Originally posted by Michael
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Ageia's PhysX Delaying UT3 For Linux?
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by Redeeman View Postim glad i didnt rush out to buy it as i had planned..
im gonna sit tight and wait for the binaries to actually surface, THEN i can go buy it..
Comment
-
Originally posted by Huenengrab View PostWell, Epic could have said that there's no "Games for Windows"-deal, if there's no Linux-client.
But maybe I'm just dreaming here.
It might as well be THAT!
Think about it for a minute... If Epic DID sign the "Games for Windows" deal with Microsoft for UT3, couldn't THAT be what's in the way? I know Icculus said it was middleware, which obviously implies code, but given the track record, couldn't this also be part of the problem? (especially thinking about what Icculus said in the chat: "If I told you what it was, you couldn't believe it" [or something of the sort])
Comment
-
Originally posted by Thetargos View PostStop the presses!!
It might as well be THAT!
Think about it for a minute... If Epic DID sign the "Games for Windows" deal with Microsoft for UT3, couldn't THAT be what's in the way? I know Icculus said it was middleware, which obviously implies code, but given the track record, couldn't this also be part of the problem? (especially thinking about what Icculus said in the chat: "If I told you what it was, you couldn't believe it" [or something of the sort])
Comment
-
So support for completely useless and unessicary hardware is blocking the Linux release of Ut3. Wow.
I wouldn't be suprised if it's PhysX people blocking it. They probably don't want people to run real analysis tools on their engine and find out that 90% of what they claim their card does is actually software-based optimizations and that their little 'accelerator' card is mostly there for looks.
Comment
-
Originally posted by drag View PostSo support for completely useless and unessicary hardware is blocking the Linux release of Ut3. Wow.
I wouldn't be suprised if it's PhysX people blocking it. They probably don't want people to run real analysis tools on their engine and find out that 90% of what they claim their card does is actually software-based optimizations and that their little 'accelerator' card is mostly there for looks.
I've seen the difference for real with and without the hardware, whether it is Ageia's card or using shader pipelines for the purpose. It's not there for looks, but it IS extra and redundant in light of the new 3D cards coming down the pike (Which is why Intel bought Havok, I suspect- they can use GPU horsepower to accelerate their physics calculations. And it's part of why AMD's bought ATI...).
It MIGHT be PhysX that is the problem, but I'm not so sure. I think you should read my responses for the reason as to why I think that.
It's really a moot point until Ryan gets the fixes in place- and in reality, I think it's a bit over the top for Phoronix to put up articles like this when they haven't any good info to give us. It's one thing to have this stuff in the discussion forums as a speculation thread. It's another to do what was done with this whole situation. TheReg already does a good job of this sort of thing as does the InqWell. Why do we need yet another dodgy source of news?
Comment
-
Originally posted by gilboa View PostOK, the Gears of War part was a bit over the top (Read: I know that it is a Microsoft game, and unless they are official declared as Monopoly in the OS/Games market, you cannot force them to create a Linux version... Oh wait...).
Anyways, the French have a saying - "Cheche La Femme" (I hope I got the spelling right). I have a saying "Cherche La Microsoft", read: anytime something ugly/semi-legal/etc happens you can always, somehow find Microsoft's greasy hand in it.
Am I wrong? possibly. But given our past experience I would not bet the farm on it.
- Gilboa
Comment
-
Originally posted by Svartalf View PostConsidering that he's recoding to get it out and we will be getting something, according to him and Epic, I seriously doubt that it's this. That's marketing deals- which Ryan couldn't fix. Nice try, but you're grasping at straws there, my friend.
I was simply implying something I read somewhere else about devs and pubs being forced to not release anything for Linux if they signed the GFW initiative of some thing like that... Utter bull, if you ask me, but I was riding that wave with those statements
Comment
-
Originally posted by Dandel View PostMicrosoft doesn't haft to declare anything, and that is because of the Consumer activities. I'll start by saying that Developers and educational entities as a general rule of thumb go for where the largest commercial user base, and Windows 2000/XP has the largest user base of them all. After considering that, just look at the educational system, i highly doubt you'll find a lot of Linux or Mac systems in the building... with that said, people will buy what they are used to at work, so thus, that eliminates Linux and Mac almost entirely because huge portions of the workplace desktops run windows and that's it.
Comment
Comment