Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Lutris Updated With D3D12 DLL Provided By VKD3D-Proton

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • andre30correia
    replied
    Originally posted by pal666 View Post
    osx supports opengl 4.6 which is much closer to dx11 than vulkan.
    Do your two seconds of research. Then you don't look that incompetent.
    lol man you should think before talk

    Leave a comment:


  • Aryma
    replied
    Originally posted by pal666 View Post
    osx supports opengl 4.6 which is much closer to dx11 than vulkan.
    Do your two seconds of research. Then you don't look that incompetent.
    osx support only opengl 4.1 and then they dropped in favor of Metal API
    source :
    Applications in macOS can use OpenCL and OpenGL to take full advantage of the modern graphics processor (GPU) in your Mac. Learn about the OpenGL and OpenCL versions that your Mac supports.

    Leave a comment:


  • Alexmitter
    replied
    Originally posted by pal666 View Post
    osx supports opengl 4.6 which is much closer to dx11 than vulkan.
    Do your two seconds of research. Then you don't look that incompetent.
    Again, two seconds of research could have got you the knowledge that apple hasn't updated its OpenGL stack since 2010, it is stuck on 3.3. And deprecated by the way.

    Source: Apples own specification pdf: https://developer.apple.com/opengl/O...ies-Tables.pdf


    Please, stop. Its painful to watch this.

    Leave a comment:


  • pal666
    replied
    Originally posted by Alexmitter View Post
    Maybe, just maybe it is because DX11 is so much easier to map to Vulkan then to OpenGL 3.x, the version Wine and CodeWeavers were targeting to also support OSX.
    osx supports opengl 4.6 which is much closer to dx11 than vulkan.
    Do your two seconds of research. Then you don't look that incompetent.

    Leave a comment:


  • vladimir86
    replied
    This is fine, and I bet the day I can afford a new laptop it won't have Intel with its terrible GPU and I can make use of it.

    Still scratching my head on where all the nice and easy to use DX9 options went tho. They banished for me after an update and I have to rely on passing parameters for the executables.

    Leave a comment:


  • Alexmitter
    replied
    Originally posted by pal666 View Post
    it's already happened - dxvk is written in c++ and it already overtook wine directx11. were you living under a rock?
    Maybe, just maybe it is because DX11 is so much easier to map to Vulkan then to OpenGL 3.x, the version Wine and CodeWeavers were targeting to also support OSX.
    Do your two seconds of research. Then you don't look that incompetent.

    Leave a comment:


  • pal666
    replied
    Originally posted by Aryma View Post
    c++ is good as long as you know whst are doing
    if you don't know what you are doing, you shouldn't be writing programs

    Leave a comment:


  • pal666
    replied
    Originally posted by Auzy View Post
    I can't believe I'm literally debating with people who think they can manage the project better than Alexandre Julliard in regards to Wine.
    I can't believe I'm literally debating with person who thinks wine managed their directx11 support better than dxvk
    Originally posted by Auzy View Post
    27 years of coding, vs your experiences.
    no directx11 support vs dxvk. fact versus appeal to authority. btw, i have more than 27 years of coding(but not in one project). and i already gave you an example of even older and larger gcc project successfully switching to c++
    Originally posted by Auzy View Post
    Just to be clear, do you guys honestly believe you know more about how to manage Wine than him.
    we know for a fact that dxvk is managed better, because it produced better result
    Originally posted by Auzy View Post
    If C++ is so beneficial to the project, you guys should be able to fork it, and quickly overtake the original project
    it's already happened - dxvk is written in c++ and it already overtook wine directx11. were you living under a rock?
    Originally posted by Auzy View Post
    Also, I wouldn't call C an OOP language (it may support objects, but I wouldn't say it's an OOP language per say).
    nobody called c an oop language. i said there's plenty of object oriented code written in c, and c++ is not an oop language. and both of those are facts. you can write object oriented code even in assembly(that's what oop code looks like after translation, after all), it just wouldn't be very convenient. and yes, in c++ it would be more convenient than in c, but c++ is just more convenient in general
    Originally posted by Auzy View Post
    But I only do programming as a hobby
    why do you try to argue on subjects you are incompetent with?
    Last edited by pal666; 20 July 2020, 05:31 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • pal666
    replied
    Originally posted by Almindor View Post
    As a Rust rewriter I have to say
    talk is cheap. wake me up when you rewrite your compiler from c++ to rust(no, frontend is not a compiler)

    Leave a comment:


  • artivision
    replied
    Originally posted by Darkstar0129 View Post
    My only ten cents on this, and I do comment much, is this: Back in 2012 we got Steam for Linux. A big thing for us. Valve said they would support Linux because of the direction Windows was taking. Realistically, all I see this is is Valve fulfilling their promise. They have the money behind them and the talent as far as development to help out Wine. Wine benefits a lot from their work. Valve's steam boxes failed in a very epic way. So If you all notice, they started working on Wine and now we have VK3D-Proton. They are contributing to Linux and helping anyway they can. All I am saying is... It seems to me, as much as Valve gets a lot of flak around here about "not caring" from some, they are in fact, fulfilling what they said. Gabe Newell has been doing a nice job of keeping his promise. Look how fast things have progressed thanks to Valve on the gaming front for Linux. Fork or not... They are keeping promises. Tell me how many companies actually do that? How much vaporware do we see or failed projects? Sometimes even empty promises... People contribute to a Kickstarter and the project either fails or doesn't do what they say. As closed and DRM ridden as Steam is, I'm thankful for Gabe Newell actually trying as hard as he is to keep his promises to Linux as a whole to bring gaming to us in some way. Instead of arguing, he happy for what you all get. Linux is woefully ignored as a whole. So anytime I see any company, be it IBM giving money to Linux development, Valve forking projects and spending money to improve our experience, and even Wine for existing for 27 years and trying to make our experience amazing if we need Windows compatibility. There's lots to be happy about. Quite complaining and recognize what they are trying to do. This is just my ten cents. I am not looking to start a flame war. We are where we are now because of Valve on the gaming front. They're doing a lot for us.
    I remember we told that Gabe and any other Gabe out there, not to go with MS monopoly there will be loses for everyone. From the day MS opened their own Windowz Market, Gabe (doesn't admit) he felt betrayed and retaliated making an effort for an SteamOS based on Linux compatible with MS based apps.

    AMD did Vulkan and the list goes on. Yes thank you all but you deserve it.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X