Re: [hlcoders] Source Engine 2!!!
New version of the engine uses deferred shading perhaps? I suppose that would be too much to ask for. --Bob On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 8:45 AM, Matt Hoffman wrote: > Pretty sure a fix was found. VVIS worked fine (to my memory) and VRAD > crashed. However if you use LAA on the vrad process, it worked again. > > Fix by The Pro here: > http://www.facepunch.com/showpost.php?p=16482883&postcount=23 > > I recall this working, but I do not know if Valve has fixed/broken it since > then. > > > On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 8:20 AM, Tobias Kammersgaard < > tobias.kammersga...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> VMPI is supported for vvis and broken for vrad isn't it? >> I haven't checked since the last SDK update, but imagine it isn't fixed. >> Which is lame. >> >> - ScarT >> >> >> On 17 June 2010 16:53, Jonas 'Sortie' Termansen wrote: >> >> > On 2010-06-17 16:24, Adam Buckland wrote: >> > > You say that, I'm not sure it's that the lighting 'sucks', but more >> > > that it's a pain in the arse for modders because they don't have >> > > server farms to compile lightmaps unlike Valve. >> > > >> > What do you mean? I have an Intel Core i7 920 (8 cores @ 2.66Ghz). >> > Combined with heavily optimized maps, that's practically a server farm. >> ;) >> > >> > ___ >> > To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, >> > please visit: >> > http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlcoders >> > >> > >> ___ >> To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, >> please visit: >> http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlcoders >> >> > ___ > To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please > visit: > http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlcoders > > ___ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlcoders
Re: [hlcoders] Source Engine 2!!!
Pretty sure a fix was found. VVIS worked fine (to my memory) and VRAD crashed. However if you use LAA on the vrad process, it worked again. Fix by The Pro here: http://www.facepunch.com/showpost.php?p=16482883&postcount=23 I recall this working, but I do not know if Valve has fixed/broken it since then. On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 8:20 AM, Tobias Kammersgaard < tobias.kammersga...@gmail.com> wrote: > VMPI is supported for vvis and broken for vrad isn't it? > I haven't checked since the last SDK update, but imagine it isn't fixed. > Which is lame. > > - ScarT > > > On 17 June 2010 16:53, Jonas 'Sortie' Termansen wrote: > > > On 2010-06-17 16:24, Adam Buckland wrote: > > > You say that, I'm not sure it's that the lighting 'sucks', but more > > > that it's a pain in the arse for modders because they don't have > > > server farms to compile lightmaps unlike Valve. > > > > > What do you mean? I have an Intel Core i7 920 (8 cores @ 2.66Ghz). > > Combined with heavily optimized maps, that's practically a server farm. > ;) > > > > ___ > > To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, > > please visit: > > http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlcoders > > > > > ___ > To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, > please visit: > http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlcoders > > ___ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlcoders
Re: [hlcoders] Source Engine 2!!!
VMPI is supported for vvis and broken for vrad isn't it? I haven't checked since the last SDK update, but imagine it isn't fixed. Which is lame. - ScarT On 17 June 2010 16:53, Jonas 'Sortie' Termansen wrote: > On 2010-06-17 16:24, Adam Buckland wrote: > > You say that, I'm not sure it's that the lighting 'sucks', but more > > that it's a pain in the arse for modders because they don't have > > server farms to compile lightmaps unlike Valve. > > > What do you mean? I have an Intel Core i7 920 (8 cores @ 2.66Ghz). > Combined with heavily optimized maps, that's practically a server farm. ;) > > ___ > To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, > please visit: > http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlcoders > > ___ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlcoders
Re: [hlcoders] Source Engine 2!!!
On 2010-06-17 16:24, Adam Buckland wrote: > You say that, I'm not sure it's that the lighting 'sucks', but more > that it's a pain in the arse for modders because they don't have > server farms to compile lightmaps unlike Valve. > What do you mean? I have an Intel Core i7 920 (8 cores @ 2.66Ghz). Combined with heavily optimized maps, that's practically a server farm. ;) ___ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlcoders
Re: [hlcoders] Source Engine 2!!!
