Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Unreal Engine 4 Released, Source Code For $19 + Linux Support

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

  • Kristian Joensen
    replied
    Originally posted by motorsep View Post
    We'll see about that.. Obviously they could have said that when I asked the question.
    See some of the Tweets by Epic developer @RCL, for example this one: https://mobile.twitter.com/RCL/statu...49095318618112

    Leave a comment:


  • motorsep
    replied
    We'll see about that.. Obviously they could have said that when I asked the question.

    Leave a comment:


  • smitty3268
    replied
    Originally posted by motorsep View Post
    Linux support? Why does Phoronix like to mislead people?! :/

    There is no Linux support. I asked yesterday on AnswerHUB and I was directly told there is no Linux support, source is there, feel free to implement it yourself https://answers.unrealengine.com/que...x-support.html

    Maybe eventually they will add it, that I don't know.
    They very clearly stated that SteamOS (Linux) support was currently a work in progress, but was coming soon.

    Leave a comment:


  • motorsep
    replied
    Linux support? Why does Phoronix like to mislead people?! :/

    There is no Linux support. I asked yesterday on AnswerHUB and I was directly told there is no Linux support, source is there, feel free to implement it yourself https://answers.unrealengine.com/que...x-support.html

    Maybe eventually they will add it, that I don't know.

    Leave a comment:


  • artivision
    replied
    Question: If one company create a game written in HLSL, there will be enforced by the engine a compatibility layer like GLSL bytecode or source extensions, that will allow the D3D renderer to be seen by an OpenGL driver, or not? There will be dead cases between a D3D renderer and an OpenGL one? It will allow MS friends to play with as adding overhead, or it will stop unnecessary shader compilations and will move Api calls inside shaders to offload Cpu work into the Gpu? Will it be a previous century "MS slave" garbage, or something new? Any game engine that allows for a closed source game to be compiled non JIT (for a specific Cpu architecture) is an "Intel slave" garbage anyway.

    Leave a comment:


  • erendorn
    replied
    Originally posted by log0 View Post
    I don't think you can compare it with linux kernel (which has an open source license that encourages contribution). I also would think that games would stick with a certain engine version, due to time and budget constraints, so that possible patch maintenance should be trivial. Some guesswork on my side here of course...
    Compare it to Qt or LLVM then. Or just trying to upstream kernel developments vs keeping downstream patches. In the end, it is what pushes corporations contributions in open source projects: reducing the burden of maintenance. That's what they get out of it, they don't do it "for free".

    Leave a comment:


  • iniside
    replied
    Originally posted by smitty3268 View Post
    Yeah, you're missing the point.

    The point is that major companies can push their changes back upstream, which reduces their work. That way they don't have to port all their patches to each new version that comes out.

    I don't think anyone is expecting much real development to come out of this, in terms of moving the engine forward. It's just a convenience thing for their customers.
    That, plus once changes are accepted into mainstream Epic is pretty much obligated to support those changes, since they have accepted them in first place.

    It might not be big, but it is a way to offset maintenance const to tech provider.

    Leave a comment:


  • stqn
    replied
    Originally posted by _SXX_ View Post
    Also keep in mind that % of budget spend on programming is pretty small in game development.
    Maybe for some games, like an adventure game using a pre-built engine, but definitely not true for others. In my experience it?s more like 30%-50% programmers in the dev team, sometimes more.

    Leave a comment:


  • smitty3268
    replied
    Originally posted by log0 View Post
    Still they don't share the code or collaborate openly. And again, given the low budget for programming and time constraints, why should anyone even care to contribute back to the engine (and then have to pay to be able to ship that code, which even more funny). That is pretty much the only thing I am questioning here, I don't see how this open development is supposed to work.
    Yeah, you're missing the point.

    The point is that major companies can push their changes back upstream, which reduces their work. That way they don't have to port all their patches to each new version that comes out.

    I don't think anyone is expecting much real development to come out of this, in terms of moving the engine forward. It's just a convenience thing for their customers.

    Leave a comment:


  • _SXX_
    replied
    Originally posted by log0 View Post
    Still they don't share the code or collaborate openly.
    Algorithms is everything while code is useless outside of project. Game development companies have no real interest in open sourcing whole code while some bits of in-home proprietary engines are useless. Before all AAA engines like EU had extremely strict agreement that nothing can be shared and now with Epic initiative it's become basically possible.

    Originally posted by log0 View Post
    That is pretty much the only thing I am questioning here, I don't see how this open development is supposed to work.
    It's not open development at all. It's just ability to push some features or bug fixes into mainline.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X