PDA

View Full Version : OpenGL


SkaarjMaster
10th Sep 2001, 11:56 PM
I think it's going to be really sad if Unreal 2 is released without OpenGL support. You would think Epic would learn from their mistakes with UT (the D3D support sucks; game keeps crashing).

Anyway, it would be nice if it had OpenGL support!

Any comments?

SkaarjMaster

ravenus
11th Sep 2001, 09:45 AM
Woo Skaarjmaster
what's this about game crashes in D3D? I play UT and the patched Unreal (v226) in D3D and never have they crashed on me. Are you sure this is not some hardware conflict?
Open GL is not the solution to all problems, its how well you implement it that makes the difference. DK was an open GL game and it had a lot more than its share of bugs and glitches.

SkaarjMaster
11th Sep 2001, 10:23 AM
all I know is that Quake 3, Quake 2, Half-Life, and other OpenGL games have never crashed on my computer and it isn't a hardware conflict. I think the people putting together Unreal 2 are very narrow-minded and if they want to let people see what their game can really do, then they need to allow OpenGL support. Unless, they have got all the bugs out of their D3D support and I don't think so.

I can't get UT to run in OpenGL on my motherboard or I would. How about all you people out there that run UT in OpenGL, wouldn't you like to see Unreal 2 with OpenGL support?

Law
11th Sep 2001, 09:01 PM
As most of us know by now, UT was optimized for Glide. The D3D support was decent, and has improved quite a bit since the original release.

Unreal2 will not have the same D3D support as UT. It will be compatible with any system that meets requirements and it will be optimized. If Legend and Epic feel that D3D is the way to go, then let them put their full effort into it.

SkaarjMaster
11th Sep 2001, 09:49 PM
I'm afraid other people on this forum are as narrow and small-minded as Epic and Legend!

Please excuse my harshness, but I'm pissed off at a certain person in the Middle East and have to take it out on someone.

The Dopefish
12th Sep 2001, 08:54 AM
Originally posted by SkaarjMaster
Please excuse my harshness, but I'm pissed off at a certain person in the Middle East and have to take it out on someone.

Yep, blame it on Osama, even before we officially determine who did it. :rolleyes:

TAZTG
12th Sep 2001, 11:44 AM
I play in D3D and get a rare lockup now and then but that is due to my GF2 GTS and now my GF3 card. Now that my BIOS settings are correct even the rare lockups rare. LOL If that makes any sense. Play Q3 and never locked up. High resolution looks great but I think D3D in UT is better. IMO it should support both like UT. Are maybe put out two versions Open GL Mode and D3d Mode. Like PC and MAC.. LOL

Tetris L
12th Sep 2001, 05:11 PM
I guess you're referring to today's Ask Tim Sweeney (http://www.voodooextreme.com/games/interviews/asktim/)?

I think the "Dan wants to get the OpenGL code back up and running ..." part sounds pretty good, as well as the "We'll definitely have Linux server support ..." part.

I'm quite confident that even if U2 won't ship with OpenGL out of the box, Dan will have the OPENGL.DLL done shortly after release and you can grab it from the web.

Machismo
13th Sep 2001, 11:42 AM
I seriously doubt wether epic will drop opengl support. even if it not availbale "in the box" it will be availlabe on the net pretty soon. d3d should tide u over till then :tup:

Tetris L
13th Sep 2001, 12:25 PM
d3d should tide u over till then
Unless you're on Linux. :hmm:

TomWithTheWeather
30th Sep 2001, 08:56 AM
i have a geforce3 and for me UT runs really crappy in d3d and realy great in opengl.
just a question...What make d3d better than opengl? besides the fact that it may run faster on someone elses computer, an what kinda computer does d3d run better on? What kinda preformance do you get?

just wondering :)

StormHammer
30th Sep 2001, 09:31 AM
Well, I can't get Unreal to work in OpenGL on my Geforce 256 DDR. It just dies. The Direct3D works - but it's really slow, and I have to whack the resolution right down to 640x480 to get a decent framerate ( with most rendering options turned on, I hasten to add 8) ).

I can play UT in OpenGL just fine - and I think it looks a lot better, and the framerate is early twice that of D3D.

The problem seems to be inherent in the Unreal tech, because other games using D3D work fine, and at a decent framerate - although Red Faction is showing some choppiness at higher resolution with all effects turned to max. Speaking of Max...the Max Payne demo ran fine with all settings turned up high at about 800x600 res on my machine.

I certainly hope they will include some major OpenGL support along with totally rewritten and optimised D3D support. It's nice to have a choice, especially if the game runs faster/prettier using one or the other.

Machismo
30th Sep 2001, 09:39 AM
Originally posted by -The-Tetris-L-

Unless you're on Linux. :hmm:

Linux whats that :confused: :p :D

Leave it to the penguins on antartica ;)

StormHammer
30th Sep 2001, 07:01 PM
Heh...I suddenly remembered the OpenGL patch for Unreal. Reinstalled Unreal from scratch in a different directory, upgraded to v224, installed the OpenGL patch...

...and I'm now running Unreal in glorious 32bit OpenGL at 1600x1200 with all effects turned ON at a silky-smooth framerate. :cool:

W00T! W00T! :D

D3D still runs like a slug on 1024x768 with all effects turned on. If that's not an argument for including OpenGL support for Unreal II, I don't know what is.

I highly recommend anyone with a GeForce card doing this. I've noticed a few glitches in some scenes (and it's not clipping the textures on birds and leaves, giving a black in-fill), but I guess I can live with that. It does it in D3D as well. The detail textures are now sw33t.

Now, if only the links to the S3TC patch files wasn't busted, I could have some serious fun with UT. ;)

TomWithTheWeather
1st Oct 2001, 09:57 AM
Where did you find the opengl patch for Unreal? Is it the same one for UT? The only way i can play Unreal in opengl is with the old skool mod. I want to be able to play it the real way and not through UT.

StormHammer
1st Oct 2001, 02:46 PM
All you need to do is go to the OldUnreal.com Patch page (http://www.oldunreal.com/patch.shtml) and download the UnrealPatch224v.exe (it recommends that your version of Unreal is upgraded to v224!), then under the Special Patch Section on the same page, download the most recent OpenGL patch (v 2.1.0.4).

Follow the instructions...remember to set your OpenGL bit colour to 32 bit (turn it on under your GeForce driver settings if necessary).

I followed it to the letter, and it worked first time for me.

Enjoy. ;-)

TomWithTheWeather
1st Oct 2001, 06:18 PM
cool!
thanks! :)

gwalahad
6th Oct 2001, 01:45 PM
Originally posted by SkaarjMaster
I think it's going to be really sad if Unreal 2 is released without OpenGL support. You would think Epic would learn from their mistakes with UT (the D3D support sucks; game keeps crashing).

Anyway, it would be nice if it had OpenGL support!

Any comments?

SkaarjMaster
never crashed with me,and btw it does support open GL(less perf.)

DexterII
8th Oct 2001, 10:23 PM
Everything supports OpenGL these days.

Dances with Flak
8th Oct 2001, 11:35 PM
Advanced features for high end video cards are supported differently for ATI and nVIDIA cards in Open GL. While D3D support is identicle. Therefore, for a modern game using the latest 3D capabilities, you have to write 2 sets of code to use Open GL instead of just one with D3D.

John Carmack, a huge Open GL proponent in the past has even recently said something to the effect that D3D has gotten so good that he wouldn't blame any company for dropping Open GL support altogether. (not a direct quote, I don't remember the link)

So I wouldn't sweat it with D3D, as it has come a long way. Also, UT was optimised for Glide, and we all know Glide is as dead as 3dfx. So Unreal 2 will be optimised for D3D.

Tetris L
9th Oct 2001, 12:16 AM
There are only very few video card to be considered. Essentially it's only Nvidia and ATI ... and maybe Kyro. Dan should manage to write the necessary OpenGL extensions for these. He'll start with Nvidia, then ATI, then Kyro, then the rest, if there is any.

TomWithTheWeather
9th Oct 2001, 06:42 AM
dan who?