I was referring to dynamic lights specifically. On 17 June 2010 15:24, Adam Buckland wrote: > You say that, I'm not sure it's that the lighting 'sucks', but more > that it's a pain in the arse for modders because they don't have > server farms to compile lightmaps unlike Valve. > > On 17 June 2010 15:20, Harry Jeffery wrote: >> I noticed that too, lighting is one of the major things the source >> engine sucks at. Hopefully Source 2011 will make the life of modders >> 10x easier. >> >> On 17 June 2010 15:11, Adam Buckland wrote: >>> Also, after looking at the Portal 2 gameplay footage from IGN: >>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5THiN8szSKM (there's 3 parts) am I the >>> only one that thinks that the lighting system has had to have a large >>> overhaul to support how the levels change dynamically? (particularly >>> obvious in the part 1) >>> >>> On 17 June 2010 14:58, Alexander Hirsch <1ze...@googlemail.com> wrote: Mesa3D? On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 5:20 AM, Katrina Payne wrote: > This also adds a rather odd burden here, that allows Linux to get a better > standing for gaming. > > It is not that unknown that without mixing, Linux generally does not > require > anywhere near as much over head to run as windows. > > The minimum requirements to run a GUI on Linux is about 256MiB of RAM. > This > even includes GUIs like KDE and Gnome. Though XFCE and LXCE would be > better > if > you really did only have 256MiB of RAM (well if you were using a DE... and > not > a slimmed down WM with only a few programs loaded into it) > > You can do just fine win 1GiB of RAM. > > Linux also, as an OS can run on some old Intel boards--that running an OS > on > would other wise be insane today. a Pentium 1 can still get (some) use > with > Linux. > > Not enough to really be noteworthy as a desktop PC... but, this is a lot > less > than the least you will get Windows 7 onto. > > So we have a nice toss up here: > > 1: Linux requires Software Rendering in place. IE: how rendering was done, > before we got silly things like TNT and Voodoo on the market. > > 2: Linux requires significantly less overhead to run, as far as OS goes. > > If we can get it so that we can show Steam running on Linux, using mostly > Software Rendering, and getting it to run as fast as the same game on > Windows, > on comparable hardware... > > This will definitely sell Linux as an OS... > > Which in turn will get various Graphics Card makers on board to add their > support. > > You know--I kind of want to see somebody work on that goal then. I am > almost > ready to dig up some old books that go over the theory of 3d programming, > just > to pull make a software rendering engine for this idea. > > On Monday, June 14, 2010 07:59:45 pm Darren VanBuren wrote: > > Yes, 3D drivers are definitely quite lacking on the GNU/Linux front, > > but if Valve shows support for the development of these drivers, this > > may prompt certain GPU manufacturers to step up their GNU/Linux driver > > development. > > > > Darren L. VanBuren > > = > > http://theoks.net/ > > On Mon, Jun 14, 2010 at 18:35, Bob Somers wrote: > > > Something to consider, though, is that the 3D driver support is years > > > behind from *ahem* a particular GPU manufacturer. I won't embarrass > > > them by saying their name, so I'll just say their initials: ATI. > > > > > > Their driver support for Linux is, frankly, pathetic at best. The > > > Fedora team is trying to solve this with their new free drivers in > > > Fedora 13 (which, I'll admit, are quite good), but it's still not up > > > to par with what you need to run a game. For example, the new free > > > drivers have very little (read: practically none) support for basic > > > vertex and fragment shaders. It will be at least another year before > > > the free drivers are up to what ATI's crappy proprietary drivers are > > > now. Even worse, right now you can get the proprietary drivers running > > > on Fedora 11 alright, sort-of on Fedora 12 with some ugly hackery, and > > > not at all on Fedora 13. Literally, ATI's Linux drivers are at least > > > 12 months behind, and the free ones are 12 months behind that. > > > > > > Unless somebody gives ATI a swift kick in the nuts the situation does > > > not look good. > > > > > > --Bob > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Jun 14, 2010 at 5:01 PM, Darren VanBuren > wrote: > > >> Spoiler Alert. It's like the ratman drawing that says "She's watching > > >> you." Canonical is she in that case. > > >> > > >> I'm personally a fan of Fedora, but if Steam on GNU/Linux is > > >> distribu
Re: [hlcoders] Source Engine 2!!!
