PDA

View Full Version : DX3 Linux



furryfreak
18th Jan 2009, 15:35
I thought it'd be interesting to see if any one else here uses Linux, and if they'd like to see a DX3 port...

I use Linux about 95% of the time, so I'd really like to see a Linux port, though I've got a windows partition, so I'm not that bothered.

Its just a shame that most software developers assume that they cant develop software for open source platforms without being open source themselves. I personally think the lack of proprietary software is what is holding back Linux's (and BSD's) growth the most.

Meh, DX3's support for Linux is pretty much predetermined by the engine it's using, and as far as I know (and I don't know much), the engine they're using doesn't even support OpenGL, so I doubt there'll be a port. It'd be interesting to see what other people think though...

***Please no Linux vs Windows posts***

El_Bel
18th Jan 2009, 15:42
I would like to see it, but nope, its not gonna happen.

Eabin
18th Jan 2009, 15:48
+1.

SemiAnonymous
18th Jan 2009, 17:40
+1.

Says the guy with one post

I personally doubt it, although I know quite a few friends of mine would love it. Shame, really, Linux could use some attention in the gaming scene

K^2
18th Jan 2009, 18:23
I'd like to see it happen, but since every gamer is going to be running Windows in foreseeable future, I don't see how it would make a difference. Games for Linux will start popping up after sufficient number of businesses switch to Linux for office uses. There is a trend towards that, but it's hard to say how it will go. Windows just refuses to die for some reason. You'd think it'd be done after ME. After Vista for sure. But Microsoft has really good damage control.

furryfreak
18th Jan 2009, 18:46
Well, most big businesses do use Linux or other UNIXish OS's to run their servers, but they seem reluctant to use it in the office. You'd think they'd be keen to switch to Linux or BSD for office use, especially seeing as how popular OpenOffice and other open source software is .

As for its use as a gaming platform, things are rather stale... for some reason developers insist on using directX, despite it having no real advantage over OpenGL. Then there's the licencing issues, most game engines are packed with middle-ware, so to port the engine to Linux, they'd have to get all the 3rd party DLL's ported to Linux too.

El_Bel
18th Jan 2009, 18:52
Well Direct X is easier to program as far as i know, and they can port the game to Xbox without a problem.

Jerion
18th Jan 2009, 18:56
I don't see it happening. It would be cool, but it probably wouldn't be practical to spend the time on a Linux port.

K^2
18th Jan 2009, 18:59
Bull. I program in both DirectX and OpenGL. Shaders used to be easier to do in DirectX, but that's about it. Modern Cg shaders can be used in either one with sufficient ease. OpenGL, in contrast, is lighter and can be ported to other platforms.

People who say crap like "DirectX is easier" are the people who never learned how to program properly. All they know is how to call special functions in countless libraries. That's why modern games crawl on the hardware on which they should fly.

Seriously, don't listen to any of the MS crap. DirectX was a good idea when it came out. It was nice to have DirectDraw and Direct3D in one convenient package. It has outgrown its use, though. Worse yet, MS is trying to also force feed you .NET and XNA. I can rant for hours about that, but let me cut it short by simply saying that if every programmer who only knows how to make a game with such libraries would have his hands crushed, it would be a good thing for gaming industry. Well, maybe not industry, because games would be more expensive to make. But quality of games would improve for that exact same reason.

El_Bel
18th Jan 2009, 19:09
People who say crap like "DirectX is easier" are the people who never learned how to program properly.



Yup, i can confirm that :rasp:

K^2
18th Jan 2009, 19:20
I mostly mean people who think they know how to program. You're allowed to have such misconceptions. The other kind make me want to strangle someone with a mouse cord. Fortunately for them, my mouse is cordless.

furryfreak
18th Jan 2009, 19:21
Seriously, don't listen to any of the MS crap. DirectX was a good idea when it came out. It was nice to have DirectDraw and Direct3D in one convenient package. It has outgrown its use, though. Worse yet, MS is trying to also force feed you .NET and XNA. I can rant for hours about that, but let me cut it short by simply saying that if every programmer who only knows how to make a game with such libraries would have his hands crushed, it would be a good thing for gaming industry. Well, maybe not industry, because games would be more expensive to make. But quality of games would improve for that exact same reason.
True... I've done very little 3D programming, so I don't know which is easier to use, but OpenGL is much more efficient, and above all else, portable.

