Linux Port for BI Titles

[kklownboy 43]

Someone tried the demo with wine and posted the result on the winehq:

But the graphics look pretty messed up...

8gb issue in wine...:eek: Edited November 6, 2009 by kklownboy

[Pirate. 0]

Please BI Studio, use the OpenGL rendering engine on whatever "game 4" you guys have in the pipeline! Your fans would hug you lots!

If John Carmack says it's good, it must be good!

These are some reasons why.

[...]If you use DirectX, you have to choose between using the weak, bloated DirectX 9 or sacrificing most of your user-base to use DirectX 10 or 11.

On the other hand, if you use OpenGL, you get faster and more powerful graphics features than DirectX 11, and you get them on all versions of Windows, Mac and Linux, as well as the PS3, Wii, PSP, DS, and iPhone.[...]

Edited January 18, 2010 by Pirate.

[Deadfast 43]

If John Carmack says it's good, it must be good!

Hang on a second, isn't he the same guy who said that dedicated servers are useless?

[echo1 0]

The next big thing coming around the corner are virtual gaming platforms. So beforehand, a developer might make a game, and then port it to consoles, PC etc. Now they just write the game for the single virtual platform, and the vendor of that platform ensures that it can run on the different real platforms around.

Assuming that it works properly (and I've heard some pretty big names are working on it at the moment) it means that the devs won't need to port their game to a particular platform as long as their virtual middleware can run on it. I think this is what gaming on Linux really needs, as at the moment, it's unfeasible for most companies to make a native Linux version of their game (which, by virtue of having to ditch DirectX stuff, would take serious amounts of effort). There certainly is interest in the Linux gaming market - shown by the fact that Valve has hired loads of Linux devs for things yet unknown.

[Pirate. 0]

If there would be a group of coders/gamers that would build a Linux distro specifically designed for gamers, the developers would have to start re-educating their coders to OpenGL and I think that would be a good development for gamers and probably even for developers and publishers.

[echo1 0]

How would this game distro be any different to the rest? Why would game devs suddenly invest the time and effort required to port their stuff over to OpenGL if this distro was made?

[AndresCL 10]

Hang on a second, isn't he the same guy who said that dedicated servers are useless?

Yes, it is.

[nuxil 2]

i would verry much like a linux port of the game arma/arma2.

it also makes it easyer to port the game to example mac using opengl

but then on the other hand. Bis isnt know to produce bug free game. in fact i dont think any other game has been released with the amount of bugs that thise games was released with,..

so i really dont see what they should port ther code to opengl instead of directx and introducing new bugs when they instead should focus on the current system.

[Pirate. 0]

How would this game distro be any different to the rest? Why would game devs suddenly invest the time and effort required to port their stuff over to OpenGL if this distro was made?

This distro should be easy of use. Most of the gamers are not very computer savvy and don't like the hassle of installing WINE or other tools that make games run (somewhat) on Linux. So if there was a distro which is already optimized for gaming out of the box, the gamer doesn't have to be bothered setting up another distro himself.

Gamers only really NEED Windows for gaming. OpenGL gives people the freedom to chose whatever operating system they want, and still being able to play games. My assumption is that if you give gamers a free operating system which is optimized to play games, they will use it, because it costs less than Windows.

If developers notice that a large portion of gamers prefers to play games on the platform of their own choice, the developers will want their game to run on an open graphics engine so the whole game can be much more easily ported to any of those platforms. So in the end, they reach a larger audience than just the gamers on Windows. They get Apple gamers and Linux gamers as customers too.

but then on the other hand. Bis isnt know to produce bug free game. in fact i dont think any other game has been released with the amount of bugs that thise games was released with,..

so i really dont see what they should port ther code to opengl instead of directx and introducing new bugs when they instead should focus on the current system.

99% of the bugs in the BIS engine is not graphics related and my guess is OpenGL wouldn't add a lot of graphics bugs. Besides, they can be swiftly solved because there are a lot of very smart people in the OpenGL/CL community.

Edited January 19, 2010 by Pirate.

[echo1 0]

This distro should be easy of use. Most of the gamers are not very computer savvy and don't like the hassle of installing WINE or other tools that make games run (somewhat) on Linux. So if there was a distro which is already optimized for gaming out of the box, the gamer doesn't have to be bothered setting up another distro himself.

The problem if there are very few native Linux games. If there was, you wouldn't need a special distro, as things like Ubuntu are sufficiently user friendly as is.

Gamers only really NEED Windows for gaming. OpenGL gives people the freedom to chose whatever operating system they want, and still being able to play games.

But is it up to the same scratch as DirectX is? Is it as usable as DirectX is? If memory serves me correctly, OpenGL fell out of favor because it was easier to develop for DirectX. And AFAIK, OpenGL doesn't support all the stuff DX does.

My assumption is that if you give gamers a free operating system which is optimized to play games, they will use it, because it costs less than Windows.

Leaving aside the amount of people who either get Windows with their PC, pirate it, or get it for free from college/work, there's the fact that people take a 'it works for me' attitude to Windows. There's also the fact that Linux won't run people's Windows software. Even if there are better open source alternatives, people will still prefer Windows. Very hard to fight against ignorance.

If developers notice that a large portion of gamers prefers to play games on the platform of their own choice, the developers will want their game to run on an open graphics engine so the whole game can be much more easily ported to any of those platforms. So in the end, they reach a larger audience than just the gamers on Windows. They get Apple gamers and Linux gamers as customers too.

Chicken and egg argument. People prefer Windows as their gaming platform because games are made for Widows.

99% of the bugs in the BIS engine is not graphics related and my guess is OpenGL wouldn't add a lot of graphics bugs. Besides, they can be swiftly solved because there are a lot of very smart people in the OpenGL/CL community.

Assuming that OpenGL was suited for the task, I think you're underestimating the amount of effort required to strip DirectX out of the game (bare in mind that it affects just about every aspect of software/machine interaction, including audio and input etc). I really don't think that Linux is going to become popular enough within the foreseeable future to make it viable for a small company like BIS to port their stuff over.

As I said before, I think the thing most likely to make games work on Linux are the sort of abstract virtual platforms that I talked about above.

[jwalstab 10]

A big thank you BIS for not wasting time on a linux, mac, xbox, playstation, wii, etc. platform of the game to dedicate your hard work to the windows pc version.

Lets just keep arma 2 where it belongs, on windows, and let them try and optimize that as much as possible. Seriously as if BIS have nothing better to do than pander to a bunch of linux elitists.

[Placebo 29]

A big thank you BIS for not wasting time on a linux, mac, xbox, playstation, wii, etc. platform of the game to dedicate your hard work to the windows pc version.

Lets just keep arma 2 where it belongs, on windows, and let them try and optimize that as much as possible. Seriously as if BIS have nothing better to do than pander to a bunch of linux elitists.

It belongs where we want it to belong, but thanks and all that.........

Still holding out hope for a console version personally :)

[Pyronick 21]

But is it up to the same scratch as DirectX is? Is it as usable as DirectX is? If memory serves me correctly, OpenGL fell out of favor because it was easier to develop for DirectX. And AFAIK, OpenGL doesn't support all the stuff DX does.

DirectX has better documentation and the SDKs are easier to use.

But OpenGL gives you more hardware access, you can extend OpenGL features which you can't with DirectX.

Leaving aside the amount of people who either get Windows with their PC, pirate it, or get it for free from college/work, there's the fact that people take a 'it works for me' attitude to Windows. There's also the fact that Linux won't run people's Windows software. Even if there are better open source alternatives, people will still prefer Windows. Very hard to fight against ignorance.

I think it's got to do with only 2 things:

- Different user interface

- Lack of commercial software (i.e. games, Live Messenger, Microsoft Office and various programs)

But I'm sure Google will change that soon enough. Just pray that XMPP will be the de facto IM protocol.

