Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Valve's L4D2 Is Faster On Linux Than Windows

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

  • Scali
    replied
    Originally posted by RealNC View Post
    Might Valve be trying to pull off something similar to the Amiga->PC case, where several publishers came together and decided to drop the current de-facto standard gaming platform and create another because they were unhappy with the current platform? Or is this just wishful thinking?
    Amiga the 'de facto standard' gaming platform? Not really. It may have been the best platform, but it still had quite a lot of competition from C64, Atari, MS-DOS and the various consoles.
    PC simply took over because gaming evolved where the Amiga didn't. Games like Wolfenstein 3D and Doom changed everything, and the Amiga hardware was not updated to handle such games. The higher cost of PCs for gaming was also not a problem, so gamers moved from Amiga to PC to play the new 3D games.
    Not really a move of any publishers in particular, just evolution. Much like how MS-DOS was abandoned in favour of Windows at some point.

    I doubt that Valve has enough of an influence to move the gaming world from Windows to linux to be honest, so I'd say 'wishful thinking', yes.
    I mean, after all is said and done, it's still just an old DirectX 9 game that is being ported. Now if something like Crysis 3 or Battlefield 4 were announced for linux, it's slightly different, but I don't think Valve's engine and games have 'killer app' status at this point.

    Leave a comment:


  • RealNC
    replied
    Might Valve be trying to pull off something similar to the Amiga->PC case, where several publishers came together and decided to drop the current de-facto standard gaming platform and create another because they were unhappy with the current platform? Or is this just wishful thinking?

    Leave a comment:


  • entropy
    replied
    http://blogs.valvesoftware.com/linux.../#comment-4341

    Valve Linux team says:
    August 2, 2012 at 3:10 pm

    We are already in contact with other game developers and building a list
    of those with interest in porting existing games in their current catalog to Linux.
    Some of these companies already have Linux versions available.
    Sounds promising. Somehow...

    Leave a comment:


  • Scali
    replied
    Originally posted by jrch2k8 View Post
    well this massive rewrites happens when you marry with microsoft technologies since they are not fan crossplataform or compatibility[mono is not an effort to change this but more like hey you can't sue me i support crossplataform check mono] but once you adopt open technologies this effort[or future efforts] are vastly reduced to the point of minor plataform adjust and compiler selection for X plataform.
    You have to put things in the proper perspective though.
    The Source engine was developed in the early days of DX9 and programmable shaders. At this time, OpenGL had no standardized shader support whatsoever (and OpenGL never got standardized support for SM1.x hardware at all, while this was one of the primary hardware targets of HL2). It simply wasn't possible to write a game like Half Life 2 with OpenGL at that time, unless you wanted to include a separate render path for all hardware out there. Doom 3 tried, and failed. Apart from being more than a year late, the hardware compatibility left a lot to be desired, and Doom 3 only ran properly on a small selection of midrange-to-high-end Radeons and GeForces, where Half Life 2 was very scalable and even ran on DX7-class IGPs.
    The Source engine is still used today on a variety of DX9+ hardware, while Doom 3 is nothing but a bad memory (and Rage didn't improve much on that... again late, poor hardware support, generally not a very decent game technically).

    Today the situation is quite different: DX11 is nearly 3 years old, and OpenGL has more or less caught up. AMD, nVidia and Intel all have OpenGL 4.0+ support now, and shaders have been covered quite well with GLSL.

    Leave a comment:


  • jrch2k8
    replied
    well this massive rewrites happens when you marry with microsoft technologies since they are not fan crossplataform or compatibility[mono is not an effort to change this but more like hey you can't sue me i support crossplataform check mono] but once you adopt open technologies this effort[or future efforts] are vastly reduced to the point of minor plataform adjust and compiler selection for X plataform.

    if valve adopt let say Qt or GTK/ISO C++[x revision]/opengl/webkit/etc you can maintain 99% of your codebase plataform agnostic that will greatly reduce support cost and will help to implement fixes a freaking lot faster

    Leave a comment:


