The DRI project writes open source drivers. They do not incorporate any binary bits that I'm aware of. They provide (alpha) drivers for the Radeon 8500 and those drivers are open source. They provide binary-snapshots of the relevant driver bits that you can drop onto your machine for use with an existing XFree86 4.2 installation and appropriate kernel. These drivers do not include S3TC/DXTC and thus cannot play UT2003. This situation may change in the future. If this situation changes, then supposedly other cards like the Matrox G400 and ATI Radeon and possibly the 3dfx Voodoo3+ cards will be able to run UT2003.
ATI has written their own binary-only drivers for the Radeon 8500 cards. These appear to be a branch of the binary-only drivers they provide for their FireGL cards, since the hardware is related. I do not believe (but also do not know) whether these drivers are based on DRI or not. They could be, since the license allows such a thing to be made. As of this writing, these drivers do not include S3TC/DXTC and thus cannot play UT2003. ATI and Epic are supposedly working together to remedy this situation and I am told that new, compatible, binary-only drivers will eventually be made available.
Xi Graphics also provides drivers for many cards. Their updated drivers are compatible with UT2003, which makes the Radeon 8500 playable under Linux. A demo of these drivers is available (although it is limited to short periods of use after which time the X server must be restarted) for free and for the full server you must pay a fee.
PowerVR has their own binary-only driver based on the DRI project available for their Kyro and Kyro 2 cards. As of this writing, these drivers do not include S3TC/DXTC and thus cannot play UT2003. PowerVR and Epic are supposedly working together to remedy this situation and I know that updated, compatible, binary-only drivers will eventually be made available.
NVIDIA provides their own drivers and they run UT2003 just fine. They are, as is well-known, binary only.
Re:ATI Cards
on
UT2003 LiveCD
·
· Score: 3, Informative
Not being a programmer, I can't speak with complete authority, but I can tell you what I know. The full game has an amount of textures measured in gigabytes. (Not on a single level, naturally, but this gives an idea of just how much data we're talking about.) The beta build I've played with was a bigger than 2Gb, of which a big chunk was those textures. They shipped lower resolution textures with the demo and it was still 100Mb compressed. I don't know the size of an individual, high-resolution texture, but I imagine that the S3TC/DXTC is required, given the size of things so far.
Re:ATI Cards
on
UT2003 LiveCD
·
· Score: 4, Informative
Epic made the call to only support the newer nVidia cards in the demo
This is false. To cut down on traffic over the AGP bus, Epic used texture compression. Specifically, they used S3TC/DXTC, which is supported by every major, modern 3D video driver on Windows (i.e. their target audience). This extension is currently supported by only two drivers on Linux: the ones from NVIDIA and the ones from Xi Graphics. The XiG drivers support the Radeon cards, but are pay-to-use drivers. However a time-limited demo is available for free. (The server must be restarted every 25-30 minutes or so, in the demo, as I understand it. Buy the real thing, and you get unlimited use, naturally.)
Epic has also said they're working with ATI and PowerVR (makers of the Kyro cards) to improve the binary-only drivers that each of those companies provides for their cards under Linux. If and when these drivers are released, they will be free-as-in-beer.
Again: it is the failing of the drivers under Linux to support a required extension, not Epic. Without that extension, performance would be terrible, so it isn't an option of just turning it off.
Were is my pointy-horned cap?
on
UT2003 LiveCD
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
The submitter wrote:
LiveCDs have always been a great way to sway potential Linux-converts, but this should really impress them!
Well, I don't know exactly what the LiveCD does, but I will say that if you're trying to impress them with the game, then I'm not sure that the Linux demo is going to be that impressive to Windows people. If I were a Windows-only user, I'd ask them what the big deal was, since I could play it on my Windows machine already. And I'd point out that, despite the fact that NVIDIA cards are pretty widespread, the demo on Windows supports a wider range of cards, including the lowly 3dfx Voodoo3. And that it doesn't require rebooting the machine.
If this were a Linux-only game that supported a wide range of hardware configurations and showed off graphical splendor that wasn't generally available on Windows, then that'd be impressive to lots of people. As much as my geeky side can be impressed by the idea of putting together a CD like this, I just don't see Windows people giving a hoot.
FWIW, I'm not a Windows user. I only use Linux at work and at home. Heck, I even wrote an article on the Linux demo and how it came to be. But most Windows users are still puzzled about why a Linux port even exists. They're certainly not going to want you rebooting their machine just so you can boot up Linux and play it from a CD.
Hrm. I don't think so, but it's been a while! The game does play significantly differently from Defender, IMO. You need to get into a trance and use the radar screen a lot and get the right combination of powerups. Stopping the alien capture of the humanoids is the primary focus and enemies are generally eliminated as they get in your way or you save a humanoid.
Also, it includes the original Defender (a simulation, not emulation) and Defender Plus, an interesting hyrbid between the original and the new trippy version.
FWIW, Defender Plus does have some odd slowdown in certain sections, which makes it seem as if it weren't completed or were unoptimized.
Then again, the only Defender I really enjoyed was on the Atari 2600.:^) That and Atari 2600 Stargate.
The games that pushed Jaguar hardest was either Doom or Iron Soldier 2. Both of these took the machine to its limit. The Doom port took a lot of personal involvement from John Carmack. The best game is of course Tempest 2000.