Assuming that OpenGL was suited for the task, I think you're underestimating the amount of effort required to strip DirectX out of the game (bare in mind that it affects just about every aspect of software/machine interaction, including audio and input etc). I really don't think that Linux is going to become popular enough within the foreseeable future to make it viable for a small company like BIS to port their stuff over.

That's the entire issue behind modern day software developing.

Software in it's ideal form is built modular, divided over various components which can be replaced by a module which is written completely different, using different API's (DirectX, OpenGL/OpenCL/OpenAL, etc) and file formats.

These modules should preferably have their own threads aswell for safety and performance reasons.

Look at Chrome(/Webkit) for instance, which has a thread per tab and plugin. That is the direction software should be heading.

A *nix distribution is built in modules aswell, seperating kernels, firmware, terminals, window manager, desktop environments.

And they don't necessarily have to fully integrate to work, they can be exchanged easily.

Don't strip DirectX out of a rendering engine. Just make sure you don't integrate it, use it as a seperate module.

Edited January 22, 2010 by SgtH3nry3

[echo1 0]

Agreed. The lack of modularity in pre-existing software (particularly closed source stuff) is coming back to haunt people. Apparently since around the time they started on the initial Server 2008 release, MS has had a team of people whose job it is to separate the GUI components out of the core components of Windows so that it can be used as a command line OS for server use. Years later they still reckon that their work won't be ready for whatever replaces 2008 R2. The complete lack of any sort of software engineering in the development of Windows has meant that they can't remove a non-essential component without risking breaking something important.

[nuxil 2]

if they ever do consider to port any of ther game titles to linux i do think they should contact/contract Ryan C Gordon for a helping hand..

the guy just know how to port stuff :)

http://icculus.org/~icculus/resume.txt

[Herbal Influence 10]

A new version of the Linux story can be found here.

But stay aware of the completely different consumer approach! ;)

[echo1 0]

Why did you bother opening a new thread when you knew there was one open already?

[Herbal Influence 10]

It is a completely new, or some call it strange, idea to deliver it with a whole and somehow then "own" operation system.

The two systems could be constructed to work flawlessly together - much more than it would ever be possible with the hideous OSs from Microsoft.

Read the first post there again - you will understand.

(Since you again sound provocative - leave me returning this on you ... :p)

But it is now "decided" that it is tooo strange, maybe one other game publisher will come out with this first. Too bad ... I would have wished BIS stays on their revolutionary way of programming "freedom".

But I always said that it might be too complex/too expensive a thing.

And sure I don't blame BIS or the moderator for this - it was just an idea.

And sure it was a new, strange idea.

I knew that and I admit I like strange, new ideas in the IT-world.

Revolutionary ideas always sound strange (using a mouse to command my computer - are you crazy ?? :eek: ) and a few years later people ask:

What should be strange about that? :o

I like to discuss new ideas ... and maybe in a year or two people read it again. :cool:

Edited March 14, 2010 by Herbal Influence

[raedor 8]

But it makes no sense when every game comes with its OS? I don't want to have to reboot just because I want to play Civ instead of ArmA?

Also, why should BI now start programming OSes? (This is re "The two systems could be constructed to work flawlessly together") I really don't see the point ;) Then its _their_ responsibility when the new uber ATI card does not work and _they_ have to make sure every damn combination of HW works with their OS?

And PS, you got it right, just because I say it is a strange idea, this does not mean the other mods or even BI sees it the same way.

[andersson 285]

It will not be a typical OS, it will just be enough that the game can use the hardware. Just like in old days. Have you never put a floppy with the game into an amiga? :)

My friend has been discussing this many times (he knows his hw and sw). There are benefits with a game that boots and use the hw alone. I guess the pro's about using windows is directx and other pre-made stuff instead of re-inventing the wheel? Also 3rd party applications like TS and trackir work out of the box.. But I like the idea of booting up the game and let it use the hardware fully.

About need to reboot, it will probably not take as long as rebooting windows which takes an eternity compared to other OS.

