Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Unreal Tornament 2003
- Thread starter arn
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
OpenGL is far better because it supports numerous platforms, which allows a game to be ported much easier than it would be otherwise.
Substitute that comment like so:
Unreal and UT did really well on Windows but now with the fractured Windows situation once again (WinMe vs. XP Home) it's hard to see it as being worth the effort.
See how stupid it sounds?
There is ALWAYS a schism in your user base between people who stay on the ball and people who lag behind. Game developers struggle with this all the time. There are people out there who whine that their Windows 95 machines aren't supported by games they want. You make your compromises and you deal with it.
Pants got it dead-on. As a developer myself, I know management rationalization when I hear it. This is just a very thin excuse for not developing for the Mac. Before OS X people could say the OS was primitive and obtuse. Now they can say there's a schism in the userbase. After OS 9 goes away, it'll be something else.
Unreal and UT did really well on Windows but now with the fractured Windows situation once again (WinMe vs. XP Home) it's hard to see it as being worth the effort.
See how stupid it sounds?
There is ALWAYS a schism in your user base between people who stay on the ball and people who lag behind. Game developers struggle with this all the time. There are people out there who whine that their Windows 95 machines aren't supported by games they want. You make your compromises and you deal with it.
Pants got it dead-on. As a developer myself, I know management rationalization when I hear it. This is just a very thin excuse for not developing for the Mac. Before OS X people could say the OS was primitive and obtuse. Now they can say there's a schism in the userbase. After OS 9 goes away, it'll be something else.
Re: So.....
Seriously, define "better." There are problems for which either might be a preferable solution. And no, "goes faster" is not a sufficiently detailed definition of "better" in this case.
An intern seeking enlightenment asked the 3D guru whether OpenGL was more imbued with l33+ than Direct3D. The guru said, "Mu!"
Seriously, define "better." There are problems for which either might be a preferable solution. And no, "goes faster" is not a sufficiently detailed definition of "better" in this case.
An intern seeking enlightenment asked the 3D guru whether OpenGL was more imbued with l33+ than Direct3D. The guru said, "Mu!"
Re: One difference
Why does anyone have to pay $3000 for a 21" monitor? Just because Apple offers a $3000 ($3500) monitor means you have to buy it? The 21" monitor you purchased for your peecee won't work on a Mac?
Your other arguments are fine. Don't cloud them with bogus ones.
Why does anyone have to pay $3000 for a 21" monitor? Just because Apple offers a $3000 ($3500) monitor means you have to buy it? The 21" monitor you purchased for your peecee won't work on a Mac?
Your other arguments are fine. Don't cloud them with bogus ones.
Re: So.....
OpenGL is better. Why? Because it's, er, "open". I, for one, have completely had it with the proprietary wars. I own both a Mac and a peecee (for work). The peecee is a 2.2GHz bada$$ machine with a Geforce 4Ti. It can knock the socks off my Mac (a little old, waiting to see what's coming) for gaming. But I WILL NOT purchase ANY games for the peecee. I have made a small concession in that if I purchase a combo game, I'll register it for the mac and play it on the peecee.
If I didn't have to have one for work, I wouldn't have a peecee. And if Apple ever folds, I'll be using Linux.
OpenGL is better. Why? Because it's, er, "open". I, for one, have completely had it with the proprietary wars. I own both a Mac and a peecee (for work). The peecee is a 2.2GHz bada$$ machine with a Geforce 4Ti. It can knock the socks off my Mac (a little old, waiting to see what's coming) for gaming. But I WILL NOT purchase ANY games for the peecee. I have made a small concession in that if I purchase a combo game, I'll register it for the mac and play it on the peecee.
If I didn't have to have one for work, I wouldn't have a peecee. And if Apple ever folds, I'll be using Linux.
Direct-X
They both have advantages and disadvantages.
Open GL often runs faster. UT (original) runs like a dog under directx for me, but sweet on OpenGL.
Open GL is also (as mentioned) Open. PC, Mac, Linux, all the same. That improves porting, etc.
