badhabit wrote:On the other hand in this case for Grimrock and AH, the grimrock engine is already ported and adapted for linux, I can't believe that petri broke by extending the engine the basic compatiblity framework, maybe the reason is another one: potentially the performance is even worse under linux than under windows where already performance problems exist.
Linux has (or had?) no native DX9 driver and is (was?) forced to translate any DX9 instruction into OpenGL before any gfx output got produced. Naturally this cripples performance and there is nothing a DX9-based engine can do about it.
Dr.Disaster wrote:
Anyway: LoG1 for Linux and later OSX use OpenGL, not DX9. AFAIR even the early LoG1 windows versions had OpenGL which was cut later during low render mode performace tunings. Since LoG2 was aimed to be a windows launch i'm pretty sure that AH did not spend time on the OpenGL part during development.
The excessive call amount problem is the same for OpenGL as DX. (somewhere mentioned Petri the DX verson is actually faster than the OpenGL one)
Dr.Disaster wrote:
badhabit wrote:I suspect the performance of the engine might also the reason why we have not seen up to now a release of the announced iOS version for Log1 (despite leaked images).
The reason was the low to very low gfx performance of available iOS devices. This might have changed with current hardware.
There is no slow hardware only badly optimized software, as demoscene guys know well.
badhabit wrote:You are not up to date and you have not read my message: Linux Graphics drivers and Mesa Library now support Direct3D 9 natively
I read it and thus i said
Now if there are new native DX9 drivers for Linux their performence might exceed that of DX9 on Windows, depending on the DX typical overhead created. We need more data to tell if this assumption holds.
which you obviously ignored.
badhabit wrote:There is no slow hardware only badly optimized software, as demoscene guys know well.
This false believe is the reason why you still have not been able to solve my little "puzzle" for you. Tell us: how did i manage to up my P4's GPU usage? All info you need is in my screenshots and the used settings.
FYI: i can even push it to 99% but then i need to use nVidiaInspector instead of GPU-Z to measure the load.
Last edited by Dr.Disaster on Thu Nov 20, 2014 4:39 pm, edited 2 times in total.
badhabit wrote:
There is no slow hardware only badly optimized software, as demoscene guys know well.
Indeed. Optimizing software on windows, with the awesome and well-supported DirectX is a big deal already. Now imagine the agonizing feat of optimizing a game for a myriad of incompatible distributions to garner a 1% sales increase. Is this worth it?
For a juggernaut like valve, it's absolutely worth it because this is more of a PR thing than actually caring for a 1% group of gamers that might as well install windows or cadega. Supporting LInux gets you in the news which is just free advertisement. For an indie team of 4 people, this is another question entirely.
I would expect every developer to decide whether or not development for a particular operating system is warranted. Is it reasonable to develop an SQL database for windows server? Is it reasonable to support a game on Linux?
badhabit wrote:There is no slow hardware only badly optimized software
We can assume installed hardware is optimal prior to its Mean Time To Repair (and Mean Time Between Failure), but there is certainly "not" only software to blame... there is a more common problem: incompetent end-users. You seem to have inadvertently volunteered to prove a perfect example
Thus, "there is rarely badly optimized software, only poorly educated end-users"
megamanx1978 wrote:Recently the devs made it clear that they have no plans to support Linux with Grimrock 2 after the first Grimrock had Linux support. Here is a link about this: http://gamingonlinux.com/articles/legen ... rtain.4603 I plan on telling my friends not to get this game becouse of this. If you care about Linux and your computer freedom when you are gaming I encourage you guys to tell Almost Human Games "No Tux No Bux" here too.
The writer of the article said "Maybe, if there's a strong support under this article, I can send a link back to them and it might convince them a bit more that the demand is here". But there's like 5 pages of the opposite reaction, so I find it useless for me to register into their page to comment the "news". Like I said to Mr. Kamil, we can't promise a Linux port and it isn't currently in the plans. But reading Megamanx1978's comment and many other of the same nature, isn't really encouraging either...
JohnWordsworth wrote:I always let out a little chuckle when I hear "but Linux users pay the most on Humble Bundles - of course you need to develop for them" because when you actually look at the pie chart for how much money was made from each platform - the linux segment on the pie chart is always tiny (a few percent) of the total money raised (Example from the current HB).
That might have something to do with the fact exactly one of the games in the current HB has a Linux version.
The original Humble Indie Bundle only had games with good, working Linux versions. Linux sales were 24% of the revenue. Later Humble Bundles often lacked Linux ports or had really cruddy or outright broken ones, so of course they didn't get a lot of money from Linux users.
While I doubt that LoG2 would have gotten anywhere near 24% of its revenue from Linux users if it had a good native Linux version on launch, I think it's very unfair to use Linux purchases of software without Linux support as a point of reference. I doubt there are very many Windows users that buy Mac-exclusive software.
megamanx1978 wrote:Recently the devs made it clear that they have no plans to support Linux with Grimrock 2 after the first Grimrock had Linux support. Here is a link about this: http://gamingonlinux.com/articles/legen ... rtain.4603 I plan on telling my friends not to get this game becouse of this. If you care about Linux and your computer freedom when you are gaming I encourage you guys to tell Almost Human Games "No Tux No Bux" here too.
The writer of the article said "Maybe, if there's a strong support under this article, I can send a link back to them and it might convince them a bit more that the demand is here". But there's like 5 pages of the opposite reaction, so I find it useless for me to register into their page to comment the "news". Like I said to Mr. Kamil, we can't promise a Linux port and it isn't currently in the plans. But reading Megamanx1978's comment and many other of the same nature, isn't really encouraging either...
afettouhi wrote:But is a Mac version of LoG II in the plans then?
Yes, but we don't have a release date for it yet.
Why a you making a MAC version of the game and not a Linux version? Was the Linux port not profitable in the end. I know that Linux gamers make up about 1 % percent of total gamers but there aren't that many MAC gamers either if you look at the Steam hardware surveys. MAC is only 3 to 4 %. So why waste time on that?