I guess drivers for hardware will be an issue though? Im not my friend so I dont know :)

[raedor 8]

Well, but that were games ONLY for an amiga, and the amiga was always more or less the same. You now have thousands of possible combinations of HW, how should the game OS cater that? With an additional DVD of drivers, just to make sure everyone can run it? Computer became pretty complicated the last decades ;)

I think it's way better to have a platform (some kind of design standard), on which games can be developed. This platform should be the OS. Sure, this is in nearly no case the perfect gain of performance for a specific combination of HW & OS, but it's at least possible to run it AND game developers don't have to re-invent the wheel evertime. And now don't tell me all game developers could "share" that DVD of drivers so they don't have to re-invent it everytime, as then we're back at the pre-installed OS ... ;)

[andersson 285]

Yes true.

I think BIS should sell arma2 computers specificly made for arma2 ;)

[echo1 0]

My friend has been discussing this many times (he knows his hw and sw). There are benefits with a game that boots and use the hw alone. I guess the pro's about using windows is directx and other pre-made stuff instead of re-inventing the wheel?

The main advantage of abstracting hardware from software is stability and security. Sure you can do great things with software that is allowed to directly access the hardware, but the flip side of this is that if your software screws up, you will crash your hardware quite bad. This is why old versions of Windows used to blue screen all the time - you had a lot of badly written software that wreaked havoc when it did something that the underlying hardware couldn't handle. In NT-based Windows versions, and *nix systems, the OS prevents software from doing this, so that the software may fail, but the rest of your system may run fine. Perhaps not as much a concern if you're only running the game, but the OS can probably decrease the likelihood of the game crashing something.

In terms of security - if a hacker figures out how to exploit the multiplayer component of the game and gets access to your system, he can do whatever he wants. Back in the days, there were some DOS viruses that screwed with the master boot record of your hard drive, which meant (afaik) that you had to perform a risky low-level format of the drive to get rid of it. Given that manufacturers often have DOS-based based BIOS updater tool, imagine if some spyware or virus could brick your motherboard... Ouch. I use DOS as an example in this instance, but really any low-level monitor OS would have the same failings.

In addition, as you say - providing a framework for hardware-software interaction cuts down on a huge quantity of duplicate effort. You'd probably find that if companies had to spend time and money developing their own interface, games would be nowhere near as advanced as they are today. It also a common standard for hardware designers to aspire to, otherwise it would be like the old days of graphics cards where every company had their own standard which game developers had to adopt their games to. Indeed, in making their OS, the developer would have to ensure compatibility and good drivers across a huge range of platforms... This will just distract them from making the game, and is best left to people whose job it is to implement such things.

Edited March 16, 2010 by echo1

[Herbal Influence 10]

If you buy a PC you pay between 50 and 250 or so Dollars for only having Microsoft on it.

This money could then be BIS money.

@raedor:

1. Arma2 is so time consuming and fascinating - you should stop playing Civ additonally. ;-)

And if you do: Complete Reboot with Ubuntu is less than 59 secs - lez say 130 secs with Microsoft. That's not much compared to the time you playing?

And, if BIS would start with an "own" OS, others will follow.

Soon there is no rebooting at all ... ;-)

2. I wouldn't prefer the OS completely merged with the BIS game - that's something the GPL wouldn't allow.

My idea is to use LTS-Ubuntu-Version (LTS = long time support) as a basis.

And to do some marketing in the way:

Guys, it's not only a game you get a complete OS and and Office package also and for free.

The version 10.04 (April 2010) will be such a LTS and it boots faster than Microsoft7.

I am using an Alpha of it 24h/7days.

But most important point should be:

With an OpenSource OS the developers really have a clue what's going on.

It's not a black box like Microsoft.

And they are independent.

They are freeeeeeeee and revolutionary !!

[raedor 8]

And, if BIS would start with an "own" OS, others will follow.

Soon there is no rebooting at all ... ;-)

I don't get that point. If all games have their own OS on DVD, then you'll have to boot for each game.

If all you want is that they port it to ubuntu (or whatever else), sure, then there's no rebooting as soon as more devs did that. But I don't understand why you want to sell the game *with* the OS on a DVD?