Arx Fatalis Updated, Released Under GPL 153
Kevin Fishburne writes "According to WtF Dragon at Ultima Aiera, 'The long and short: Arkane Studios have released what is probably going to be the final patch for their Ultima Underworld-inspired game (which, indeed, they tried to license as the third entry in that series), Arx Fatalis. They have also released the source code for the game. That's right, the complete source of Arx Fatalis is available for download.' The readme notes that the original game installation is required in order to play the compiled game, as the data files are certainly still copyrighted. Linux is in need of a good FPS dungeon crawler, though the code will need a hell of a lot of cleanup as it's a VC8/9 project and uses DirectX (ugh...)."
Request: Someone fix the spellcasting mechanism. (Score:5, Informative)
I liked that game - but the really, REALLY disliked the amount of time it took to properly shape out letters with the mouse input. There just seemed to be no consistency with the way it judged the curves of input - I can understand the games with subtle puzzles on learning input mechanisms, but even with practice it came out more as random than a skill to build up.
If anyone can fix the input mechanisms for those spells using the source code, you'd be helping the game immensely.
Oh, and of course, remaking Ulima I & II would be a nice follow up... seems that's always been in the works for FPS modders, but it never seems to get completed. They're beautiful games that deserve the chance to appeal to modern gamers with a modern interface.
Ryan Fenton
Re:Request: Someone fix the spellcasting mechanism (Score:4, Insightful)
The FPS "modern" interface is, IMHO, overused and the addiction to virtual reality is what is killing the brain cells of the gamers. Profitable, sure, whizz-bang impressive makes profitable, sure, good games, definitely not.
The Ultima series is one of (perhaps only) the few that became better with sequels. That was because they were perfectly timed to progress with the progressing technology. Ultima I had good game play and story line but was primitive on graphics. Ultima II had good game play and good new concepts woven in but was similarly primitive on graphics. Ultima III (Exodus) took the intricate storyline concepts from I and II, meshed them together, and then put that into a fantastic and colorful UI with that completely outside background music.
What I miss is that Ultima ]I[ was not an FPS. I am sick and tired of FPSs. I haven't actually played a video game for more than an hour since the first release of Half-Life. After Half-Life the FPSs were all just whizz-bang. Half-Life was still appealing because it was such an enormous improvement over DOOM (which was great because it really brought the FPS concept to life) because the hardware video card technology was once again on the perfect timeline (3D accelerating algorithms were beginning to stabilize). After Half-Life it was all the same; more whizz-bang, more glitz and glimmer, more anime, prettier girls, more graphica fantastica, more innuendo to keep the teenagers drewling.
What I miss about Ultima ]I[ is that the graphics were good, real good, game play was good, real good, game complexity was good, real good, and story line was complex, real good--it was also top down 2D so your characters _really_ looked the way you wanted them to look, the encounters were top down 2D so the enemies _really_ looked as frightening and gruesome as you wanted them to look, the battles were not movie quality full-motion video so you could imagine your spellcasting and imagine the impacts and imagine the blow by blow the way you wanted to imagine it.
Modern FPS is all about being brain dead and watching what we want you to watch. It is hardly different from advertising.
One word... (Score:5, Insightful)
After Half-Life the FPSs were all just whizz-bang.
Portal.
Oh, does it have to be an actual shooter? Alright, then, how about...
Natural Selection.
Half-Life 2.
etc...
But I chose Portal because your complaint was about the FPS interface. Portal makes good use of that interface to deliver a decidedly non-FPS game. So does Penumbra.
There's more that could be done, but I think leveraging the years of experience people have playing FPSes, and just the overall fluidity of that interface for actually exploring a 3D world, is far, far better than trying to make any sort of 3D game in which you reinvent the controls, badly. If I recall, The Sims was particularly annoying -- completely different controls which ended up being less effective overall.
Re: (Score:1)
After Half-Life the FPSs were all just whizz-bang.
But I chose Portal because your complaint was about the FPS interface. Portal makes good use of that interface to deliver a decidedly non-FPS game.
It may have been non-FPS, but it was still all whizz-bang. The story was appalling.
Re: (Score:2)
Let's see...
Innovative gameplay. Yeah, it's supposed to be fun. If you just wanted a story, there are plenty of JRPGs for you, though you probably could get a better story still (with less work) by watching TV or reading a book.
As for Portal's story, sorry you disagree, but it seems you are very much in the minority.
If by "whizz-bang" you mean "action game", I guess we just have different tastes. But if by "whizz-bang" you mean it relies on pretty graphics and gadgetry, and is entirely devoid of gameplay or
Re: (Score:2)
Innovative gameplay. Yeah, it's supposed to be fun.
It is innovative, but the novelty of it wore off pretty quickly for me. It's supposed to be fun, but I didn't really enjoy it much.
If you just wanted a story, there are plenty of JRPGs for you, though you probably could get a better story still (with less work) by watching TV or reading a book.
Which is why I've stopped playing most modern games.
As for Portal's story, sorry you disagree, but it seems you are very much in the minority.
You don't have to apologise for having an opinion that differs to mine.
But if by "whizz-bang" you mean it relies on pretty graphics and gadgetry, and is entirely devoid of gameplay or story, much like Quake was, I don't think that's true
That is what I meant.
Re: (Score:3)
What I miss is that Ultima ]I[ was not an FPS. I am sick and tired of FPSs. I haven't actually played a video game for more than an hour since the first release of Half-Life. After Half-Life the FPSs were all just whizz-bang. Half-Life was still appealing because it was such an enormous improvement over DOOM (which was great because it really brought the FPS concept to life) because the hardware video card technology was once again on the perfect timeline (3D accelerating algorithms were beginning to stabilize). After Half-Life it was all the same; more whizz-bang, more glitz and glimmer, more anime, prettier girls, more graphica fantastica, more innuendo to keep the teenagers drewling.
I think FPS games are more of a phase... I played lots of them probably starting with Doom (1993) and mostly ending with Unreal Tournament (1999) - my teens to my early 20s. If I had been born a decade later, I'm guessing I'd be playing the FPS games of a decade later but today they have no appeal to me. The fact is, if you take of those rosy glasses you were pretty easy to entertain as a teen. Give you action, give you splatter and you're entertained. In retrospect it's quite amazing how much I liked some
Re: (Score:2)
I think it's more of a preference, personally. I played Doom and Doom 2 and I'm still playing Fallout and Oblivion.
That's more or less saying "FPS games are for kids, and the ones adults enjoy don't count". I think you need to work a bit harder to establish your point here.
Re: (Score:2)
I think it's more of a preference, personally. I played Doom and Doom 2 and I'm still playing Fallout and Oblivion.
I played through Oblivion but I've no idea how you can call that a FPS, most people would put that squarely in the RPG category even though most RPGs have bows and arrows as well as ranged spells. When I think FPS I think more like Crysis, Call of Duty, Bioshock or Far Cry 2. Fallout is something of a FPS-RPG crossover. I'd say the essence of an FPS is that it's a high intensity adrenaline rush game that requires good aim and staying on the move, not just good equipment and high level. Most game modes parti
Re: (Score:2)
I think there's room for a little overlap in the categories, myself. RPG means the game has role-playing elements. FPS means it's a first person viewpoint. IMHO, obviously. Granted, "shooter" is probably a bit of a stretch in the case of Oblivion.
Re: (Score:3)
One hears this argument a lot and it is bullshit. If crap graphics are better because they leave more to your imagination,
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Modern FPS is all about being brain dead and watching what we want you to watch. It is hardly different from advertising.
Really? Have you played Oblivion?
Re: (Score:2)
Modern FPS is all about being brain dead and watching what we want you to watch. It is hardly different from advertising.
Really? Have you played Oblivion?
Ah, I read "first person simulator" where you meant "first person shooter". Agree, used to play a lot of shooters, got tired of it. Very little imagination in the genre, just an addiction to higher frame rates and more polygons. I suppose that is why Bethesda ended up aborbing id and not the other way round.