I would have thought that, after all their hype, the Battlesphere people would have the claim to the game that pushed the Jag the hardest. And given that Carmack has said he could optimized DooM better if he had it to do over again, I find it difficult to believe that it's pushing the Jag to the limit. Surely something that pushed more texture mapped polygons was tougher for the system to handle.
Other than that, it was an ok interview, I suppose. I'm not sure that there is a whole lot there that we haven't heard before, except for some of the details about the next-gen hardware. Would have been neat to see an example of the full-antialised graphics from their next sytem, given that good AA is still something people are stiving for today. (E.g. PS2 with jaggies galore on some games. Ick.)
Jag ramblings to follow...;^)
Iron Soldier on the Jag was a great game, FWIW. Since playing IS1, I've had a chance to played Iron Soldier 3 on the PSX but not Iron Soldier 2 on the Jag. The update is both better and worse. The Jaguar, for all its faults, had the most button-laden controller to ship with a console, and for a game like Iron Soldier, that rocked. Unfortunately, the PSX control scheme just doesn't work well enough. On IS1 (and presumably IS2) you could choose the weapon mounted on either shoulder or either hip or one of the two hand weapons with a single button press. For IS3 on the PSX, you have to cycle through weapons, and that turns out to be a step back in terms of control.
Of course, the graphics on the PSX are a step up, but not all they could have been.
And it's true that Tempest 2000 was the best game for the system. Best music and best control and best gameplay experience. Defender 2000 (also by Jeff Minter) and Power Drive Rally are my other favorites. I sold all the rest, including the much-ballyhooed Battlesphere (which was definitely not worth the wait or the price).
(Shameless plug: I also compared Tempest 2000 for the Jag and Tempest X for the PSX here. Jag wins, despite the better hardware of the PSX.)
This game, written in JavaScript, using DOM, UNICODE, CSS, etc. Works in Mozilla only (AFAIK). I feel that it's probably pretty close to all being valid code; it was written using the W3C specifications and "just works" in Mozilla.
There are a few movies I like watching multiple times, just like I have books and short stories I enjoy rereading.
An even more important example, however, would be my sister growing up and watching The Little Mermaid over and over and over on VHS tape. She loved singing along with that movie, and if we'd had to shell out a dollar for every time she watched it, or even just part of it, we'd've not had the money to help her go to college.:^)
do you really watch a movie like mars-attack that often?
Heh. Well, I don't plan on watching that one. But a movie like Die Hard or Alien I probably watch twice a year. There aren't many movies like that, but anyway.
...renewals of the license are cheap. (Provided that the big honking file can actually be reused.)
I don't think I'm ready to pay $2.99 or even $1.99 every time I want to watch the movie. Maybe $0.99, but even that would get old after a while.
After 5-10 viewings, I'm better off having bought the DVD, since that's got infinite viewings (theoretically speaking) and resale value.
As much as we live in a virtual world nowadays, humans still like shiny material things they can hold in their hands. Hard to see how a timelocked file can overcome that urge to "own".:^)
You're confusing wine with WineX. WineX is about games, not about Microsoft, or.DOC formats or any of the other things you're complaining about.
No, I'm not, confusing them. Your statement that WineX, a project dedicated to making games that run on Microsoft Windows, specifically those that use Microsoft's DirectX API, work on Linux has nothing to do with Microsoft confuses me. Are we, or are we not, talking about projects (both Wine and WineX) whose goal is to reimplement Microsoft's APIs? And whos existence allows the use of products for a Microsoft OS on other systems? You wish, somehow, to view WineX development as separate from Wine? That's silly. And the development of either one has ramifications for the other. Combined they are leading towards bringing the very monopolies to Linux that many Linux users wish to escape, be it games or office suites.
So, again, tell me how WineX (based on Wine) has nothing to do with Microsoft. Games or office suites, it's the kind of software compatibility that Linux does't need if it wishes to escape control by non-free software.
You're confusing wine with WineX. WineX is about games, not about Microsoft, or.DOC formats or any of the other things you're complaining about. [snip] But the fact remains. I run Linux, I like games. Transgaming gives me games. I really don't care that these games don't meet someone else's notions of OS purity.
I said that native ports are one of the goals we need to be striving for, instead of putting money in the hands of those that would have us stay beholden to Microsoft's software base. How does that not have to do with WineX?
And as for whether you'd rather have games now, no matter what the long term effects...well, I can't help you if you're a die-hard, short-term pragmatist.
I'm amazed at how the supporters of Wine and WineX haven't just invited the Trojan horse into the walls of their city, but have actually helped build the horse in the first place.
First, we have to get the userbase THEN we can expect native ports. And Wine is a means to get the userbase.
There is no evidence, even anecdotal, that Wine will grow the userbase.
It works like this:
I think you mean "This is how we hope it works". There is no evidence anywhere that these steps of yours are any different from the "Collect underpants" routine we're all familiar with.
As the userbase of Linux grows, game companies might find it better not to use the Win32API on Linux (aka Wine) and use Linux' APIs directly.
Ok, now you've really stepped off into complete fantasy. You realize, of course, that there is no way that we would ever reach this point even if MS stood by and let it happen? And even if the Wine project somehow offered an improved Win32 API that was such an app programming nirvana then MS wouldn't just stand around and let some free software project highjack it's crown jewels. I mean, get a grip, and think about what you're saying!
