Page 15 of 25 FirstFirst ... 51314151617 ... LastLast
Results 141 to 150 of 243

Thread: When Will UT3 For Linux Be Released?

  1. #141
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    3,046

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Odin View Post
    UE3, yes. But this game also uses PhysX and we don't know about any legal restrictions regarding this technology.
    PhysX is licensable for Linux and is purportedly still supported (If it wasn't something along those lines, you can worry about NVidia support for Linux as well- they own that framework now...).

    btw. is there any one participating in the ut3-mailinglist?
    Not myself. Got too many other irons in the fire that produce real results.

  2. #142
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Austria
    Posts
    57

    Default

    I know about nvidia's buy of PhysX, but I wasn't sure about the legal situation. Thanks for that info.

    hmm what's with Gamespy? Could that be the reason for not having a linux client right now?

    Quote Originally Posted by Svartalf View Post
    Not myself. Got too many other irons in the fire that produce real results.
    I'm tinkering with the idea of leaving this mailinglist. But I want to get updates as soon as possible... ^^

  3. #143
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    833

    Default

    Game-Spy is a rather tricky devil to have in your project. Beware of them. And UT3 is pregnant with this shit so this is most probably a problem. What goes for PhysX it's anyways gonna die. nVidia puts this all into CUDA so it's deprecated soon anyways. But the reason for UT3 to not go Linux is in my opinion more the drama that went down over the course of the last year.

  4. #144
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Austria
    Posts
    57

    Default

    PhysX is going to die? Are you sure? There are some quite nice effects which are nearly impossible to be managed by the CPU itself, but with an extra nVidia-Card you could increase the framerate dramatically.

  5. #145
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    3,046

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Odin View Post
    PhysX is going to die? Are you sure? There are some quite nice effects which are nearly impossible to be managed by the CPU itself, but with an extra nVidia-Card you could increase the framerate dramatically.
    If you can do what PhysX does and more in either CUDA or OpenCL and not need the extra API doing it, it might just do that. No need. I'd prefer people used OpenCL if it's easy enough to use- it seems pretty much everyone that's important is exposing GPGPU functionality that way.

  6. #146
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    671

    Default

    Maybe this is a good time to ask ryan gordon if he's gonna port the ut3 titan pack to linux too. And if he is actually correct in saying that theres no conspiracy.

  7. #147
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Third Rock from the Sun
    Posts
    6,583

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Svartalf View Post
    If you can do what PhysX does and more in either CUDA or OpenCL and not need the extra API doing it, it might just do that. No need. I'd prefer people used OpenCL if it's easy enough to use- it seems pretty much everyone that's important is exposing GPGPU functionality that way.
    Actually when your running PhysX on a nvidia card you are using Cuda. Nvidia ported the PhysX libraries to Cuda when they purchased Ageia. No Cuda = No PhysX on the GPU.

  8. #148
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    192

    Default

    Is NVidia going to keep Cuda around being a member of the OpenCL collaboration? I Know they've already put work into porting PhysX to Cuda, but would it make sense to have it for OpenCL?

  9. #149
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    833

    Default

    Definitely it would make sense especially if others jump on the physics on GPU bandwagon. Better have one API from the very beginning than 3 ones imcompatible with each other.

  10. #150
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Mexico City, Mexico
    Posts
    900

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dragonlord View Post
    Definitely it would make sense especially if others jump on the physics on GPU bandwagon. Better have one API from the very beginning than 3 ones incompatible with each other.
    DirectX, OpenGL and Glide all over again? No thanks...

    At any rate, OpenCL will have competition on its own, now that it has been publicly admitted Microsoft will be implementing a GPGPU API within the DirectX stack (DirectX 11 time-frame, IIRC), and that will tilt the balance towards it in the end (we have already seen the effects of DirectX as a multimedia-interactive API [locked-in] thanks to Microsoft's flexing their monopolistic muscle)

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •