Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 24

Thread: Mozilla Brings Unreal Engine 3 To Firefox

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    14,659

    Default Mozilla Brings Unreal Engine 3 To Firefox

    Phoronix: Mozilla Brings Unreal Engine 3 To Firefox

    For showing off the power of its JavaScript engine with Firefox, Mozilla collaborated with Epic Games to bring a JavaScript-based version of Unreal Engine 3 for the web...

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=MTMzNzc

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    MA, USA
    Posts
    1,277

    Default

    Makes me wonder if any/all existing UE3 games will work on linux now, and there's a LOT out there. I own at least 4 games that use it, with only 2 of them being a FPS.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    457

    Default

    Arguably it's in a small canvas in Firefox. It's good to see people moving toward Javascript use as there's no reason for JS not to be super fast language.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    396

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by schmidtbag View Post
    Makes me wonder if any/all existing UE3 games will work on linux now, and there's a LOT out there. I own at least 4 games that use it, with only 2 of them being a FPS.
    well dungeon defenders already works on linux.

    also there was news of a good FPS that is coming too.

    but this browser technology looks good, specially since the linux version of flash didnt support it. So take that Adobe, less and less flash every day !

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Faroe Islands
    Posts
    178

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by madjr View Post
    well dungeon defenders already works on linux.

    also there was news of a good FPS that is coming too.

    but this browser technology looks good, specially since the linux version of flash didnt support it. So take that Adobe, less and less flash every day !
    Which one would that be?

  6. #6
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Sunshine State
    Posts
    303

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by e8hffff View Post
    Arguably it's in a small canvas in Firefox. It's good to see people moving toward Javascript use as there's no reason for JS not to be super fast language.
    lol, wut? Javascript has... dynamic typing, dynamic prototype based object structures, variable tagging (v8) with 31bit ints, etc... there may be some obscure way to get JS to work at slightly okay performance, or extend the syntax in some human-unreadable way to allow strict compilation rules (eg asm.js), but as it is Javascript is a horribly slow, bug-prone language only suitable for it's original purpose: website scripting.

    NaCL and Dart are much better options than trying to fit a square shape (javascript) into a round whole (efficiency).

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    3,105

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by F i L View Post
    lol, wut? Javascript has... dynamic typing, dynamic prototype based object structures, variable tagging (v8) with 31bit ints, etc... there may be some obscure way to get JS to work at slightly okay performance, or extend the syntax in some human-unreadable way to allow strict compilation rules (eg asm.js), but as it is Javascript is a horribly slow, bug-prone language only suitable for it's original purpose: website scripting.

    NaCL and Dart are much better options than trying to fit a square shape (javascript) into a round whole (efficiency).
    This is wrong.

    Anyway, the main problem with running real games inside a browser is the texture data. AAA games have > 10GB of texture data that's typically installed to the hard drive, and you aren't going to want to try and stream that on demand. Meaning you need to install it all ahead of time. And once you've done that, is there really much of a point to try to run it in the browser instead of locally?

    Apparently Mozilla is working on some kind of new system that would check the bandwidth available and dynamically download textures of different sizes and quality based on how much you can stream from the server, but I still doubt you'd want to do that for a major AAA game. It seems like it'd be more useful for something that in the past would used Flash.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    MA, USA
    Posts
    1,277

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by smitty3268 View Post
    This is wrong.

    Anyway, the main problem with running real games inside a browser is the texture data. AAA games have > 10GB of texture data that's typically installed to the hard drive, and you aren't going to want to try and stream that on demand. Meaning you need to install it all ahead of time. And once you've done that, is there really much of a point to try to run it in the browser instead of locally?

    Apparently Mozilla is working on some kind of new system that would check the bandwidth available and dynamically download textures of different sizes and quality based on how much you can stream from the server, but I still doubt you'd want to do that for a major AAA game. It seems like it'd be more useful for something that in the past would used Flash.
    I think in the end it becomes more a matter of compatibility than anything. It seems that more and more programs are becoming web based, because Windows no longer has a greater market share than all other platforms combined. Windows, Windows RT, Mac, Android, and iOS are all pretty much binary incompatible with each other, and linux is just starting to crack out of it's shell of being apart of the rest of the flock (pun intended). When you consider games, Xbox and PS are also in the loop. So that can become potentially 8 modern binary-incompatible platforms to support, and that's a turnoff for any developer. By making something browser based, it no longer becomes the developers' responsibility to make it cross-compatible, as long as the product is known to work on that particular browser.

    I'm sure one of the reasons Mozilla is working on this is so they have something extra appealing to offer for their Firefox OS.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Sunshine State
    Posts
    303

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by smitty3268 View Post
    This is wrong.
    Which part and how so?

    I write in Javascript every day, it's slow and I know it. Moreover, there's no dynamic language out there that compares to the performance of native static-typed ones (C & C++). Most AAA game companies wont even consider using anything but C++ cause no other language (currently) offers tight control over SIMD instructions. There's no way Javascript is going to be a target for anything more than simple Indie games unless something drastic happens to the language itself, or (like with asm.js) human-unreadable subset idioms are introduced that allow JS compilers to have more structural guarantees. Even then, unless you add very specialized SIMD commands, C++ will win by a milestones.

    Moreover, even if the performance wasn't a concern, Javascript sux. Prototype inheritance is horrible for big projects compared to proper OOP. You can't even have private variables without killing performance.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Paris, France
    Posts
    217

    Default

    Incredible.
    The portage done in just four hours. Ok, probably a little more with some additionnal tunning.
    Meanwhile, shall I remember that the Linux players have been waiting for UT3 for years for nuts ? I thought there was some "legal" problems avoiding the port to linux? Is there no "legal" problem anymore so that the engine can be directly ported to all existing platforms at the same time because of using Java?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •