.

Good evening to you all :)

[milomak]

@Kasyx

Sorry to spam your Linux gaming thread man. Maybe you can cut and paste the stuff that is not being disputed into a new thread and ask for a sticky. Would be nice to have some of this stuff to point to as a reference. That was probably your original idea but perhaps 2.0 will do it :D.

Edit: Perhaps we need one for commercial apps that run natively, apps that run with Wine etc.

While I am sure the point of view ShockG brings is valuable for some, i to am of the view that it is out of place in this thread. My take on this thread was what games work on Linux and how can you get them running.

The technical aspects of OpenGL v DirectX (or Direct3D I don't know) should be for a seperate in the main Hardware and Software section given that OpenGL also works in Windows. My 2c worth.

[fskmh]

I agree with that view. OpenGL vs DirectX rants belong in 'Hardware and Software", but we still need good references the we can point users to so that we don't have to repeat ourselves so much.

[chiskop]

Kasyx, please can you take the original gaming stuff out of here and post it in a new thread. I think it is very useful - but then we need to sticky the new thread and keep it on topic.

ShockG, I think what you're saying is valuable - but this wasn't the right place for it.

It does seem like the linux section is going to be a honeypot for trolls*. I do think that we have to really make an effort not attack them - either ignore them, or try to help if they have genuine problems.

____________________
*ShockG - this is not aimed at you.

[Kasyx]

*sigh*

This was supposed to be that sticky.

Guess I have to recreate it.

Thanks, idiots.

[chiskop]

Thanks, kasyx. Maybe send a pm to a mod, ask to sticky it. And you forget the Suck it! at the end ogf the thread title. :)