You say that, I'm not sure it's that the lighting 'sucks', but more that it's a pain in the arse for modders because they don't have server farms to compile lightmaps unlike Valve. On 17 June 2010 15:20, Harry Jeffery wrote: > I noticed that too, lighting is one of the major things the source > engine sucks at. Hopefully Source 2011 will make the life of modders > 10x easier. > > On 17 June 2010 15:11, Adam Buckland wrote: >> Also, after looking at the Portal 2 gameplay footage from IGN: >> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5THiN8szSKM (there's 3 parts) am I the >> only one that thinks that the lighting system has had to have a large >> overhaul to support how the levels change dynamically? (particularly >> obvious in the part 1) >> >> On 17 June 2010 14:58, Alexander Hirsch <1ze...@googlemail.com> wrote: >>> Mesa3D? >>> >>> On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 5:20 AM, Katrina Payne >>> wrote: >>> This also adds a rather odd burden here, that allows Linux to get a better standing for gaming. It is not that unknown that without mixing, Linux generally does not require anywhere near as much over head to run as windows. The minimum requirements to run a GUI on Linux is about 256MiB of RAM. This even includes GUIs like KDE and Gnome. Though XFCE and LXCE would be better if you really did only have 256MiB of RAM (well if you were using a DE... and not a slimmed down WM with only a few programs loaded into it) You can do just fine win 1GiB of RAM. Linux also, as an OS can run on some old Intel boards--that running an OS on would other wise be insane today. a Pentium 1 can still get (some) use with Linux. Not enough to really be noteworthy as a desktop PC... but, this is a lot less than the least you will get Windows 7 onto. So we have a nice toss up here: 1: Linux requires Software Rendering in place. IE: how rendering was done, before we got silly things like TNT and Voodoo on the market. 2: Linux requires significantly less overhead to run, as far as OS goes. If we can get it so that we can show Steam running on Linux, using mostly Software Rendering, and getting it to run as fast as the same game on Windows, on comparable hardware... This will definitely sell Linux as an OS... Which in turn will get various Graphics Card makers on board to add their support. You know--I kind of want to see somebody work on that goal then. I am almost ready to dig up some old books that go over the theory of 3d programming, just to pull make a software rendering engine for this idea. On Monday, June 14, 2010 07:59:45 pm Darren VanBuren wrote: > Yes, 3D drivers are definitely quite lacking on the GNU/Linux front, > but if Valve shows support for the development of these drivers, this > may prompt certain GPU manufacturers to step up their GNU/Linux driver > development. > > Darren L. VanBuren > = > http://theoks.net/ > On Mon, Jun 14, 2010 at 18:35, Bob Somers wrote: > > Something to consider, though, is that the 3D driver support is years > > behind from *ahem* a particular GPU manufacturer. I won't embarrass > > them by saying their name, so I'll just say their initials: ATI. > > > > Their driver support for Linux is, frankly, pathetic at best. The > > Fedora team is trying to solve this with their new free drivers in > > Fedora 13 (which, I'll admit, are quite good), but it's still not up > > to par with what you need to run a game. For example, the new free > > drivers have very little (read: practically none) support for basic > > vertex and fragment shaders. It will be at least another year before > > the free drivers are up to what ATI's crappy proprietary drivers are > > now. Even worse, right now you can get the proprietary drivers running > > on Fedora 11 alright, sort-of on Fedora 12 with some ugly hackery, and > > not at all on Fedora 13. Literally, ATI's Linux drivers are at least > > 12 months behind, and the free ones are 12 months behind that. > > > > Unless somebody gives ATI a swift kick in the nuts the situation does > > not look good. > > > > --Bob > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Jun 14, 2010 at 5:01 PM, Darren VanBuren wrote: > >> Spoiler Alert. It's like the ratman drawing that says "She's watching > >> you." Canonical is she in that case. > >> > >> I'm personally a fan of Fedora, but if Steam on GNU/Linux is > >> distributed as a tarball, that'd be best in the interests of Valve. > >> Even if some people (mainly Ubuntu users) would be a bit stuck on the > >> concept of a tarball, it'd be minimal work for Valve, and maximum > >> cross-distr
Re: [hlcoders] Source Engine 2!!!