Tetris L
9th Oct 2001, 07:06 AM
Daniel Vogel

He's best known for his much improved OpenGL drivers for UT. When he wrote them he was working for Loki Games, but recently Epic have hired him.

http://www.voodooextreme.com/games/interviews/vogel/

Zaccix
9th Oct 2001, 09:53 AM
If U2 is optimized for D3D, then Voodoo3/4/5 owners might actually get away being able to run it, as the Voodoo D3D component is pretty decent. They'd still have to turn almost everything down, though.

Going only with D3D does leave Linux users out in the cold, and I don't really think it's fair that they be treated as an afterthought. I think that OpenGL will be included, but D3D will be the "primary" method of running the game.

Dances with Flak
10th Oct 2001, 11:48 AM
I know this post kinda steers this thread off topic a bit, and for that I apologize, but it seems the regulars here that "own" this forum (or so I am to understand from their posts) don't like people to start new threads even if you are taking it in a new direction. :(

Anyway, why is it unfair to leave Linux users out in the cold?

Anybody who knows enough about Linux to actually use it as their only OS knew when they installed it that retail development support for Linux is EXTREMELY low. You don't install Linux and run it as your only OS becuase you want to play all the latest games. You install it to get away from some dreamed up evil empire that wants to control you and your bank account.

Sure, Linux users have every right to hope that cool games might come to Linux, but they also have to accept the fact that in most cases this won't be the case.

I see quite often alternative OS users complaining about the lack of games, and even DEMANDING through petitions and what not that Game X be ported to thier OS. (this includes Mac users) What right do they have to demand that devlopers port apps or games to their OS? They knew when they chose that OS that they were going to be limited as to what comes out for it.

If a developer feels there's enough potential to justify a port to another OS, more power to them. However, it's hard enough to make a game for one OS, let alone trying to keep it friendly for another OS. Also, why should the users of the vastly more popular OS lose out on features because those features couldn't be made available to other operating systems?

As far as I know, and it is stated on the official Unreal 2 site, www.unreal2.com , Unreal 2 will be Windows only. There's nothing wrong with that, as a matter of fact, I like it that way. Make the game as great as it can be on Windows, then and only then, IF it can be ported to another OS so be it.

If you make the choice to use an alternative OS, then you should understand and accept everything that comes along with that decision.

Tetris L
10th Oct 2001, 12:12 PM
Originally posted by Dances with Flak
As far as I know, and it is stated on the official Unreal 2 site, www.unreal2.com , Unreal 2 will be Windows only.
u2.com only says: "At this time, the PC is the only announced platform." Note that it says PC, not Windows. And note that it says at this time.

Tim Sweeney confirmed that U2 will have Linux dedicated server support out of the box. But no OpenGL, thus no client. :hmm:

In interviews and forum posts Legend have made clear that their priority clearly is to get the game running smoothly on a PC in D3D. This, and only this is what they are aiming for for initial release. I don't have a problem with that, because various dev team members have also stated that after the initial release ports to OpenGL and even Mac are possible and even likely. These communities will just have to wait a little longer. :hmm:

I trust in Dan Vogel to get the OpenGL drivers ready soon after initial release. Lots of people will thank him for that. :):tup:

Myrmidion
10th Oct 2001, 06:09 PM
Heh, my family use Linux for our Internet connection, I don't think we're running from any evil empire :)

It's more stable then Windows, in many ways, it's more powerful then Windows, and I can quite easily alter it to fit MY specifications perfectly. It hasn't crashed in the year or two that we've had it up, not once :)

Dances with Flak
11th Oct 2001, 02:18 AM
My watch has been running for 5 years with no downtime. That doesn't mean I'm going to demand that Epic port Unreal 2 to it.

Seriously though, Linux is cool and I'm glad it exists. People can, have, and continue to debate its strength against Windows and Mac OS. I don't care to. I never said Linux sux, so don't get offended.

My only point is that 99% of games come out on Windows, MAYBE 50% Mac OS, at best 10% Linux. You know this before you choose Mac OS or Linux, so live with your choice.

I'm in no way trying to make slight of either OS, they both have their strengths and without them Microsoft would have a monopoly. Then I wouldn't be able to choose to use Windows as I have done now, I'd be forced to use Windows.... which right now I am not.