  • Scali
    replied
    Originally posted by entropy View Post
    I said "Huh?" because you were comparing ports of a rather complex heap of code of modern engines to
    countless "ports" of very old games which were mostly _complete_ "rewrites".
    Those were comparably trivial games (technically) to rewrite from scratch and that does not tell you anything about
    their "portability" (Maybe just that they were typically not portable at all).
    OTOH, the largest part of the modern engines are more or less platform agnostic between Win, Mac and Linux AFAIK.
    It seems you just have a strange idea that porting an application would in any way imply that the code has to be in any way portable at all. That is not the case, as you can see here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Porting

    As for the triviality, I beg to differ. Firstly, games were developed by much smaller teams as well, back then (usually just one or two programmers). Secondly, where Windows and linux run on identical hardware, these older platforms often had quite different hardware characteristics, and it would sometimes require signifcant effort to reinvent the same graphics on a completely different platform.
    I suggest you read this blog, to get an idea: http://popc64.blogspot.com

    My point being: it's pretty sad that developers don't put in any effort anymore to support other platforms, or even different OSes on the same platform, where one day they would bother porting games to many different platforms, even if it meant rewriting the code from scratch, and even recreating the content (the original version of Prince of Persia was on Apple II, later versions such as MS-DOS and Amiga had updated graphics and sound effects).

    Leave a comment:


  • entropy
    replied
    I said "Huh?" because you were comparing ports of a rather complex heap of code of modern engines to
    countless "ports" of very old games which were mostly _complete_ "rewrites".
    Those were comparably trivial games (technically) to rewrite from scratch and that does not tell you anything about
    their "portability" (Maybe just that they were typically not portable at all).
    OTOH, the largest part of the modern engines are more or less platform agnostic between Win, Mac and Linux AFAIK.

    Btw, that would be an interesting question to the Valve Linux blog; the fraction
    code touched (let's say by means of lines) in order to accomplish the successful porting.

    Leave a comment:


  • Scali
    replied
    Originally posted by entropy View Post
    Huh? In those days these "ports" to completely different architectures were typically rewrites.
    Which isn't such a big deal since they were relatively simple and tiny (albeit great games, sure).
    So? Valve had to rewrite the Steam client as well, because originally they used the IE browser control. They had to rewrite it to use Webkit.
    Likewise they had to rewrite the Source engine's renderer from D3D to OpenGL, and the audio from DirectSound to <whatever they're using>. And who knows what else.
    So where does the 'huh?' come from? (yes, porting generally involves rewriting stuff).
    My point is merely that you can support a lot of platforms if you bother to put in the effort. It has only gotten simpler these days (same underlying hardware, only a different OS, you can even use the same APIs in a lot of cases).
    Last edited by Scali; 08-03-2012, 11:16 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • entropy
    replied
    Originally posted by Scali View Post
    Well I don't think that part is the newsworthy part. Developers knew that already.
    I think the newsworthy part is that one of the largest game/engine developers is actually committed to do so.

    In the old days, games were often supported on far more platforms than today, and also with far more differing specs.
    In the late 80s to mid 90s, we had C64, Atari ST, Amiga, PC, Mac, and various consoles. Many games were ported to 5 or more platforms.
    Look at Prince of Persia for example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince_of_Persia
    Apple II, MS-DOS, Amiga, Atari ST, Amstrad CPC, PC-9801, Commodore 64, PC Engine, Turbografx-16 CD, SAM Coup?, X68000, PS2, Xbox, Game Boy, NES, SNES, GBC, GCN1, Wii4, Mac OS, Master System, Mega-CD, Game Gear, FM-Towns, Mega Drive

    So games these days being released for Windows and one or two consoles? Not impressed.
    Huh? In those days these "ports" to completely different architectures were typically rewrites.
    Which isn't such a big deal since they were relatively simple and tiny (albeit great games, sure).

    Leave a comment:


  • jrch2k8
    replied
    well as long as you optimize and profile your code properly the performance will be set by the GPU[unless the CPU cant keep the GPU feeded] cuz remember valve tested a blob driver that pretty much uses the same render path in both OSes so unless you booboo and use pbuffers[for example] performance should stay in margin.[is irrevelant the API you use as long you choose a generation of the API accord with you hardware like i said before GPUs are lot dumber than CPUs]

    the real test if linux is faster or not will be once the native linux drivers are finished since those will trully use every advantage linux can offer, for now is good to know you can play the same in both OSes

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X