Wine is the single most important project for desktop-Linux. Without Wine, Linux will have a very hard time succeeding on the desktop.
See my response here for a response to this pipe dream about Wine leveraging Linux onto the desktop.
And when [Win98 is completely reimplemented] we finally reach the stage when we can install and run almost any Win32 app without hassle on Linux, there is no reason to run Windows anymore.
Except that by that time MS will be pushing.NET apps that just happen to require a whole new API to implement. This is what I meant by Square One in my original post.
Then you do not understand the point of WineX at all.
Quite the contrary. I feel I've spent a good deal of time thinking about the ramifications of Wine and WineX. I've spoken with many people about it, including the heads of the Wine and WineX projects to get their views. Not to mention one of the developers of one of the two major 3D engines used in games today. (Incidentally, he tells me I shouldn't worry about Linux gaming and Wine. He says it's not going anywhere any time soon.)
The point is not to just lure over Windows people who don't want to switch. Its for those that want to switch but don't feel they can.
There are many such people (I am one of them) and Wine helps move them all over to Linux, that grows the community, which provides a market to pay for solving the remaining problems in Linux.
While I have no proof that there are not a lot of people that wish to switch, I think it's equally true that you have no proof that there are a lot of people ready to swtich. Just because you are one of them doesn't mean that there are a lot of them.
Personally, I regard, WineX and the Transgaming effort in general along with Open Office as the most important things going on in the Linux community right now.
I'll agree with you that it's an important project, but I disagree as to why. It is important because it represents a potential danger to native software. Think about it: if Wine were so good that Office 97 ran flawlessly, why would anyone move to OpenOffice in the first place? Wine takes away the incentive to use free software projects and if everyone starts using Office 97 over OpenOffice then we're not any better off and haven't succeeded one bit in breaking the real deep roots of Microsoft's.DOC and.XLS monopolies.
Yes, it is important, but must be eyed with suspicion and used wisely, always with an eye to the long time view that we are better off with native ports and open document formats and all the other things that come by leaving Microsoft and the non-free world behind.
Sure, long term, we'd like many more NATIVE Linux games.
This is precisely one of the issues with WineX. It is being touted as a future for Linux gaming, yet it is ultimately a short-term bandage that might even have bad side effects (like deterring some native ports).
Demographics drive the games, not the other way around.
I'd argue that they are inextricably entwined, but technology and games can drive the change. Off the cuff, I'd say that it takes a serious shift in one platform to let another arise or it takes an disruptive technology. For example, the stumbling of one game console company can leave open an opportunity for another to strike (e.g. PSX from Sony vs. Sega's Saturn and Nintendo's SNES). Or the shift to fast, edgy, colorful games (e.g. Sonic on the Sega Genesis vs. Nintendo's NES).
I've expressed my frustration with WineX before, and every time I see a headline like this, I feel compelled to speak up.
The people that defend (or, as it more often the case, blindly promote) WineX tend to think that games of any kind, even through Wine, will inevitably help Linux. "Now Windows users can switch!" they chant. Yet, what self-respecting Windows gamer would really leave the relative comfort of Windows (2k|XP) where all of their hardware and games work great just to move to Linux, a system rife with hardware incompatibilities and filled with unfamiliar elements at every turn? There is no unhappy faction of Windows users that chafes so much under the Microsoft yoke that they'll give up everything they have already for freedom (in the sense of GNU). It just isn't going to happen. (Note: WineX itself isn't even completely free, so that's not a very good example of freedom, is it?)
So where does WineX sell? To people who are already Linux users. The people who are already using Linux can use WineX, but then they run a serious risk of killing any chance for a native port. Remember, game companies need a whole lot more than karma and a good warm feeling inside to port a game to your system. They need, in particular, cash. Lots and lots of cash. And they'll most likely take any excuse that sounds resonable to ignore a platform that has marginal (if not improbable) profit potential, like Linux. "Oh, it works under Wine. Go play that, Linux users." Reminds me a bit of a former instructor's description of the selection process for a really good position: They're not looking for reasons to take anyone...they're looking for reasons to eliminate them. And Linux hasn't made good money for anyone yet.
You'll never make your platform legit like that. It didn't work of OS/2. It didn't work for Bleemcast. It hasn't worked for VirtualPC on MacOS. Not once has this kind of compatibility meant more native apps for that platform that tries to leech off its more successful neighbor.
Yes, Loki died. They died for a whole lot of reasons, one of which was that there was no real money in the Linux gaming market. But they at least brought a lot of damn good tools to the community and left them for all to use after they died. Where is Wine getting us? Half-working compatibility with a nigh eight year old system that is probably going to change dramatically (if not completely) in the next revision of Windows.
Microsoft really doesn't care about what you think; they care about what the RIAA and the MPAA think. Microsoft can't afford to have the media companies not make their content available on Microsoft platforms, and they will do what they can to accommodate them.
This brought two ideas to mind...
Microsoft often positions themselves as a company that empowers the individual user with new software. Will this pitch ring as true when they have clearly stacked the deck to pay homage to the mighty media companies at the expense of the usual freedom that users are fast becoming used to? Or will they find a way to make less freedom seem like more, so that the individual users don't notice?
My usual impression of Microsoft is that they will work around obstacles to maximizing profit. That's what C# (vs. Java) and IE (vs. Netscape) are all about. So, perhaps they'd eventually find it in their best interest to become a real media company themselves and work to lay the new foundation for replacements (or a replacement) for the MPAA and RIAA. Why not the Global Media Producers Association which encompasses all media and has a leaning towards digital distributions, effectively making the MPAA and RIAA obsolete? With such a leadership role (staying at arm's length to stave off anti-trust litigation), they could easily position themselves as the premeire distribution point for such media, without necessarily locking out other platforms (like Apple's MacOS).
Wouldn't it be cool, in a way, to see Microsoft pay lip service to the RIAA and MPAA while cleverly stabbing them in the back? Microsoft is, after all, one of the most vicious hard-ball companies around, or at least has given many that impression. I say that not necessarily in a negative light, in case it comes across that way. It's kind of like enjoying watching a good bad guy in a movie.:^)
The customer just has to be connected to the internet, then they can automatically restore their licenses just by playing the music files in question.
I have been told, and I believe even read in dead-tree publications, that the reason the DivX plan died was that people were creeped out by having to dial someone up and transfer information. Even with the *promise* of anonymity, this is guaranteed to scare some people away, since they worry "What if?" (Like "What if the company goes bust and they sell their database to someone that doesn't make the same promise?" or "What if they get hacked and someone takes my credit card number or personal viewing habits?")
Add into this that much of media innovation and format decisions are apparently driven by the porn production industry, and the reason for media without a tether to home base becomes more clear. No one wanted to buy a DivX disc that phoned home to validate and no porn movie maker really wanted to go that route because they know their audience.
Having to phone home has got to be the Achilles' Heel for this kind of stuff. I sure as hell don't want it, and I imagine most people would feel the same way, even if they aren't watching dirty movies.
"In 2001, sales were off by 10% in the US. That's a huge drop. Sales are down more than 10% so far this year (according to SoundScan). What's more, this is happening around the world, not just in the U.S. It's hard to think that people suddenly don't like the new music being offered in countries as diverse as the US, Japan, Germany, Sweden, the UK, etc. But what all these countries have in common is growing Internet access and increasing numbers of CD burners and burgeoning sales of blank CD-R discs. Get the idea?" -- Cary Sherman
In the same spirit: Every morning, my uncle's rooster crows. Shortly after that, the sun comes up. Get the idea?
Is this person really so out of touch with reality so as not to realize that there has been a recession in the U.S. (with effects felt in other economies) at the same time that prices on CDs have gone up? HELLO!? It is not clear at all that P2P have had any discernible effect on CD sales. It may have, but the point is we don't know and neither does the RIAA. (Not that they'd tell us outright that sales were up.)
Often the free software development model is criticized for simply rebuilding what has been done already. And I feel that the release of the Quake engines and DooM engines have exemplified this very inadequacy.
I had hoped that we would see some really brilliant things come out of the GPL releases of these codebases, and, in reality some very good, cleaned-up clients have been developed. I certainly enjoy the mouselook, higher resolutions, and enhanced levels that have been developed from the DooM engine (see DooMWorld to see the kind of stuff that's out there). The improved QuakeWorld client I'm aware of is pretty nice. And Q^2 has a good Quake 2 client.
But these are just the obvious extensions of what was already done. The community now has (for the most part) all the source and tools that went into making Half-Life, the most successful game to come out of all of these codebases. Yet, to my knowledge, no project has arisen from the community to mold the next such game. How about another story-driven game that people would compare to Deus Ex? Or an all-out action game in the same vein as Soldier of Fortune? Or how about a freaking free software teamplay game that we compare to Counterstrike so that Linux users can play a team-oriented online FPS using free software only and not rely on WINE or WINEX? Or meld two free software projects and connect a Z-machine interpreter with the Quake engine and make a text-command driven story with a 3D view of the action?
These are things that would demonstrate just how momentous and visionary the release of the Quake source under the GPL was. Yet, all the community has managed to come up with is Quake++.
People slam my posts for being negative lately. That I'm ripping on people that have done good work. That's fine, I've got the skin for it. (Try USENET...) I admit that some really find refactoring and coding has gone into redoing the Linux Quake clients. But really, I hear plenty of bitching about how Linux (and other free OS) don't have good games and don't get the attention of the big game companies. Yet, when empowered to do new and exciting things and to make your own games, the group is content to simply recompile Quake for the Zaurus and call it a day. That's good work, for sure, but it's not the kind of work that's going to move free software forward and make it the kind of interesting world that non-free software people take a real interest in.
Again, I'm not making a judgment about the quality of the work that has been done. It's great. But now that you have the best raw materials from John Carmack, can we see real creativity out of the free software gaming world? (FWIW, I think CrystalSpace has done a good job of attracting some interesting new development.)
Recent big moves by the tech industry indicate that free software is moving forward, for the good of all. IBM's offerings, Sun's offerings, Apple, and now AOL with this full embrace of Gecko on MacOS X (the newest UNIX on the block!). We have free software replacements for web browsers, desktop environments, office productivity apps, and on and on.