I noticed that too, lighting is one of the major things the source engine sucks at. Hopefully Source 2011 will make the life of modders 10x easier. On 17 June 2010 15:11, Adam Buckland wrote: > Also, after looking at the Portal 2 gameplay footage from IGN: > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5THiN8szSKM (there's 3 parts) am I the > only one that thinks that the lighting system has had to have a large > overhaul to support how the levels change dynamically? (particularly > obvious in the part 1) > > On 17 June 2010 14:58, Alexander Hirsch <1ze...@googlemail.com> wrote: >> Mesa3D? >> >> On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 5:20 AM, Katrina Payne >> wrote: >> >>> This also adds a rather odd burden here, that allows Linux to get a better >>> standing for gaming. >>> >>> It is not that unknown that without mixing, Linux generally does not >>> require >>> anywhere near as much over head to run as windows. >>> >>> The minimum requirements to run a GUI on Linux is about 256MiB of RAM. This >>> even includes GUIs like KDE and Gnome. Though XFCE and LXCE would be better >>> if >>> you really did only have 256MiB of RAM (well if you were using a DE... and >>> not >>> a slimmed down WM with only a few programs loaded into it) >>> >>> You can do just fine win 1GiB of RAM. >>> >>> Linux also, as an OS can run on some old Intel boards--that running an OS >>> on >>> would other wise be insane today. a Pentium 1 can still get (some) use with >>> Linux. >>> >>> Not enough to really be noteworthy as a desktop PC... but, this is a lot >>> less >>> than the least you will get Windows 7 onto. >>> >>> So we have a nice toss up here: >>> >>> 1: Linux requires Software Rendering in place. IE: how rendering was done, >>> before we got silly things like TNT and Voodoo on the market. >>> >>> 2: Linux requires significantly less overhead to run, as far as OS goes. >>> >>> If we can get it so that we can show Steam running on Linux, using mostly >>> Software Rendering, and getting it to run as fast as the same game on >>> Windows, >>> on comparable hardware... >>> >>> This will definitely sell Linux as an OS... >>> >>> Which in turn will get various Graphics Card makers on board to add their >>> support. >>> >>> You know--I kind of want to see somebody work on that goal then. I am >>> almost >>> ready to dig up some old books that go over the theory of 3d programming, >>> just >>> to pull make a software rendering engine for this idea. >>> >>> On Monday, June 14, 2010 07:59:45 pm Darren VanBuren wrote: >>> > Yes, 3D drivers are definitely quite lacking on the GNU/Linux front, >>> > but if Valve shows support for the development of these drivers, this >>> > may prompt certain GPU manufacturers to step up their GNU/Linux driver >>> > development. >>> > >>> > Darren L. VanBuren >>> > = >>> > http://theoks.net/ >>> > On Mon, Jun 14, 2010 at 18:35, Bob Somers wrote: >>> > > Something to consider, though, is that the 3D driver support is years >>> > > behind from *ahem* a particular GPU manufacturer. I won't embarrass >>> > > them by saying their name, so I'll just say their initials: ATI. >>> > > >>> > > Their driver support for Linux is, frankly, pathetic at best. The >>> > > Fedora team is trying to solve this with their new free drivers in >>> > > Fedora 13 (which, I'll admit, are quite good), but it's still not up >>> > > to par with what you need to run a game. For example, the new free >>> > > drivers have very little (read: practically none) support for basic >>> > > vertex and fragment shaders. It will be at least another year before >>> > > the free drivers are up to what ATI's crappy proprietary drivers are >>> > > now. Even worse, right now you can get the proprietary drivers running >>> > > on Fedora 11 