.NET's terrible, and don't get me started on C# ... Why take a perfectly good structured, object orientated Language, and turn it into ... that?

Digitaldruid
18th Jan 2009, 20:18
has anyone tried running DX1/2 under wine. and secondly developers have not hinted that they are making the app very DX/.net centric. so my hope is it should be possible to run it under wine.

Eabin
18th Jan 2009, 20:22
Says the guy with one post


It seemed to be the first thread where my opinion could be of some use. Maybe someday the companies out there learn that there indeed is a market for games on the linux platform, and employ programmers that are able to do portable programming. It wouldn't cost a fortune.

furryfreak
18th Jan 2009, 20:27
Digitaldruid: Yeah, I was running DX1 in WINE just the other day, works very well. The only problem I had was that that the game ran twice the speed it should, but i fixed that by downloading schedtool setting the affinity to one core. I haven't tried DX2, but I'm sure it'd work to some extent.

Eabin
18th Jan 2009, 20:29
Digitaldruid: Yeah, I was running DX1 in WINE just the other day, works very well. The only problem I had was that that the game ran twice the speed it should, but i fixed that by downloading schedtool setting the affinity to one core. I haven't tried DX2, but I'm sure it'd work to some extent, heck how could it run any worse?

Because the DX2 engine is...not worth commenting? Although it does work to some extent. As does Thief 3. But the last time I tried, both of them were in fact unplayable.

AaronJ
18th Jan 2009, 20:33
Because the DX2 engine is...not worth commenting? Although it does work to some extent. As does Thief 3. But the last time I tried, both of them were in fact unplayable.

What was wrong with DX2's engine? Unreal 2 with Havok physics, I didn't experience any serious glitches.

furryfreak
18th Jan 2009, 20:41
What was wrong with DX2's engine? Unreal 2 with Havok physics, I didn't experience any serious glitches.

It never ran properly on any of my computers, even on low settings until I got an 8800...

Digitaldruid
18th Jan 2009, 20:47
Because the DX2 engine is...not worth commenting? Although it does work to some extent. As does Thief 3. But the last time I tried, both of them were in fact unplayable.

unreal engine 2.0 which is used by both DX2/Thief 3 is one of the best game engines present in the market. if a game based on UE 2.0 behaves unpredictable and is bug ridden its not the fault of the engine developer. :mad2:

K^2
18th Jan 2009, 21:16
It's just the way they hacked a lot of stuff in. Very poorly done. The base engine may have been good, but what they made out of it was terrible. All optimization gone, physics totally out of wack, etc.

don't get me started on C# ... Why take a perfectly good structured, object orientated Language, and turn it into ... that?
I was hoping to avoid even mentioning the name. But yeah. Best I can figure out is that someone in MS thought that Java was a really cool idea. Without thinking a while about reasons for which Java was created and realizing they have nothing to do with needs of most applications, they just started building a new language. And sure, C# does make the code more easily ported, the way Java is meant to be. Of course, the only two systems that this can be efficiently done with are XB 360 and Windows PC, so effectively, they just made sure that their C# XNA games run equally poorly on both platforms. Great job. Another unmistakable achievement by MicroSoft.

Eabin
18th Jan 2009, 21:43
It's just the way they hacked a lot of stuff in. Very poorly done. The base engine may have been good, but what they made out of it was terrible. All optimization gone, physics totally out of wack, etc.


This.
Unreal is a very capable engine, I agree, but what ION Storm did to it was too early for the target machines, and very unfinished too. Even 6 months later it didn't feel completed.

binlargin
18th Jan 2009, 23:09
It's not worth the resources to build, test and release binaries for a platform that has 1% of the market share, even if the engine was platform independent/portable.