Yet, there is one very painful area in which free software has not stepped up and provided GNU replacements. This key area is preventing the adoption of free software for the standard desktop, and it must be remedied soon, or all will be lost.
Thus, I propose that the FSF take up the following projects as soon as developers can be found:
GNU Hunter for BSD - A deer^H^H^H^HGNU hunting simulation game. Finally, the unwashed masses can put down their weapons, leave their Windows machines behind, and massacre virtual deer on a free operating system. Expansions for various critters should be developed by the community using a plugin system. A lucrative deal with Wal-mart will follow.
GNASCAR for GNU/Linux - Utilizing OpenGL for mind-blowing 3D graphics, this brings all the thrill of speeding around oval tracks to the free software world. I suggest a "dynasty mode" that includes famous names like Earnhart and Petty.
WWE: Wrestling the GNU Way for GNU/Linux - Enter the ring against Raymond, Stallman, Moglen, Perens, and the king of them all TORVALDS! Unlock secret characters like CmdrTaco and Roblimo.
Until this hole is plugged in the free software front, we are fighting a losing battle.
I think I need to have been more explicit in my points.
No one outside of Free Radical will blame the license and freeness of the software, with the possible exception of non-free promoters. The company, however, may well feel a ripe case of sour grapes at failing to get the kind of support they expected from the free software community.
An executive trying to explain the failures of his company may grab at an easy scapegoat, and I think that the free software mode/community are easy to blame because the benefits are often somewhat intangible and difficult to explain to normals.
Will the community be upset that there is more code there? No. Will Free Radical probably benefit from the open development model? Maybe. Will they be quick to blame someone else if/when they fail? Damn right, and GNU is first in line for that fall.
People can develop different window managers all they want. For window managers, that works for the community. For the demand in the workplace, there will probably be only two options: KDE & GNOME. All others, like Flowe, are probably not going to go anywhere and won't be taken up by the community. The same will be true here, but office suites are much more high-profile that desktops and if a big project sinks, because of the effects of having multiple efforts, then it can have fallout.
For the last time: I'm not telling anyone what to do. I am, however, saying that if people choose to follow these paths they've staked out (multiple, disparate office suites) then there will be consequences and some of them may be bad for the community itself. If you decide to take that as "Hey, bud, stop doing what you're doing!" then so be it.
Slashdot Mirror
In order to show a Windows person a Linux bootable CD you have to (get this!) shut down and reboot. Funny how that works, no?
Perhaps update and see if that fixes it. (It was this patch announcement that my comment was based upon.)
Patch available at www.unrealtournament2003.com (among other places).
The DRI project writes open source drivers. They do not incorporate any binary bits that I'm aware of. They provide (alpha) drivers for the Radeon 8500 and those drivers are open source. They provide binary-snapshots of the relevant driver bits that you can drop onto your machine for use with an existing XFree86 4.2 installation and appropriate kernel. These drivers do not include S3TC/DXTC and thus cannot play UT2003. This situation may change in the future. If this situation changes, then supposedly other cards like the Matrox G400 and ATI Radeon and possibly the 3dfx Voodoo3+ cards will be able to run UT2003.
ATI has written their own binary-only drivers for the Radeon 8500 cards. These appear to be a branch of the binary-only drivers they provide for their FireGL cards, since the hardware is related. I do not believe (but also do not know) whether these drivers are based on DRI or not. They could be, since the license allows such a thing to be made. As of this writing, these drivers do not include S3TC/DXTC and thus cannot play UT2003. ATI and Epic are supposedly working together to remedy this situation and I am told that new, compatible, binary-only drivers will eventually be made available.
Xi Graphics also provides drivers for many cards. Their updated drivers are compatible with UT2003, which makes the Radeon 8500 playable under Linux. A demo of these drivers is available (although it is limited to short periods of use after which time the X server must be restarted) for free and for the full server you must pay a fee.
PowerVR has their own binary-only driver based on the DRI project available for their Kyro and Kyro 2 cards. As of this writing, these drivers do not include S3TC/DXTC and thus cannot play UT2003. PowerVR and Epic are supposedly working together to remedy this situation and I know that updated, compatible, binary-only drivers will eventually be made available.
NVIDIA provides their own drivers and they run UT2003 just fine. They are, as is well-known, binary only.
Hope that clears this all up. Most of this can be gleaned from this article on LinuxGames about UT2003.
Not being a programmer, I can't speak with complete authority, but I can tell you what I know. The full game has an amount of textures measured in gigabytes. (Not on a single level, naturally, but this gives an idea of just how much data we're talking about.) The beta build I've played with was a bigger than 2Gb, of which a big chunk was those textures. They shipped lower resolution textures with the demo and it was still 100Mb compressed. I don't know the size of an individual, high-resolution texture, but I imagine that the S3TC/DXTC is required, given the size of things so far.
This is false. To cut down on traffic over the AGP bus, Epic used texture compression. Specifically, they used S3TC/DXTC, which is supported by every major, modern 3D video driver on Windows (i.e. their target audience). This extension is currently supported by only two drivers on Linux: the ones from NVIDIA and the ones from Xi Graphics. The XiG drivers support the Radeon cards, but are pay-to-use drivers. However a time-limited demo is available for free. (The server must be restarted every 25-30 minutes or so, in the demo, as I understand it. Buy the real thing, and you get unlimited use, naturally.)
Epic has also said they're working with ATI and PowerVR (makers of the Kyro cards) to improve the binary-only drivers that each of those companies provides for their cards under Linux. If and when these drivers are released, they will be free-as-in-beer.
Again: it is the failing of the drivers under Linux to support a required extension, not Epic. Without that extension, performance would be terrible, so it isn't an option of just turning it off.
Well, I don't know exactly what the LiveCD does, but I will say that if you're trying to impress them with the game, then I'm not sure that the Linux demo is going to be that impressive to Windows people. If I were a Windows-only user, I'd ask them what the big deal was, since I could play it on my Windows machine already. And I'd point out that, despite the fact that NVIDIA cards are pretty widespread, the demo on Windows supports a wider range of cards, including the lowly 3dfx Voodoo3. And that it doesn't require rebooting the machine.
If this were a Linux-only game that supported a wide range of hardware configurations and showed off graphical splendor that wasn't generally available on Windows, then that'd be impressive to lots of people. As much as my geeky side can be impressed by the idea of putting together a CD like this, I just don't see Windows people giving a hoot.
FWIW, I'm not a Windows user. I only use Linux at work and at home. Heck, I even wrote an article on the Linux demo and how it came to be. But most Windows users are still puzzled about why a Linux port even exists. They're certainly not going to want you rebooting their machine just so you can boot up Linux and play it from a CD.
Hrm. I don't think so, but it's been a while! The game does play significantly differently from Defender, IMO. You need to get into a trance and use the radar screen a lot and get the right combination of powerups. Stopping the alien capture of the humanoids is the primary focus and enemies are generally eliminated as they get in your way or you save a humanoid.
:^) That and Atari 2600 Stargate.
Also, it includes the original Defender (a simulation, not emulation) and Defender Plus, an interesting hyrbid between the original and the new trippy version.
FWIW, Defender Plus does have some odd slowdown in certain sections, which makes it seem as if it weren't completed or were unoptimized.
Then again, the only Defender I really enjoyed was on the Atari 2600.
Well, not being a game coder, I'll simply say that the effectiveness of his coding didn't affect my enjoyment of T2k or D2k at all. :^)
I would have thought that, after all their hype, the Battlesphere people would have the claim to the game that pushed the Jag the hardest. And given that Carmack has said he could optimized DooM better if he had it to do over again, I find it difficult to believe that it's pushing the Jag to the limit. Surely something that pushed more texture mapped polygons was tougher for the system to handle.
Other than that, it was an ok interview, I suppose. I'm not sure that there is a whole lot there that we haven't heard before, except for some of the details about the next-gen hardware. Would have been neat to see an example of the full-antialised graphics from their next sytem, given that good AA is still something people are stiving for today. (E.g. PS2 with jaggies galore on some games. Ick.)
Jag ramblings to follow...
Iron Soldier on the Jag was a great game, FWIW. Since playing IS1, I've had a chance to played Iron Soldier 3 on the PSX but not Iron Soldier 2 on the Jag. The update is both better and worse. The Jaguar, for all its faults, had the most button-laden controller to ship with a console, and for a game like Iron Soldier, that rocked. Unfortunately, the PSX control scheme just doesn't work well enough. On IS1 (and presumably IS2) you could choose the weapon mounted on either shoulder or either hip or one of the two hand weapons with a single button press. For IS3 on the PSX, you have to cycle through weapons, and that turns out to be a step back in terms of control.
Of course, the graphics on the PSX are a step up, but not all they could have been.
And it's true that Tempest 2000 was the best game for the system. Best music and best control and best gameplay experience. Defender 2000 (also by Jeff Minter) and Power Drive Rally are my other favorites. I sold all the rest, including the much-ballyhooed Battlesphere (which was definitely not worth the wait or the price).
(Shameless plug: I also compared Tempest 2000 for the Jag and Tempest X for the PSX here. Jag wins, despite the better hardware of the PSX.)
This game, written in JavaScript, using DOM, UNICODE, CSS, etc. Works in Mozilla only (AFAIK). I feel that it's probably pretty close to all being valid code; it was written using the W3C specifications and "just works" in Mozilla.
There are a few movies I like watching multiple times, just like I have books and short stories I enjoy rereading.
:^)
An even more important example, however, would be my sister growing up and watching The Little Mermaid over and over and over on VHS tape. She loved singing along with that movie, and if we'd had to shell out a dollar for every time she watched it, or even just part of it, we'd've not had the money to help her go to college.
Heh. Well, I don't plan on watching that one. But a movie like Die Hard or Alien I probably watch twice a year. There aren't many movies like that, but anyway.
...renewals of the license are cheap. (Provided that the big honking file can actually be reused.)
:^)
I don't think I'm ready to pay $2.99 or even $1.99 every time I want to watch the movie. Maybe $0.99, but even that would get old after a while.
After 5-10 viewings, I'm better off having bought the DVD, since that's got infinite viewings (theoretically speaking) and resale value.
As much as we live in a virtual world nowadays, humans still like shiny material things they can hold in their hands. Hard to see how a timelocked file can overcome that urge to "own".