Re: (Score:2)
I liked that game - but the really, REALLY disliked the amount of time it took to properly shape out letters with the mouse input. There just seemed to be no consistency with the way it judged the curves of input - I can understand the games with subtle puzzles on learning input mechanisms, but even with practice it came out more as random than a skill to build up.
After a while, I figured out the trick. The rune stones that showed the direction/angle of curves were displayed not perfectly upright, but they were tilted maybe 10 degrees. So if you saw a line on a runestone that suggested a perfectly vertical line, it probably isn't what you were supposed to draw. Tilt your head to figure it out. But yeah, it was annoying until you learn about that trick.
Nice game, but no graphics, (Score:2)
Arx Fatalis looks like a nice game, but Arkane studios only released the source code. I wonder how much work it will require to replace all the graphics.
Here is a video with sample game play: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W2MM8bn1Tew [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Buy the game, and play it on the open source engine. Just like Doom, Freespace II, Ultima 7, Star Control 2, and many, many other games.
Re: (Score:3)
Buy the game, and play it on the open source engine. Just like Doom, Freespace II, Ultima 7, Star Control 2, and many, many other games.
While I totally agree with you - the assets for Star Control 2 were actually released alongside the code, that's why you can download them from SourceForge...
np: Autechre - Nine (Amber)
Re: (Score:1)
I think, like Quake, you can do what you will with the source (subject to license limitations), but you need to provide your own graphical, sound and model assets. Either buy the game and import the missing assets, or redo them, I guess.
Too little too late (Score:4, Insightful)
If you want to play FPS/RPGs, really, get a windows partition or a console. Not trying to flamebait or something, just being rational. The game is 8 years old, with the software engineering maturity of a random sample company that this fact implies. Data files being copyrighted. DX-based being ultra-fun to port. Nope, I can't see serious effort thrown into this. It only gets funnier with feature requests, improvements & bug fixes. The first post here is a request FFS, imagine the port's forums.
For research:
You have source code for Quake3. I bet it's coded far better than arx fatalis, and it's already there.
Licensed works are copyrighted works. (Score:2)
I think Fishburne meant to say that the "data files" are under different licenses (probably far more restrictively licensed) than the Arx Fatalis code. Since Arx Fatalis is licensed than it too must be copyrighted. So you may run, share, and modify the GPL'd Arx Fatalis program, but you don't have these freedoms with the "data files".
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. See: Quake3 engine games that don't use any Quake3 data.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenArena [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Of course you can use a GPL program with data under other licenses. Do you think all data stored in MySQL databases has to be released under the GPL or all code compiled with GCC must be GPL? The fact that game data (not source code) is not released under a Free Software license doesn't even bother RMS, who considers that data in a separate category.
GPL-licensed game engines that require some game data to be useful (which is often copied from an existing game installation) are common. For example, Id has re
Re: (Score:1)
This wasn't a question of whether anything the program read or wrote had to be GPL-licensed, but whether essential files for the program to run at all had to be.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
I assume you're being sarcastic, but why?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
The initial 0.0.1 release of virtually every sourceforge project doesn't work, and there are no legal implications.
Re: (Score:2)
To be under any obligation to distribute source under the GPL, you must have distributed a binary under the GPL. Since they haven't, they aren't obliged to do anything at all. But assuming they had then obviously the art assets aren't derivative of the binary nor the binary of the art assets, they would be what in copyright law is called a compilation.
A "compilation" is a work formed by the collection and assembling of preexisting materials or of data that are selected, coordinated, or arranged in such a way that the resulting work as a whole constitutes an original work of authorship. The term "compilation" includes collective works.
It seems fairly clear that while each piece of graphics, sound, code etc. have their own copyright the arrangement of them all together into a game constitute
No wonder they didn't want to update it (Score:2)
Sources/DANAE/ARX_Script.cpp is 13719 lines in size, most of which handles script parsing and evaluation simultaneously, in a uselessly convoluted way. It deserves a proper rewrite from scratch.