On the subject of graphics programming APIs, OpenGL and D3D are both archaic C (hence the need for XNA), but D3D has better documentation and actually works on Windows without extensive insider knowledge of which functions say they're supported by the drivers but actually aren't.
One nice example is the simple task of NPoT texture mipmap auto-generation on a modern ATI HD card. It either works, drops into software mode or silently fails. The only time you find out is when your customers complain that the game runs at 1fps or looks like crap. Maybe Microsoft did the smart thing and generated them in software instead making their texture load routines slightly slower but improving compatibility for bad hardware, sounds sensible to me.
It's not just ATI either, NVidia and Intel are just as bad, try drawing gl_points or lines with a thickness (hello 1fps!).
OpenGL is a minefield in Windows, it's not a matter of being a "better programmer" it's all about learning through pain.

Eabin
19th Jan 2009, 00:10
Those things sound like driver issues to me. The benefit of (trying to) producing AAA titles is having support from IHVs. There are always going to be issues with drivers, be it DirectX or OpenGL, and with good Vendor support, both should be fixable.

Also, there are a few good people out there, that would be glad to do the porting for you (not for free, but for a fair price. and if you are AAA, they may do it for even less to help the platform).

See for example this thread (http://www.phoronix.com/forums/showthread.php?t=11021).

furryfreak
19th Jan 2009, 00:30
yeah, what Icculus and Linux Game Publishing are doing is really great, thumbs up to all those guys.

dixieflatline
20th Jan 2009, 23:38
I think the best hope for the future of Linux gaming rests on a making a better Windows emulator.

Anachronos
31st Jan 2009, 00:27
Would be nice if Deus Ex would run on OpenGL aswell. From what l remember you had the option of running the original DX on DirectX, OpenGL and Glide.
Never tried Glide since from what l remember it was for Voodoo cards and the

OpenGL was buggy on my GeForce 3 l had during that time.

K^2
31st Jan 2009, 00:56
It won't. DX was built on Unreal engine which already ran on OpenGL. DX3 is built on Tomb Raider Underworld engine that is purely a DirectX engine. There isn't a lot known about future requirements for Deus Ex 3, but you can bet your slippers that it will run on DirectX9 and require a graphics card that supports Shader 3 model.

jamhaw
31st Jan 2009, 01:17
I don't understand why big developers so rarely seem to make games for Macintosh or Linux, considering that smaller developers often make Linux or Macintosh versions. Not that it affects me, Microsoft fan that I am, but I would have thought that big developers like Eidos would have more rescources to port games than little indie developers like Frictional Games...

K^2
31st Jan 2009, 02:00
I'm guessing because Q&A is such a big part of development process, and the proceeds from Linux/Mac titles just don't cover these.

Jerion
31st Jan 2009, 04:06
Porting a game to Mac OS X isn't as big a problem as it used to be- There is always the option of Transgaming's Cider software. This leaves a Mac port a viable possibility. Not so much for Linux though.

Eabin
31st Jan 2009, 10:33
I wouldn't classify transgamings service as "porting". But they claim that every game that gets a cider port will run under linux/cedega too.

A native port or at least an OpenGL Renderer would be preferrable.

Blade_hunter
31st Jan 2009, 13:37
Normally I think all games must be released in all OS made for computers, why it's always windows, that is the chosen platform, because there is the most users ? Ok that's the case but I don't think with this kind of politics we are able to give what maost people wants:
Choose their operating system for practical use.

they choose windows because if they don't do that they can't play at their favorite game or they need to use emulators, have multiboot on their PC.

I think the game needs a linux port and even a Mac port.

Perhaps not at the first PC release , but a bit after I think we don't need to make games all for windows and forgot the other platforms

WhatsHisFace
31st Jan 2009, 15:26
Mac/Linux gaming? And people say PC gaming is in trouble. :lol:

Jerion
31st Jan 2009, 20:34
I wouldn't classify transgamings service as "porting". But they claim that every game that gets a cider port will run under linux/cedega too.