alright, sort-of on Fedora 12 with some ugly hackery, and >>> > > not at all on Fedora 13. Literally, ATI's Linux drivers are at least >>> > > 12 months behind, and the free ones are 12 months behind that. >>> > > >>> > > Unless somebody gives ATI a swift kick in the nuts the situation does >>> > > not look good. >>> > > >>> > > --Bob >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > On Mon, Jun 14, 2010 at 5:01 PM, Darren VanBuren >>> wrote: >>> > >> Spoiler Alert. It's like the ratman drawing that says "She's watching >>> > >> you." Canonical is she in that case. >>> > >> >>> > >> I'm personally a fan of Fedora, but if Steam on GNU/Linux is >>> > >> distributed as a tarball, that'd be best in the interests of Valve. >>> > >> Even if some people (mainly Ubuntu users) would be a bit stuck on the >>> > >> concept of a tarball, it'd be minimal work for Valve, and maximum >>> > >> cross-distribution compatibility. >>> > >> >>> > >> Darren L. VanBuren >>> > >> = >>> > >> http://theoks.net/ >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> On Mon, Jun 14, 2010 at 16:49, Harry Jeffery >>> > >> wrote: >>> > >>> It's all down to personal opinion, as long as it does what you need >>> > >>> quickly and effectively then it's fi
Re: [hlcoders] Source Engine 2!!!
Also, after looking at the Portal 2 gameplay footage from IGN: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5THiN8szSKM (there's 3 parts) am I the only one that thinks that the lighting system has had to have a large overhaul to support how the levels change dynamically? (particularly obvious in the part 1) On 17 June 2010 14:58, Alexander Hirsch <1ze...@googlemail.com> wrote: > Mesa3D? > > On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 5:20 AM, Katrina Payne > wrote: > >> This also adds a rather odd burden here, that allows Linux to get a better >> standing for gaming. >> >> It is not that unknown that without mixing, Linux generally does not >> require >> anywhere near as much over head to run as windows. >> >> The minimum requirements to run a GUI on Linux is about 256MiB of RAM. This >> even includes GUIs like KDE and Gnome. Though XFCE and LXCE would be better >> if >> you really did only have 256MiB of RAM (well if you were using a DE... and >> not >> a slimmed down WM with only a few programs loaded into it) >> >> You can do just fine win 1GiB of RAM. >> >> Linux also, as an OS can run on some old Intel boards--that running an OS >> on >> would other wise be insane today. a Pentium 1 can still get (some) use with >> Linux. >> >> Not enough to really be noteworthy as a desktop PC... but, this is a lot >> less >> than the least you will get Windows 7 onto. >> >> So we have a nice toss up here: >> >> 1: Linux requires Software Rendering in place. IE: how rendering was done, >> before we got silly things like TNT and Voodoo on the market. >> >> 2: Linux requires significantly less overhead to run, as far as OS goes. >> >> If we can get it so that we can show Steam running on Linux, using mostly >> Software Rendering, and getting it to run as fast as the same game on >> Windows, >> on comparable hardware... >> >> This will definitely sell Linux as an OS... >> >> Which in turn will get various Graphics Card makers on board to add their >> support. >> >> You know--I kind of want to see somebody work on that goal then. I am >> almost >> ready to dig up some old books that go over the theory of 3d programming, >> just >> to pull make a software rendering engine for this idea. >> >> On Monday, June 14, 2010 07:59:45 pm Darren VanBuren wrote: >> > Yes, 3D drivers are definitely quite lacking on the GNU/Linux front, >> > but if Valve shows support for the development of these drivers, this >> > may prompt certain GPU manufacturers to step up their