I do like how they used names from Greek mythology to refer to certain components of the source code: Athena handles audio, Eerie handles some graphics, Mercury handles user input, Hermes is probably there for communication or saving/loading, Minos is only there for pathfinding and Danae gets everything else.
I played this game on PC... (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Trying to play this kind of game with a touchpad would be incredibly frustrating for me. Not simply because it's difficult, but because I would be so keenly aware that the touchpad would actually be the perfect input mechanism if only the software didn't convert the input data into mouse movement rather than providing the absolute finger positions.
Open Source Nerd Obsession with Source Code (Score:1)
I'm happy when people release source, but why do people think it is some sort of magical potion to create new software? This is especially true on Slashdot. I completely understand if you want to mod the existing source to patch the game, add on content or features, but for a new game, application, whatever, it's normally useless.
I do professional software development and I've worked for game companies as well as straight up businesses. I find that even the best written source that I authored is rarely use
Re: (Score:1)
I do not see any reason to use DirectX and VC nowadays; portability is key and in that area DirectX is going to be defacto waaaaay behind OpenGL.
--
www.twilightcampaign.net
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortunately for non-Windows-users, your opinion is not widely shared among people who are actually paid to make games.
Re: (Score:1)
You should step out a bit into the real world.
People use more and more opengl-enabled devices. Of all the top sellers I can't think of any that use DirectX.
Developers actually paid to make games actually are moving to OpenGL because they do not want to be stuck with MS in the future and be limited to
Windows and Xbox.
Cleaning up the code? (Score:1)
Looking at it, a lot of the init code revolves arounds windows stuff (HINSTANCE, for example), it looks difficult, somewhat.
And then, there are the damn tabs. Why does a "professional" IDE still use tabs for indentation?
Re: (Score:3)
Seriously? White space is annoying?
Re: (Score:3)
please,
1G!Gexpand
Re: (Score:2)
Stock, vim's :set autoindent and ;set magicindent both do tabs.
Mostly because when you're using arrow keys (or hjkl in VIM), having to scroll past 20 spaces is more annoying than just going 3 tabs over.
Re: (Score:2)
I can see the structure of the code by the blue arrows on the left side and can easily see the difference between indenting with some semantic meaning (e.g. because there's a nested scope) and spacing that's there for aesthe
Re:Cleaning up the code? (Score:5, Interesting)
An OS zealot and a homophobe, rolled up into one!
Do any of you people have any idea what an HINSTANCE is, anyway? As someone who has written code on both Win32 and free Unix-type OSes I find this all very odd. Would I criticize you for using some mundane typedef like (picking one at random) pthread_t? Of course not.
It's a Windows game written in C or C++. I expect there to be Windows-specific code. Is that really that evil? How do you expect them to accomplish their goals if they don't use some things that are specific to the platform they're targeting.
From a software engineering perspective the right way would be to isolate that platform-specific code to a clean set of modules. But let's be honest - the cleanest code is not always what gets shipped. How many GTK+ or Qt apps on Linux break the abstraction by calling directly into Xlib? I'm not sure about these days, but when I last developed for the platform the answer was "a lot".
I think a bunch of you guys need to grow up, or take a deep breath or something. Stop being so judgmental. These guys are kind enough to give you the code, and all you can say is it's not written with your favorite set of libraries.
Re: (Score:1)
"and uses DirectX (ugh...)" (Score:5, Insightful)
I guess if a Russian book written by a Russian author went public domain you would complain that it was written with a Cyrillic alphabet.
Re: (Score:2)
Curiously, how did it hurt them? =)
Modern DirectX (not saying anything about whatever version this particular game uses) is so much nicer to develop games in than OpenGL. MS has spent a lot of time focusing specifically on game developers in it's design... OpenGL ain't much more than a graphics library.
Re: (Score:1, Interesting)
OpenGL IS a graphic library ! it is its sole purpose in life !
Now maybe MS fanboys expect their APIs to do everything for them but some people are actually serious about programming and do not want bloatware.
Oh, yeah how did it hurt them?
Well how are they going to port to PS3? iPhone? iPad? Linux? OSX ?