A native port or at least an OpenGL Renderer would be preferrable.

Preferable, yes, but I'm talking about a Mac release alongside the windows one, not a year or two later. The CD engine would require an entire re-write to make it use OpenGL- something I highly doubt Eidos want's to do right now.

Blade_hunter
1st Feb 2009, 00:05
Hum I forgot this detail most games are unfortunately only for DX 9/10 ...

Jerion
1st Feb 2009, 00:46
^^ Hence Cider (http://transgaming.com/products/cider/).

Lejoni
7th Mar 2009, 12:41
I run 100% Linux. and have done so for over 10 years.
(I do not have MS Windows what so ever, not even as a Vitrual Machean)

Deus Ex 1 runs fine in WINE! (playing it all over agin atm. actualy)

And to the people who are missinformed about..:
Games under Linux - I play (or have played) the following Windows games with WINE:
*Arcanum
*Baldurs Gate I & II
*Deus Ex 1 (IW just dont interest me.)
*Diablo II
*Dungeon Siege II
*EverQuest 1 & 2
*Elderscrolls III(Morrowind) & IV (Oblivion)
*NeverWinter Nights 2 (Original NWN has a native linux client)
*Sanitarium
*Star Wars Galaxies
*Im sure Iv forgotten many + there is alot of games that run that I dont play.
(if the above seams unlikely to you, keep in mind that OpenSource evolves very fast at times, the last year if WINE devel has made it almost totaly DX9 compatible)
(I also play many games that do have native Linux clients.)

WINE = Wine Is Not an Emulator:
*Wine dont emulate a Windows PC it simply provides a windows like enviroment. More like simulating Windows from the applications perspective.
This is the reason to why WINE works on Intel Mac's (x86) but not the PPC Mac's (as that would require emulation of the PPC CPU)

But yeah I have to agree, that for many game devs it is easyer to develop for DX as supposed to OpenGL. But only for one reason. It's easyer not to have to learn something new. This is true for everything. Change frightens people. The unknown frightens people. But the brave overcome that fear and evolve.

Thanx for me :)

Bio Denton
7th Mar 2009, 15:26
I thought it'd be interesting to see if any one else here uses Linux, and if they'd like to see a DX3 port...

I use Linux about 95% of the time, so I'd really like to see a Linux port, though I've got a windows partition, so I'm not that bothered.

Its just a shame that most software developers assume that they cant develop software for open source platforms without being open source themselves. I personally think the lack of proprietary software is what is holding back Linux's (and BSD's) growth the most.

Meh, DX3's support for Linux is pretty much predetermined by the engine it's using, and as far as I know (and I don't know much), the engine they're using doesn't even support OpenGL, so I doubt there'll be a port. It'd be interesting to see what other people think though...

***Please no Linux vs Windows posts***Cedega, Wine or some other emulator are probably going to be your only options.

WhatsHisFace
7th Mar 2009, 16:34
I play (or have played) the following Windows games with WINE:
*Arcanum
*Dungeon Siege II
*Sanitarium


You must give me your impressions of these games now.

Lejoni
8th Mar 2009, 15:38
You must give me your impressions of these games now.

Well Arcanum (Steamworks and Obscura)
is prolly my favorite isometric RPG all time.
Its very non linear. like Elderscrolls.

Sanitarium is a totaly awsome adventure game. Im very supriced it got so little attention. Personaly I found it for 10SEK (about 1 Euro) in a all-for-10 store many years after the game was released.
It's explore/adventure/pussle-solving with for its time very nice graphics and cinematics. Horror style.

and Dungeon Siege II. well its not realy much special, its like Diablo II but better graphics, and sligtly more options. just fun for some hack-and-slash every now and then.

Lejoni
8th Mar 2009, 15:39
Cedega, Wine or some other emulator are probably going to be your only options.

*sighs*