That being said, direct x is an evolving standard, at least on the PC (which seriously is the primary market for game developers). Consequently graphics based on Direct 3D tend to look better at the high end thanks to hardware support from graphics cards as well as new features.
They both have advantages and disadvantages.
Open GL often runs faster. UT (original) runs like a dog under directx for me, but sweet on OpenGL.
Open GL is also (as mentioned) Open. PC, Mac, Linux, all the same. That improves porting, etc.
That being said, direct x is an evolving standard, at least on the PC (which seriously is the primary market for game developers). Consequently graphics based on Direct 3D tend to look better at the high end thanks to hardware support from graphics cards as well as new features.
it still counts
Elmimo - sorry, but it still counts. Regardless of whether OSX was flawed at release, it was still released.
OSX has been around for 2 years now. I agree with the other guys here. Pull the plug on 9. Apple has to be seen to be moving forward with their OS and the longer they're seen to be straddling the two platforms the harder it will be to take OSX as the default option.
Elmimo - sorry, but it still counts. Regardless of whether OSX was flawed at release, it was still released.
OSX has been around for 2 years now. I agree with the other guys here. Pull the plug on 9. Apple has to be seen to be moving forward with their OS and the longer they're seen to be straddling the two platforms the harder it will be to take OSX as the default option.
a simple 9/X solution...
well...simple in MY whacked out mind. ;-)
since print production still has serious workflow issues with OS X, and WILL for some time (while they transition...as the tools become available: Quark, scripts, etc...) Apple should make all consumer Macs OS X bootable only, starting immediately (with Classic included, of course) but keep the pro machines open.
otherwise, advertising, newspapers, other types of creative shops which use Macs...will have to skip their next upgrade cycle. this way Apple could at least force adoption at the consumer level NOW (as they should) and work their way up to the pros in a slightly more friendly way than cutting them off at the knees.
what think?
J
well...simple in MY whacked out mind. ;-)
since print production still has serious workflow issues with OS X, and WILL for some time (while they transition...as the tools become available: Quark, scripts, etc...) Apple should make all consumer Macs OS X bootable only, starting immediately (with Classic included, of course) but keep the pro machines open.
otherwise, advertising, newspapers, other types of creative shops which use Macs...will have to skip their next upgrade cycle. this way Apple could at least force adoption at the consumer level NOW (as they should) and work their way up to the pros in a slightly more friendly way than cutting them off at the knees.
what think?
J
OpenGL is seriously lagging behind directX 8.1 (and soon to be 9) in at least one feature area: support for programmable pixel shaders.
Programmable pixel shaders were first introduced with the GF3 and allow programmers to have much more control over their 3d rendered models. This allows models to make fabric to flow with a breeze, as well as make fur fur and hair to move realistically. This advancement is as big as the upgrade to a GPU from the old voodoos/rage level of graphics cards. Without the pixel shaders, geforce 3/4s, as well as the radeon 9700 would just be really fast versions of a geforce 2.
To get an idea of what i'm talking about, get yourself to a pc with a Geforce 3 or better, download 3DMark2001 and watch the "Nature" benchmark. You'll be astounded...
Programmable pixel shaders were first introduced with the GF3 and allow programmers to have much more control over their 3d rendered models. This allows models to make fabric to flow with a breeze, as well as make fur fur and hair to move realistically. This advancement is as big as the upgrade to a GPU from the old voodoos/rage level of graphics cards. Without the pixel shaders, geforce 3/4s, as well as the radeon 9700 would just be really fast versions of a geforce 2.
To get an idea of what i'm talking about, get yourself to a pc with a Geforce 3 or better, download 3DMark2001 and watch the "Nature" benchmark. You'll be astounded...
good example
Yah, a good example of the small things that make such a big difference. Granted they are minor details, but it's those minor details that make something so immersive.
Can anyone tell me if bumpmapping is supported in openGL?
My own graphics card is rather ordinary, so I can't tell.
Yah, a good example of the small things that make such a big difference. Granted they are minor details, but it's those minor details that make something so immersive.
Can anyone tell me if bumpmapping is supported in openGL?
My own graphics card is rather ordinary, so I can't tell.
Re: it still counts
People keeps saying how MS's monopoly forces us to do what they want and how they even control the way most HW is designed. Still, I bet you could install Windows 3.11 in a modern PC if you wanted to. What for? Beats me, but the choice is still there. (maybe you can not do that with modern PCs? then I'll bite my tongue...)
I think it is very coward for Apple blaming the consumers for not adopting OS X (which I have) instead of itself. Let people decide what they want. Just make one of the choices a blatant obvious and easy decision and you will not need to force anyone.
Wasn't Mac OS 10.0 released by April. Unless I am mistaken, then, it does not even make it one year and a half.
People keeps saying how MS's monopoly forces us to do what they want and how they even control the way most HW is designed. Still, I bet you could install Windows 3.11 in a modern PC if you wanted to. What for? Beats me, but the choice is still there. (maybe you can not do that with modern PCs? then I'll bite my tongue...)
I think it is very coward for Apple blaming the consumers for not adopting OS X (which I have) instead of itself. Let people decide what they want. Just make one of the choices a blatant obvious and easy decision and you will not need to force anyone.
Re: a simple 9/X solution...
Apple is not likely to customise machine lines that way because it's expensive. They want to stop supporting Mac OS 9 and to keep it on one line does not make sense. Keeping the classic environment does make sense.
I know we're waiting on plug-ins all over the place. Photoshop, QuarkXPress, and Illustrator all need plug-ins Carbon-ized. There are still a lot of professional printers not supported by Mac OS X, although you might get by using some other driver. Your output is expensive, it must be correct every time.
Hopefully, with Photoshop 7, the industry will move faster to support graphics professionals.
Game developers should just leave Mac OS 9 entirely. Considering how unreliable timing is in Mac OS 9.x is and how stable Mac OS X is, game developers shouldn't want to work on anything else.
Apple is not likely to customise machine lines that way because it's expensive. They want to stop supporting Mac OS 9 and to keep it on one line does not make sense. Keeping the classic environment does make sense.
I know we're waiting on plug-ins all over the place. Photoshop, QuarkXPress, and Illustrator all need plug-ins Carbon-ized. There are still a lot of professional printers not supported by Mac OS X, although you might get by using some other driver. Your output is expensive, it must be correct every time.
Hopefully, with Photoshop 7, the industry will move faster to support graphics professionals.
Game developers should just leave Mac OS 9 entirely. Considering how unreliable timing is in Mac OS 9.x is and how stable Mac OS X is, game developers shouldn't want to work on anything else.
userbase
That's an oversimplification. Game developers want to work on the most stable and reliable platform, but they also want to sell the damn thing.
The Playstation (One) is a good example. The hardware is comparatively crap, but there's an unreasonable amount of them out there, and software still sells well.
So game developers working towards the Mac have to look at where the money is.
It's no real wonder that games developers tend to ignore mac. Lets just say only 8% of the games computers are macs (and it's probably much less than that) that's a pretty small proportion, in terms of market. THEN I'm not really sure what the takeup of OSX compared to 9 is, but lets just say it's 50-50. That means you have only 4% of the market you can target with a release, or 4% with another option, or just keep your 92% and ignore them.
Without meaning to be offensive, I'd be ignoring the mac. Oh, and as for a divide between XP and Me mentioned earlier, that's not even comparable. XP is a substantial difference, but in terms of compatibility is excellent, particularly in performance.
Though I know the example was to illustrate something, it wasn't a very good example. Apple made the choice to make a VAST leap in operation between 9 and OSX. This sort of divide, substantially more than seen in windows platforms, WILL of neccesity cause this kind of problem. There are advantages and disadvantages to it either way.
Apple's job is to shrink that disadvantage as quickly as possible, and move as many people as they can to OSX.
There's no real point here, if you're waiting for it : )
P.S. Elmimo you're probably right about the times... I just took somone else's info and assumed it true : )
That's an oversimplification. Game developers want to work on the most stable and reliable platform, but they also want to sell the damn thing.
The Playstation (One) is a good example. The hardware is comparatively crap, but there's an unreasonable amount of them out there, and software still sells well.
