

Creative ports Glide 44
Taliesin writes "From this ZDNN article: The new technology, dubbed Unified, will allow games written to run on 3dfx
graphics accelerators to also run on competing boards made by Creative Technology Ltd. ... Creative's new technology basically acts as a phrase book, allowing Microsoft's DirectX programming interface to understand Glide commands. DirectX, in turn, accesses the accelerated features of Nvidia's TNT family of chips. "
Unified and linux (Score:1)
I have spoken with the creator "michael songy" and I was told that he plans on porting it to linux! He also told me that some of his friends are working on tnt drivers for linux and that they should have them out in june! I was told by another source that nvidia might release the tnt drivers for linux next week during the linux expo!
I wouldn't be surprised either considering the fact that a guy from nvidia told me that he was not able to say anything except stay tuned and the fact that creative said they will release "their" version of nvidias drivers in june!
works with all (Score:1)
Ah, why does this emulated glide work FASTER! (Score:1)
Good Thing (Score:1)
Re:Hello! not an emulator (Score:1)
Hello! not an emulator (Score:2)
TNT has different bottlenecks (Score:3)
The first generation 3Dfx could handle that. The TNT could not. The 3Dfx and TNT have different bottlenecks. Although these bottlenecks still apply for OpenGL games, there is the fact that games written with GLide are not designed for other cards, regardless or not of whether they work with them. This has been like that for all of the past titles, and will most likely be like that for a while in the future, even if GLide is now to catch on as a standard.
Speaking of standards, Microsoft has no qualms about adding very high-level features to the HEL of Direct3D. I saw some info about DX7 having the ability to stream light through a window and have it radiate through. With features like that and NURBs, it will be the API to fear if cards try to move its features from the HEL to the HAL. Nonstandard features and proprietary. Carmack mentioned something about proprietary NURB APIs being A Bad Thing.
Glide runs on Linux (Score:1)
Also, there are a LOT of Linux enthusiasts who boot Windows in order to play games.
Lastly, Slashdot doesn't pretend to be predominantly a Linux site -- it says "News for Nerds", not "Linux news"! Articles here are about lots and lots of non-Linux topics, including lots of non-computer topics.
I would be rather sad if, when Microsoft goes out of business, Slashdot refused to run the story because it didn't mention the word Linux anywhere. ;-)
(I'm being so hypothetical as to be far removed from reality, I know, I know: the story certainly would mention Linux, since that would be the reason for the demise of M$)
proprietary. (Score:2)
This has a bad side to it, GLide is a proprietary API, and should not be pushed forward in any way, not even by emulation, in my view. All GLide games should be eradicated. Let's forget them. 3dfx: move on, get a grip, write decent OpenGL drivers and I'll like you, a bit.
Re:the Bad Thing in all this (Score:2)
Re:Werent Glide emulator dubbed illegal? (Score:1)
that the developers used part of the GLIDE-SDK from 3dfx.. afaik it's legal if you don't use
copyrighted code from 3dfx..
The real reason they did it ... (Score:2)
Creative/Diamond and the rest made a LOT of money selling 3DFX based cards and I bet they were less than happy to see 3DFX go exclusive with the Voodoo3 series. Hence both Creative/Diamond will be pushing TNT2 based cards in an effort to
a) make lots of money
b) punish 3DFX for shutting them out
So, what's the ONLY reason not to buy a TNT2 over a Voodoo3? (its certainly not the speed, check out Tom's hardware) The answer is of course Glide. There's a good percentage of games out there which only run on Glide (Unreal was Glide only for a LONG time) and by developing a wrapper which looks like Glide to games but uses D3D (or OpenGL for that matter) I can play all the Glide games I want on my TNT2.
Will this end up in court, you bet, 3DFX has to protect the part of the market which they have a monopoly on. Who's going to win
Um, yeah? (Score:4)
Sure, the Glide UnderGround people do this, and they got lawyers sicc'ed on them hard, and it doesn't make any press. But now that Creative does it and its all okay?
Thats real funny.
Where are 3dfx's lawyers? Oh yeah, they're all too busy fighting a bunch of college kids that had this idea first to take on another company that can actually fight back...
Re:Finally (Score:2)
Are you talking about Microsoft "Chrome"? If so, it's hardly a big secret, MS demoed it around about a year ago. My understanding is that it's on hold pending faster CPUs.
--
Re:proprietary. (Score:2)
It's only proprietary if no other company can use it. Now that it's been reverse engineered, you can expect broader implementations, *if* Creative is willing to licence the technology.
Think about it - almost everything on your PC, from the Centronics parallel port to the BIOS to the SoundBlaster card to the VGA card was "proprietary" at one time.
(That doesn't mean Glide is the best solution, but neither was Centronics, SoundBlaster, or VGA.)
--
Seen this before... (Score:1)
Finally (Score:1)
Standardization of drivers is also good.
But when will we have "Direct X Windows"?
Reply from 3dfx? (Score:1)
Size Matters (Score:2)
Well, when the little guys did it, all it takes is a threat from 3DFX. If you're a programmer and you're suddenly faced with the threat of losing thousands of dollars of your own money to lawyers, it's enough to make you back down. Right or Wrong, do you want to gamble everything you have?
Creative obviously wouldn't have done this unless they had already assessed the situation and decided that they would be able to fight. Or come to a cross-licensing agreement of some kind. Whatever.
Your rights are proportional to how much money you are willing (or perceived to be willing) to spend in court.
Re:Windows-ONLY news shouldn't be on Slashdot (Score:1)
Windows-ONLY news shouldn't be on Slashdot??Eh? (Score:1)
"Windows 98 Second Edition works and players better than ever." -Microsoft's Home page on Win98SE.
Good Thing or Bad Thing (Score:3)
However the momentum behind OpenGL currently should hopefully fix everything for anyone by providing an open standard that everyone can participate in. That would be a Good Thing. Compatibility is great, but people must more fervently pressure game developers to avoid 3dfx and their proprietary nastyness.
-- Cysgod
the Bad Thing in all this (Score:2)
Haven't seen this before... (Score:2)
What happened is they were sent out threatening lawyer letters, saying stop using the 3dfx glide sdk to make these wrappers. Those who didn't use the sdk kept on going, and they still do today.
Precarious position to be sure, but not sued. I really like the fact that I bought a creative labs tnt more & more everyday. Had no idea they start kicking ass, but its been a nice present.
Re:Reply from 3dfx? (Score:2)
When 3dfx bought stb, they cut ties w/ almost all video card manufacturers (excepting quantum3D).
Once STB turned 3dfx they've done some stuff in regards to there old RivaTNT cards that wasn't totally kosher, such as when the much-ballyhooed Detonator drivers came out, saying they were buggy for the STB TnT card. On the other hand, they've been the only other company that NVidia to put out drivers for their old TNT card recently.
Re:Even Worse/Much Better Thing (Score:1)
Oh no! I do realize that there is a difference, a very important one.
OpenGL gets it right, Direct3d Gets it FAST. Both are important for completely different things.
Having read your other posts, I would agree that I would be horrified if you asked me to code your app in D3D.
I personally think OpenGL is nice and clean, but it was my first 3d api (first love and all that). It's also nice and portable, along with various and sundry other advantages, but from the point of view of Edios writing Tomb Raider 4, I wouldn't touch OpenGL with a 10 ft pole.
I've got one of these TNTs, and I'll tell you, under W95 (until NVIDIA gets it's act together) it's got GREAT OpenGL performance, but until all cards can say the same thing, I think we'll live in a world where both Direct3D and OpenGL have their place.
Just my not-so-humble opinion.
Happy Service!
Even Worse/Much Better Thing (Score:2)
Q. Is Unified limited to 16-bit color?
A. Actually, most Glide games are limited to 16-bit color when running in Glide mode. Unified will provide an extension to allow a game to display 24/32-bit color, but the games will need to be modified to take advantage of this feature.
So now we've got 3dFX's Proprietary API with Proprietary Creative extenstions, which won't run on 3dFX's hardware!
So, now either
1) Everybody gives up and uses OpenGL / D3D
OR
2) We wind up with 15 similar but slightly incompatible APIs.
Please O Please let it be #1.
But I must admit, I'm not upset that I already own one of these things. Now if they'd just release the *&*((& specs!
other tnts (Score:1)
ahh, the wonders of reverse engineering... (Score:1)
I don't think that Creative is going to be in any trouble. They're big enough to have the resources to devote to a clean-room emulator. If Compaq could get their PC BIOS approved by a court, I'm sure that Creative can write an emulator in such an environment so that their collective legal asses aren't left hanging out in the open.
And let's face it. This is SOP for companies in this volatile market. 3dfx merges with STB to solidify their position. Creative, Diamond, et al. write emulator software to take the wind out of 3dfx's sails, as far as their proprietary interface is concerned.
Now, if only someone could do a DX6 -> OGL translator!
Creative Unified (Score:1)
Re:Even Worse/Much Better Thing (Score:1)
-Shelrem
Re:Even Worse/Much Better Thing (Score:1)
Basically, D3D is for game developers who are not of John Carmacks level. openGL is for anyone who is really serious about the images they put on the screen (and yes, I do mean realtime images)
Re:ahh, the wonders of reverse engineering... (Score:1)
My own take is that msft has put too many screwball optimizations (used advisedly) into DX6 to satisfy gamers that make the conversion potentially difficult, and certainly inefficient. Why invest all the time and energy into an app to get performance and visual quality, and then pass all your work through a translator? I think this is the central reason that there are such battles over graphics libraries, because efficient use of the library really requires an exclusive commitment to that library. And even in the game development community there is a lot of dissention, our fave is John Carmack, who has given the entire 3D efforts at msft some very good critiques from both technical and business perspectives.
Bottom line is that computer graphics will remain a crude approximation for years to come, as reality is unfortunately infinitely complex and computers aren't. This kind of squelches translators for anyone trying to push the envelope.
Re:TNT has different bottlenecks (Score:1)
Re:Even Worse/Much Better Thing (Score:1)
Re:TNT has different bottlenecks (Score:3)
John Carmack at id uses openGL to do things we wouldn't dare, such as the lightmaps, as his needs are different than ours, and nobody is going to put dead demons or players on the operating room table. But openGL satisfies us both.
DX on the other hand has many of these "clever tricks" to do things like streaming light through windows, but places much less thought and emphasis on the general issues of rendering realistic images for a wide variety of tasks. Do you want to be operated on by a Doc who got any of his training on something optimized to do gore and explosions ? And even in the submarket they court, there are some knowledgable people, e.g. Carmack, who still tell them to stuff it.
What amazes me about the DX product are two specific issues.
1) The mantra at Microsoft is framerate,framerate,framerate. Good mantra. Unfortunately, they feel this justifies them in adding internal logic to deliberately degrade the geometries they have been given in order to maintain framerate. Thats the deal in their new focus on curves, to maintain framerate, __not to increase visual quality__. Lessee, we have apps for Docs, soldiers, and others who really really really don't need this. And I'm sure id isn't thrilled about having many ducats invested in their artwork, and loosing control over the tradeoffs on responsiveness against visual quality. Hey, we're supposed to know what we are doing. If msft wants to sell tutorial aids, thats fine, but some of us carry high development expenses specifically because we wish to make those decisions ourselves. Hence we tend to like openGL.
2) MSFT went out and hired Jim Blinn (making obligatory obiesiance now to the great Blinn), and put him in their advanced R&D area (I think). Last summer he talks about the 10 things still undone in CG, and delivers a pretty specific complaint about clever but narrow and unstable tricks used to improve visual realism in a narrow range of applications. He even gently points the finger at 3D games. Does Microsoft seem to pay any attention to him. No! I personally find that disgusting.
Summarizing, I guess I'm saying that as long as msft puts their efforts into stupid optimizations like this, to paraphrase the cryptogeeks, you can have my openGL libs when you pry them from my cold dead mind. It does seem some daze that msft is willing to go to that length, WGL is apparently doomed now.