GNU/Linux driver >> > development. >> > >> > Darren L. VanBuren >> > = >> > http://theoks.net/ >> > On Mon, Jun 14, 2010 at 18:35, Bob Somers wrote: >> > > Something to consider, though, is that the 3D driver support is years >> > > behind from *ahem* a particular GPU manufacturer. I won't embarrass >> > > them by saying their name, so I'll just say their initials: ATI. >> > > >> > > Their driver support for Linux is, frankly, pathetic at best. The >> > > Fedora team is trying to solve this with their new free drivers in >> > > Fedora 13 (which, I'll admit, are quite good), but it's still not up >> > > to par with what you need to run a game. For example, the new free >> > > drivers have very little (read: practically none) support for basic >> > > vertex and fragment shaders. It will be at least another year before >> > > the free drivers are up to what ATI's crappy proprietary drivers are >> > > now. Even worse, right now you can get the proprietary drivers running >> > > on Fedora 11 alright, sort-of on Fedora 12 with some ugly hackery, and >> > > not at all on Fedora 13. Literally, ATI's Linux drivers are at least >> > > 12 months behind, and the free ones are 12 months behind that. >> > > >> > > Unless somebody gives ATI a swift kick in the nuts the situation does >> > > not look good. >> > > >> > > --Bob >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > On Mon, Jun 14, 2010 at 5:01 PM, Darren VanBuren >> wrote: >> > >> Spoiler Alert. It's like the ratman drawing that says "She's watching >> > >> you." Canonical is she in that case. >> > >> >> > >> I'm personally a fan of Fedora, but if Steam on GNU/Linux is >> > >> distributed as a tarball, that'd be best in the interests of Valve. >> > >> Even if some people (mainly Ubuntu users) would be a bit stuck on the >> > >> concept of a tarball, it'd be minimal work for Valve, and maximum >> > >> cross-distribution compatibility. >> > >> >> > >> Darren L. VanBuren >> > >> = >> > >> http://theoks.net/ >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> On Mon, Jun 14, 2010 at 16:49, Harry Jeffery >> > >> wrote: >> > >>> It's all down to personal opinion, as long as it does what you need >> > >>> quickly and effectively then it's fine. I've yet to see the dark side >> > >>> in cannonical so I honestly can't say much about their ethics. >> > >>> >> > >>> Either way, I <3 Linux and so should Valve. >> > >>> >> > >>> On 15 June 2010 00:19, Katrina Payne >> wrote: >> > Well a few points: >> > >> > The commands in the Linux Command
Re: [hlcoders] Source Engine 2!!!
BlackMesa3D? Sounds like a new Disney flick. -Original Message- From: hlcoders-boun...@list.valvesoftware.com [mailto:hlcoders-boun...@list.valvesoftware.com] On Behalf Of Alexander Hirsch Sent: Thursday, June 17, 2010 9:58 AM To: Discussion of Half-Life Programming Subject: Re: [hlcoders] Source Engine 2!!! Mesa3D? On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 5:20 AM, Katrina Payne wrote: > This also adds a rather odd burden here, that allows Linux to get a > better standing for gaming. > > It is not that unknown that without mixing, Linux generally does not > require anywhere near as much over head to run as windows. > > The minimum requirements to run a GUI on Linux is about 256MiB of RAM. > This even includes GUIs like KDE and Gnome. Though XFCE and LXCE would > be better if you really did only have 256MiB of RAM (well if you were > using a DE... and not a slimmed down WM with only a few programs > loaded into it) > > You can do just fine win 1GiB of RAM. > > Linux also, as an OS can run on some old Intel boards--that running an > OS on would other wise be insane today. a Pentium 1 can still get > (some) use with Linux. > > Not enough to really be noteworthy as a desktop PC... but, this is a > lot less than the least you will get Windows 7 onto. > > So we have a nice toss up here: > > 1: Linux requires Software Rendering in place. IE: how rendering was > done, before we got silly things like TNT and Voodoo on the market. > > 2: Linux requires significantly less overhead to run, as far as OS goes. > > If we can get it so that we can show Steam running on Linux, using > mostly Software Rendering, and getting it to run as fast as the same > game on Windows, on comparable hardware... > > This will definitely sell Linux as an OS... > > Which in turn will get various Graphics Card makers on board to add > their support. > > You know--I kind of want to see somebody work on that goal then. I am > almost ready to dig up some old books that go over the theory of 3d > programming, just to pull make a software rendering engine for this > idea. > > On Monday, June 14, 2010 07:59:45 pm Darren VanBuren wrote: > > Yes, 3D drivers are definitely quite lacking on the GNU/Linux front, > > but if Valve shows support for the development of these drivers, > > this may prompt certain GPU manufacturers to step up their GNU/Linux > > driver development. > > > > Darren L. VanBuren > > = > > http://theoks.net/ > > On Mon, Jun 14, 2010 at 18:35, Bob Somers wrote: > > > Something to consider, though, is that the 3D driver support is > > > years behind from *ahem* a particular GPU manufacturer. I won't > > > embarrass them by saying their name, so I'll just say their initials: ATI. > > > > > > Their driver support for Linux is, frankly, pathetic at best. The > > > Fedora team is trying to solve this with their new free drivers in > > > Fedora 13 (which, I'll admit, are quite good), but it's still not > > > up to par with what you need to run a game. For example, the new > > > free drivers have very little (read: practically none) support for > > > basic vertex and fragment shaders. It will be at least another > > > year before the free drivers are up to what ATI's crappy > > > proprietary drivers are now. Even worse, right now you can get the > > > proprietary drivers running on Fedora 11 alright, sort-of on > > > Fedora 12 with some ugly hackery, and not at all on Fedora 13. > > > Literally, ATI's Linux drivers are at least > > > 12 months behind, and the free ones are 12 months behind that. > > > > > > Unless somebody gives ATI a swift kick in the nuts the situation > > > does not look good. > > > > > > --Bob > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Jun 14, 2010 at 5:01 PM, Darren VanBuren > > > > wrote: > > >> Spoiler Alert. It's like the ratman drawing that says "She's > > >> watching you." Canonical is she in that case. > > >> > > >> I'm personally a fan of Fedora, but if Steam on GNU/Linux is > > >> distributed as a tarball, that'd be best in the interests of Valve. > > >> Even if some people (mainly Ubuntu users) would be a bit stuck on > > >> the concept of a tarball, it'd be minimal work for Valve, and > > >> maximum cross-distribution compatibility. > > >> > > >> Darren L. VanBuren > > >> = > > >> http://theoks.net/ > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> On Mon, Jun 14, 2010 at 16:49, Harry Jeffery > > >> wrote: > > >>> It's all down to personal opinion, as long as it does what you > > >>> need quickly and effectively then it's fine. I've yet to see the > > >>> dark side in cannonical so I honestly can't say much about their ethics. > > >>> > > >>> Either way, I <3 Linux and so should Valve. > > >>> > > >>> On 15 June 2010 00:19, Katrina Payne > > >>> > wrote: > > Well a few points: > > > > The commands in the Linux Commandline... and well those on any > > UNIX > or > UNIX > > Workalike have not really changed since the 1970s. You could > > pick up > a > book on >
Re: [hlcoders] Source Engine 2!!!