So game developers working towards the Mac have to look at where the money is.
It's no real wonder that games developers tend to ignore mac. Lets just say only 8% of the games computers are macs (and it's probably much less than that) that's a pretty small proportion, in terms of market. THEN I'm not really sure what the takeup of OSX compared to 9 is, but lets just say it's 50-50. That means you have only 4% of the market you can target with a release, or 4% with another option, or just keep your 92% and ignore them.
Without meaning to be offensive, I'd be ignoring the mac. Oh, and as for a divide between XP and Me mentioned earlier, that's not even comparable. XP is a substantial difference, but in terms of compatibility is excellent, particularly in performance.
Though I know the example was to illustrate something, it wasn't a very good example. Apple made the choice to make a VAST leap in operation between 9 and OSX. This sort of divide, substantially more than seen in windows platforms, WILL of neccesity cause this kind of problem. There are advantages and disadvantages to it either way.
Apple's job is to shrink that disadvantage as quickly as possible, and move as many people as they can to OSX.
There's no real point here, if you're waiting for it : )
P.S. Elmimo you're probably right about the times... I just took somone else's info and assumed it true : )
I would much rather play first person shooters on my Macintosh than any other kind of game. However, simulation programmes have been the #1 genre for a decade or more. Still, I can't afford to buy all the FPSs out there because everything is so expensive. I wouldn't mind trying RPGs like Icewind Dale or Baldur's Gate II but they're also expensive, especially when compared to their PC versions.
I just saw Max Payne at CompUSA the other day. It was $50, Return to Castle Wolfenstein was $50 as well as Icewind Dale and Baldur's Gate II. I left without anything. Anyone have a suggestion?
I just saw Max Payne at CompUSA the other day. It was $50, Return to Castle Wolfenstein was $50 as well as Icewind Dale and Baldur's Gate II. I left without anything. Anyone have a suggestion?
suggestion
Yes... save up and get Return to Castle Wolfenstein.... it is incredible!!!
Originally posted by bousozoku
I would much rather play first person shooters on my Macintosh than any other kind of game. However, simulation programmes have been the #1 genre for a decade or more. Still, I can't afford to buy all the FPSs out there because everything is so expensive. I wouldn't mind trying RPGs like Icewind Dale or Baldur's Gate II but they're also expensive, especially when compared to their PC versions.
I just saw Max Payne at CompUSA the other day. It was $50, Return to Castle Wolfenstein was $50 as well as Icewind Dale and Baldur's Gate II. I left without anything. Anyone have a suggestion?
Yes... save up and get Return to Castle Wolfenstein.... it is incredible!!!
the programmable pixel shaders issue is indeed being addressed with opengl 2.0, which is being introduced in a nice way. 2.0 features will be added to 1.x and when 2.0 is ready it will be a smooth transition.
Go the old games!
Don't underestimate the older games. The situation isn't quite the same on Mac as PC where discounting of older titles is less extreme and (old on PC) games are newer, but for example the PC version of Deus Ex could probably be found for $20 without much hassle. Undoubtedly the best PC game I've played. (possible exception of grand theft auto III).
The other day I bought Giants (a brilliant game, that didn't run well on my computer at the time) for only $10 australian. That would be about $5 there. That's a bargain! My lunch cost more than that!
A lot of the not very new games are stunningly cheap, and you can probably find at least a few you haven't given the time they deserve.
I just saw Max Payne at CompUSA the other day. It was $50, Return to Castle Wolfenstein was $50 as well as Icewind Dale and Baldur's Gate II. I left without anything. Anyone have a suggestion?
Don't underestimate the older games. The situation isn't quite the same on Mac as PC where discounting of older titles is less extreme and (old on PC) games are newer, but for example the PC version of Deus Ex could probably be found for $20 without much hassle. Undoubtedly the best PC game I've played. (possible exception of grand theft auto III).
The other day I bought Giants (a brilliant game, that didn't run well on my computer at the time) for only $10 australian. That would be about $5 there. That's a bargain! My lunch cost more than that!
A lot of the not very new games are stunningly cheap, and you can probably find at least a few you haven't given the time they deserve.