No, I'm not, confusing them. Your statement that WineX, a project dedicated to making games that run on Microsoft Windows, specifically those that use Microsoft's DirectX API, work on Linux has nothing to do with Microsoft confuses me. Are we, or are we not, talking about projects (both Wine and WineX) whose goal is to reimplement Microsoft's APIs? And whos existence allows the use of products for a Microsoft OS on other systems? You wish, somehow, to view WineX development as separate from Wine? That's silly. And the development of either one has ramifications for the other. Combined they are leading towards bringing the very monopolies to Linux that many Linux users wish to escape, be it games or office suites.
So, again, tell me how WineX (based on Wine) has nothing to do with Microsoft. Games or office suites, it's the kind of software compatibility that Linux does't need if it wishes to escape control by non-free software.
I said that native ports are one of the goals we need to be striving for, instead of putting money in the hands of those that would have us stay beholden to Microsoft's software base. How does that not have to do with WineX?
And as for whether you'd rather have games now, no matter what the long term effects...well, I can't help you if you're a die-hard, short-term pragmatist.
I'm amazed at how the supporters of Wine and WineX haven't just invited the Trojan horse into the walls of their city, but have actually helped build the horse in the first place.
There is no evidence, even anecdotal, that Wine will grow the userbase.
I think you mean "This is how we hope it works". There is no evidence anywhere that these steps of yours are any different from the "Collect underpants" routine we're all familiar with.
Ok, now you've really stepped off into complete fantasy. You realize, of course, that there is no way that we would ever reach this point even if MS stood by and let it happen? And even if the Wine project somehow offered an improved Win32 API that was such an app programming nirvana then MS wouldn't just stand around and let some free software project highjack it's crown jewels. I mean, get a grip, and think about what you're saying!
See my response here for a response to this pipe dream about Wine leveraging Linux onto the desktop.
Except that by that time MS will be pushing
Quite the contrary. I feel I've spent a good deal of time thinking about the ramifications of Wine and WineX. I've spoken with many people about it, including the heads of the Wine and WineX projects to get their views. Not to mention one of the developers of one of the two major 3D engines used in games today. (Incidentally, he tells me I shouldn't worry about Linux gaming and Wine. He says it's not going anywhere any time soon.)
While I have no proof that there are not a lot of people that wish to switch, I think it's equally true that you have no proof that there are a lot of people ready to swtich. Just because you are one of them doesn't mean that there are a lot of them.
I'll agree with you that it's an important project, but I disagree as to why. It is important because it represents a potential danger to native software. Think about it: if Wine were so good that Office 97 ran flawlessly, why would anyone move to OpenOffice in the first place? Wine takes away the incentive to use free software projects and if everyone starts using Office 97 over OpenOffice then we're not any better off and haven't succeeded one bit in breaking the real deep roots of Microsoft's
Yes, it is important, but must be eyed with suspicion and used wisely, always with an eye to the long time view that we are better off with native ports and open document formats and all the other things that come by leaving Microsoft and the non-free world behind.
This is precisely one of the issues with WineX. It is being touted as a future for Linux gaming, yet it is ultimately a short-term bandage that might even have bad side effects (like deterring some native ports).
I'd argue that they are inextricably entwined, but technology and games can drive the change. Off the cuff, I'd say that it takes a serious shift in one platform to let another arise or it takes an disruptive technology. For example, the stumbling of one game console company can leave open an opportunity for another to strike (e.g. PSX from Sony vs. Sega's Saturn and Nintendo's SNES). Or the shift to fast, edgy, colorful games (e.g. Sonic on the Sega Genesis vs. Nintendo's NES).
I've expressed my frustration with WineX before, and every time I see a headline like this, I feel compelled to speak up.
The people that defend (or, as it more often the case, blindly promote) WineX tend to think that games of any kind, even through Wine, will inevitably help Linux. "Now Windows users can switch!" they chant. Yet, what self-respecting Windows gamer would really leave the relative comfort of Windows (2k|XP) where all of their hardware and games work great just to move to Linux, a system rife with hardware incompatibilities and filled with unfamiliar elements at every turn? There is no unhappy faction of Windows users that chafes so much under the Microsoft yoke that they'll give up everything they have already for freedom (in the sense of GNU). It just isn't going to happen. (Note: WineX itself isn't even completely free, so that's not a very good example of freedom, is it?)
So where does WineX sell? To people who are already Linux users. The people who are already using Linux can use WineX, but then they run a serious risk of killing any chance for a native port. Remember, game companies need a whole lot more than karma and a good warm feeling inside to port a game to your system. They need, in particular, cash. Lots and lots of cash. And they'll most likely take any excuse that sounds resonable to ignore a platform that has marginal (if not improbable) profit potential, like Linux. "Oh, it works under Wine. Go play that, Linux users." Reminds me a bit of a former instructor's description of the selection process for a really good position: They're not looking for reasons to take anyone...they're looking for reasons to eliminate them. And Linux hasn't made good money for anyone yet.
You'll never make your platform legit like that. It didn't work of OS/2. It didn't work for Bleemcast. It hasn't worked for VirtualPC on MacOS. Not once has this kind of compatibility meant more native apps for that platform that tries to leech off its more successful neighbor.
Yes, Loki died. They died for a whole lot of reasons, one of which was that there was no real money in the Linux gaming market. But they at least brought a lot of damn good tools to the community and left them for all to use after they died. Where is Wine getting us? Half-working compatibility with a nigh eight year old system that is probably going to change dramatically (if not completely) in the next revision of Windows.