Valve had to rewrite alot of the Source engine for their OSX port because they made the poor decision to use DirectX for it; I hope they learn from that lesson; though
I don't hold much hope for greedy people
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well how are they going to port to PS3? iPhone? iPad? Linux? OSX ?
Easy, they get the community to do it for them. Freely.
Re: (Score:1)
Yeah they are ripping off...
Re: (Score:2)
They didn't port Arx to any of those platforms. It was a Windows-only game, and DirectX is the best option for a Windows-only game.
Re: (Score:1)
You are going off topic, i was talking about game developers as a whole, not that particular instance.
Re: (Score:2)
I think you may have cause and effect mixed up. It was a Windows-only game because it used Windows-specific APIs. If they'd used OpenGL and OpenAL then a port would just require a rewrite of the input handling code, which is a couple of days work for a moderately competent developer (and most game companies have some middleware that does this - even if they don't, you write it for one game and then it's done for all future ones). You then get the OS X, console, and mobile ports almost for free.
OS X may
Re: (Score:2)
Now maybe MS fanboys expect their APIs to do everything for them but some people are actually serious about programming and do not want bloatware
Alternately, adults who want their software to solve the problem at hand with a minimum of unnecessary effort and fuss enjoy it when their APIs don't force them to reinvent the wheel.
"Serious about programming" != "Interested in code masturbation for no good reason."
Valve is the example of why you should not use DX? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Yes because they could have made millions in the first place and not use any fraction later on and make more millions.
Using OpenGL is really win-win for game developers.
Re: (Score:2)
From what I remember, you can't use SDL commercially, unless you want to give everything you make with it away.
From what I remember, you are an idiot. Seriously, check the license - the LGPL has no such requirement. You can link it against proprietary code with no legal issues.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Get the game at Good Old Games (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Or Steam [steampowered.com] for a dollar cheaper.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No DRM is worth much more than a dollar.
Re: (Score:2)
The game is open source now. Even if they bothered to compile a version of the game with DRM once you have the data files you could use them with a non DRM self-compiled executable.
Ultima Underworld (Score:4, Interesting)
Games like Doom, Quake, Wolfenstein 3D and the like are crediting with innovating and pushing 3D engines. People always seem to forget Ultima Underworld. Ultima Underworld shipped a full year before Doom, ran on lesser hardware, and had a more advanced engine.
It really is a shame these two games aren't very playable on modern systems and have been forgotten in the mists of time.
I'd kill to see the GPL Arx Fatalis engine used to remake Ultima Underworld I and II.
Re:Ultima Underworld (Score:4, Interesting)
"More advanced engine" is debatable. It had nice things like 3D objects and the ability to look up and down, but the maps were tile-based (where Doom allowed arbitrary geometry in a 2D plane), and the draw distance was very limited (where Doom could render right up to the limit of the screen resolution).
Even what I believe was the last iteration of the Underworld engine, in System Shock, was still fundamentally tile-based and only had very limited support for non-orthogonal walls, though it was again very advanced in other ways (dynamic lighting, rather good physics for the era, and unusual support for high resolution graphics).
Re: (Score:2)
Actually it had multiple ground levels and also a physics engine additionally on top of that, so it probably was more advanced than Doom.
Re: (Score:1)
> Ultima Underworld shipped a full year before Doom, ran on lesser hardware, and had a more advanced engine.
And ran at about a quarter of the frame rate, in spite of having a smaller viewport and limited draw depth.
Doom rendered to the horizon, used most of the screen, and was FAST.
GPL with additional conditions (Score:2)
Towards the end of the accompanying license file, you'll find...
END OF TERMS AND CONDITIONS
ADDITIONAL TERMS APPLICABLE TO THE ARX FATALIS GPL SOURCE CODE.
While GPL3 authorises some flavours of additional term, these ones contain spelling errors - DAMAEGS, LIABLITY - which suggest they really haven't spent much time on this.
Maybe now we can make it work on a modern OS (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
First problem is that it seems to just be a zip file with the code. Someone needs to stick it on git hub and get the ball rolling.