Mesa3D? On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 5:20 AM, Katrina Payne wrote: > This also adds a rather odd burden here, that allows Linux to get a better > standing for gaming. > > It is not that unknown that without mixing, Linux generally does not > require > anywhere near as much over head to run as windows. > > The minimum requirements to run a GUI on Linux is about 256MiB of RAM. This > even includes GUIs like KDE and Gnome. Though XFCE and LXCE would be better > if > you really did only have 256MiB of RAM (well if you were using a DE... and > not > a slimmed down WM with only a few programs loaded into it) > > You can do just fine win 1GiB of RAM. > > Linux also, as an OS can run on some old Intel boards--that running an OS > on > would other wise be insane today. a Pentium 1 can still get (some) use with > Linux. > > Not enough to really be noteworthy as a desktop PC... but, this is a lot > less > than the least you will get Windows 7 onto. > > So we have a nice toss up here: > > 1: Linux requires Software Rendering in place. IE: how rendering was done, > before we got silly things like TNT and Voodoo on the market. > > 2: Linux requires significantly less overhead to run, as far as OS goes. > > If we can get it so that we can show Steam running on Linux, using mostly > Software Rendering, and getting it to run as fast as the same game on > Windows, > on comparable hardware... > > This will definitely sell Linux as an OS... > > Which in turn will get various Graphics Card makers on board to add their > support. > > You know--I kind of want to see somebody work on that goal then. I am > almost > ready to dig up some old books that go over the theory of 3d programming, > just > to pull make a software rendering engine for this idea. > > On Monday, June 14, 2010 07:59:45 pm Darren VanBuren wrote: > > Yes, 3D drivers are definitely quite lacking on the GNU/Linux front, > > but if Valve shows support for the development of these drivers, this > > may prompt certain GPU manufacturers to step up their GNU/Linux driver > > development. > > > > Darren L. VanBuren > > = > > http://theoks.net/ > > On Mon, Jun 14, 2010 at 18:35, Bob Somers wrote: > > > Something to consider, though, is that the 3D driver support is years > > > behind from *ahem* a particular GPU manufacturer. I won't embarrass > > > them by saying their name, so I'll just say their initials: ATI. > > > > > > Their driver support for Linux is, frankly, pathetic at best. The > > > Fedora team is trying to solve this with their new free drivers in > > > Fedora 13 (which, I'll admit, are quite good), but it's still not up > > > to par with what you need to run a game. For example, the new free > > > drivers have very little (read: practically none) support for basic > > > vertex and fragment shaders. It will be at least another year before > > > the free drivers are up to what ATI's crappy proprietary drivers are > > > now. Even worse, right now you can get the proprietary drivers running > > > on Fedora 11 alright, sort-of on Fedora 12 with some ugly hackery, and > > > not at all on Fedora 13. Literally, ATI's Linux drivers are at least > > > 12 months behind, and the free ones are 12 months behind that. > > > > > > Unless somebody gives ATI a swift kick in the nuts the situation does > > > not look good. > > > > > > --Bob > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Jun 14, 2010 at 5:01 PM, Darren VanBuren > wrote: > > >> Spoiler Alert. It's like the ratman drawing that says "She's watching > > >> you." Canonical is she in that case. > > >> > > >> I'm personally a fan of Fedora, but if Steam on GNU/Linux is > > >> distributed as a tarball, that'd be best in the interests of Valve. > > >> Even if some people (mainly Ubuntu users) would be a bit stuck on the > > >> concept of a tarball, it'd be minimal work for Valve, and maximum > > >> cross-distribution compatibility. > > >> > > >> Darren L. VanBuren > > >> = > > >> http://theoks.net/ > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> On Mon, Jun 14, 2010 at 16:49, Harry Jeffery > > >> wrote: > > >>> It's all down to personal opinion, as long as it does what you need > > >>> quickly and effectively then it's fine. I've yet to see the dark side > > >>> in cannonical so I honestly can't say much about their ethics. > > >>> > > >>> Either way, I <3 Linux and so should Valve. > > >>> > > >>> On 15 June 2010 00:19, Katrina Payne > wrote: > > Well a few points: > > > > The commands in the Linux Commandline... and well those on any UNIX > or > UNIX > > Workalike have not really changed since the 1970s. You could pick up > a > book on > > BASH or TCSH from the 1970s, and still have most of what you should > do. > > > > This kind of has allowed for tools to be put around these base > functions, such > > as autocomplete, history and well--quite a few other really handy > tools, to be > > added into the Linux CLI, to make its functionality go above and >