Welcome to Square One, people.
Sorry for the disjointed ramble.
This brought two ideas to mind...
Ok, time for work...
I have been told, and I believe even read in dead-tree publications, that the reason the DivX plan died was that people were creeped out by having to dial someone up and transfer information. Even with the *promise* of anonymity, this is guaranteed to scare some people away, since they worry "What if?" (Like "What if the company goes bust and they sell their database to someone that doesn't make the same promise?" or "What if they get hacked and someone takes my credit card number or personal viewing habits?")
Add into this that much of media innovation and format decisions are apparently driven by the porn production industry, and the reason for media without a tether to home base becomes more clear. No one wanted to buy a DivX disc that phoned home to validate and no porn movie maker really wanted to go that route because they know their audience.
Having to phone home has got to be the Achilles' Heel for this kind of stuff. I sure as hell don't want it, and I imagine most people would feel the same way, even if they aren't watching dirty movies.
In the same spirit:
Every morning, my uncle's rooster crows. Shortly after that, the sun comes up. Get the idea?
Is this person really so out of touch with reality so as not to realize that there has been a recession in the U.S. (with effects felt in other economies) at the same time that prices on CDs have gone up? HELLO!? It is not clear at all that P2P have had any discernible effect on CD sales. It may have, but the point is we don't know and neither does the RIAA. (Not that they'd tell us outright that sales were up.)
Often the free software development model is criticized for simply rebuilding what has been done already. And I feel that the release of the Quake engines and DooM engines have exemplified this very inadequacy.
I had hoped that we would see some really brilliant things come out of the GPL releases of these codebases, and, in reality some very good, cleaned-up clients have been developed. I certainly enjoy the mouselook, higher resolutions, and enhanced levels that have been developed from the DooM engine (see DooMWorld to see the kind of stuff that's out there). The improved QuakeWorld client I'm aware of is pretty nice. And Q^2 has a good Quake 2 client.
But these are just the obvious extensions of what was already done. The community now has (for the most part) all the source and tools that went into making Half-Life, the most successful game to come out of all of these codebases. Yet, to my knowledge, no project has arisen from the community to mold the next such game. How about another story-driven game that people would compare to Deus Ex? Or an all-out action game in the same vein as Soldier of Fortune? Or how about a freaking free software teamplay game that we compare to Counterstrike so that Linux users can play a team-oriented online FPS using free software only and not rely on WINE or WINEX? Or meld two free software projects and connect a Z-machine interpreter with the Quake engine and make a text-command driven story with a 3D view of the action?
These are things that would demonstrate just how momentous and visionary the release of the Quake source under the GPL was. Yet, all the community has managed to come up with is Quake++.
People slam my posts for being negative lately. That I'm ripping on people that have done good work. That's fine, I've got the skin for it. (Try USENET...) I admit that some really find refactoring and coding has gone into redoing the Linux Quake clients. But really, I hear plenty of bitching about how Linux (and other free OS) don't have good games and don't get the attention of the big game companies. Yet, when empowered to do new and exciting things and to make your own games, the group is content to simply recompile Quake for the Zaurus and call it a day. That's good work, for sure, but it's not the kind of work that's going to move free software forward and make it the kind of interesting world that non-free software people take a real interest in.
Again, I'm not making a judgment about the quality of the work that has been done. It's great. But now that you have the best raw materials from John Carmack, can we see real creativity out of the free software gaming world? (FWIW, I think CrystalSpace has done a good job of attracting some interesting new development.)
Pretending like they're different is part of the fun of free software, isn't it? Besides, why would a GNU game have you hunting GNUs? ;^)
Yet, there is one very painful area in which free software has not stepped up and provided GNU replacements. This key area is preventing the adoption of free software for the standard desktop, and it must be remedied soon, or all will be lost.
Thus, I propose that the FSF take up the following projects as soon as developers can be found:
Until this hole is plugged in the free software front, we are fighting a losing battle.
I think I need to have been more explicit in my points.
No one outside of Free Radical will blame the license and freeness of the software, with the possible exception of non-free promoters. The company, however, may well feel a ripe case of sour grapes at failing to get the kind of support they expected from the free software community.
An executive trying to explain the failures of his company may grab at an easy scapegoat, and I think that the free software mode/community are easy to blame because the benefits are often somewhat intangible and difficult to explain to normals.
Will the community be upset that there is more code there? No. Will Free Radical probably benefit from the open development model? Maybe. Will they be quick to blame someone else if/when they fail? Damn right, and GNU is first in line for that fall.
People can develop different window managers all they want. For window managers, that works for the community. For the demand in the workplace, there will probably be only two options: KDE & GNOME. All others, like Flowe, are probably not going to go anywhere and won't be taken up by the community. The same will be true here, but office suites are much more high-profile that desktops and if a big project sinks, because of the effects of having multiple efforts, then it can have fallout.
For the last time: I'm not telling anyone what to do. I am, however, saying that if people choose to follow these paths they've staked out (multiple, disparate office suites) then there will be consequences and some of them may be bad for the community itself. If you decide to take that as "Hey, bud, stop doing what you're doing!" then so be it.