Loved that game (Score:2)
It was the Ultima Underworld 3, Origin-Looking Glass never did.
Re: (Score:1)
, I could google it or look it up on Wikipedia, but to be honest, I don't enough to do so.
you apparantly don't even ' ' enough to bother to write ' ' in your post.
- Anonymous Melvin
Re: (Score:2)
, I could google it or look it up on Wikipedia, but to be honest, I don't enough to do so.
you apparantly don't even ' ' enough to bother to write ' ' in your post.
Perhaps he accidentally the whole thing?
Re: (Score:2)
Actually lots of people never heard of it, it is one of those european RPG gems almost none in the US have noticed because it either did not get any reviews or just lousy reviews by us mags because there was no big US publisher behind it (another prime example is Gothic 2 one of the best RPGs ever made). The game really is a gem, it has written Ultima Underworld all over it.
Re: (Score:3)
http://www.opengl.org/documentation/current_version/ [opengl.org]
Graphics cards are now sold with OpenGL 4.0 support. It's not stuck at 2.0, like you're suggesting with Direct3D 9.
Re: (Score:1)
Despite the tone, that's not what the GP said. He said DirectX 9 was when it surpassed OpenGL and I'm inclined to agree. This is around 2002, when the last big OpenGL games like Neverwinter Nights and Unreal Tournament 2003 were released. Version numbers are a little irrelevant when pretty much every major game made since has chosen to use DirectX and still do. May I point you to this story [slashdot.org] from 2008 - six years later when OpenGL 3.0 finally comes out and people call it a great disappointment? And that if y
Re: (Score:2)
OpenGL 3.0 finally comes out and people call it a great disappointment?
Pretty much the sum of their complaints was that they decided to deprecate a load of stuff, rather than removing it outright, so old programs still compiled and worked with the new API. How terrible. Direct3D releases a new interface for each version, so porting from DirectX 9 to DirectX 10 is almost as much effort as porting to OpenGL 3. In contrast, porting from GL2 to GL3 just meant some refactoring.
OpenGL 3.1 then actually did remove things, and came with a core that was roughly equivalent to Direct
Re: (Score:2)
OpenGL 3.0 finally comes out and people call it a great disappointment?
Pretty much the sum of their complaints was that they decided to deprecate a load of stuff, rather than removing it outright, so old programs still compiled and worked with the new API. How terrible. Direct3D releases a new interface for each version, so porting from DirectX 9 to DirectX 10 is almost as much effort as porting to OpenGL 3. In contrast, porting from GL2 to GL3 just meant some refactoring.
OpenGL 3.1 then actually did remove things, and came with a core that was roughly equivalent to Direct3D in terms of functionality, plus extensions.
I am so glad Kronos did the reasonable thing and didn't throw out the entire API like some noisy game engine hotheads wanted. Immediate most is just so much faster to prototype new ideas with, this fact is often overlooked by developers who are just trying to optimize an existing code base. It would be really stupid to ever actually drop it from development profiles of OpenGL (and if any hardware vendor momentarily forgets this an angry mob of engineering organizations with be quick to remind them). The
Re: (Score:2)
Be honest and admit that the OpenGL game market has been microscopic
You're quite the troll, aren't you? Fact: OpenGL drives the entire console world except for XBox. Fact: OpenGL drives the entire smartphone game market. Fact: OpenGL is cross platform, GL is not. Fact: AAA OpenGL titles continue to be released regularly on Windows (id's technical dominance of each new engine generation ensures this).
Now with a much more efficient community process (Kronos) OpenGL is at least at parity with Direct3D and soon will surpass it, with a far nicer, more consistent, and more wi
Re: (Score:2)
GL is not
Ahem. DX is not.
Re: (Score:2)
If there is one thing Microsoft has been doing well in the last decade is game libraries: between DX >= 7 and XNA it feels like there are alternatives but not opponents...
Re: (Score:3)
Well, yeah. If they didn't do that then developers might create/use/improve cross-platform game libraries instead, and that's definitely not in Microsoft's interests. Games are one major area where it's far easier to just use Windows. Microsoft is more than smart enough to realize that this might change if they fail to cater to game developers. To them, furtherance of vendor lock-in is more than worth whatever money
Re: (Score:1)
It's the kind of thing that helps keep Windows from having to compete on its merits
But those are its merits. Having a clean and well implemented gaming API where gaming is highly desirable for many people is a merit! What is stopping you, or anybody, from downloading the latest DX SDK and reimplementing it in *nix? Just that it's a damn huge amount of absolutely non trivial work. Add to that work the complexity of designing it in the first place, and you get why it is a major strong point of Windows.
Also, game developers are not idiots and do not care the least bit about Microsoft. D
Re: (Score:2)
DX is awful because it isn't cross-platform.
Now why it isn't possible to port DX to other platforms (i.e., make an open-source DX work-alike library that has the same API as DX, so that porting DX games requires little more than a recompile), I have no idea. If someone did such a thing, and it worked well, then DX would no longer be "awful". But as long as it's single-platform only, then it's awful.
It's a lot like PDF. If Adobe Reader (formerly Acrobat Reader) were the only way to view PDFs, and you had
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Considering the size of the non-Windows gaming market, not being cross-platform isn't really a handicap.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Couldn't you just compile it against Wine instead of porting it to OpenGL?
Re: (Score:1)
Pfff no.
LOL
Re: (Score:2)
So what's so hard about improving OpenGL to be as good as DX? Is it too encumbered by committees or something? Also, why can't someone make a cross-platform DX clone library, which uses the same API as DX?
Re: (Score:2)
As far as I can tell, OpenGL as a whole is probably on a par with DirectX, except that finalisation of a version number of OpenGL has to be done by committee. o, where you have Microsoft talking to graphics card providers first and agreeing a standard on where DirectX is going to go next, for OpenGL each manufacturer implements their own proprietary extensions and then the OpenGL committee decides later which of those is going to be standardised.
This means that although OpenGL as a whole has on a par featur
Re: (Score:2)
Problem is, OpenGL is only the graphics stack and nowadays the computing stack. DirectX covers way more ground take what OpenGL does, add some isolation code for input, sound i/o, networking etc.. and you get DirectX.
None of that is present on OpenGL and only a subset (Networking) is standardized over all machines, the mess starts as soon as you have to handle sound and input devices, have fun!
Re: (Score:1)
OpenGL is ALWAYS ahead of Direct3D, because OpenGL can accept more instructions that are not built into D3D. As long as the card has the power to do it, you can drop that new instruction in and it can be supported. You have to wait for the same thing to purposely be built into Direct3D.
Which means D3D will always be behind in development.
Re: (Score:2)
...so, where are the fully open-source OpenGL library + drivers that has more features than (or even just feature parity with) DirectX 11?
Oh, I see.
Re: (Score:1)
It's not the drivers, the game engine just needs to include an extension in their own renderer.
You can drop new features that D3D and the current revision standard of OpenGL (4.0 as of writing) do not natively support into OpenGL.
The drivers themselves to not have to support it, as the extension is written to work with the driver itself.
Go load up any Quake and go look at all those extension detections.
Re: (Score:2)
I know how GL extensions work, and it definitely wasn't a fun model to work with. It's nice being able to test new features, yes, and back when new DirectX versions were ages between GL had the upper hand here... but having to manage several different vendor-specific codepaths sucked.
I don't agree that vendor extensions means OpenGL will always be ahead of DirectX anyway, since the platform as a whole isn't. With DX (especially after they dropped the crappy caps flags) you pretty much know what you're going
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Or to state the obvious, port to OpenGL.
Re: (Score:2)
Re SDL: I would not recommend that any serious project use it, it many just adds a new layer of bugs. For an OpenGL app you only need two things that SDL provides: a drawable surface and input events. Here is code [phunq.net] for this directly on X/Glx, it is short and sweet and on the metal. As an extra benefit, Alt-Tab works in fullscreen whereas it does not in SDL. Doing the same on top of DirectX is left as an exercise for the interested reader, please send me the code when you're done.