Tremulous FPS +RTS +GPL.. New game for Frag?

[Cova]

To me, a GPU card is too complex to design it specifically with something like DX in mind. And the way NVidia and ATI deliver linux drivers, it appears as if my suspicions are correct. they have two parts, a direct source interface between the distributed binary module that actually talks to the hardware, and the kernel api.

They both design linux drivers that way so they can keep the stuff that talks to their hardware (read: their IP) closed-source, while needing at least a little bit of open code so that the module can be compiled and loaded into whatever kernel might happen to be on some users linux box.  Needing to split a tiny amount of the driver into open code to interface with the OS will not affect the hardware design at all.

With something like a GPU, you take the features you want, define a clear interface for accessing them, and then code for that interface.

Oh..., you mean something like say an API, and then code the GPU hardware for it...  Maybe we need to call it an OSPI instead of an API, as its the OS instead of an Application which is using the Programming Interface.

The fact that GL on windows hasn't ALWAYS been a wrapper around DX would also seem to say that the card exposes a interface which the drivers then use, and then the GFX API ontop of that uses the underlying drivers. Of course the underlying drivers can cater to a single higher level API, as happens with ATI and thier CRAPPY CRAPPY drivers. even thier windows drivers could be alot better. Back when A rage 128 pro was new ATI had the crappiest drivers I had ever seen.

1. The quality of ATI drivers did suck back in the Rage days - nowadays ATI's windows directX drivers are superior to nVidia's, though nVidia is better for GL and linux
2. The quality of any brands drivers does not affect hardware design at all.

Exactly, except its usually lower level than an API like DX will want. As for most MPEG2 decoder chips and MP3 decoders, they accept raw MPEG, and then give you back raw pcm. at least for the more complete mpeg chips. My mini-itx box has one that doesn't actually take raw MPEG streams, you have to give it the individual "frames" or "slices" for it to do its thing, which means you have to parse the MPEG stream first.

How about this for a related point of evidence.  The GPU in the original XBox is basically an nVidia GeForce 3.  The parts of the XDK (XBox SDK) that work with it are VERY similar to DirectX, however there's no driver layer or OS layer, and the API has changed slightly from regular DirectX to only support exactly the features implemented in the XBox.  The fact that that old Geforce 3 can still put out competitive looking games (with a P3-700 and 64MB RAM as the rest of the system) is because that hardware is VERY close to the API that the games are calling, and all the layers in-between on a regular PC don't exist on the XBox.  And thats an nVidia chip - ATI's chips are even closer to the DirectX API.

[Melbosa]

Wow, now I know what to bring up in D&D to get you all angry and stuff... J/K

I don't mean to rail against anyone here but for kripes sake if you think something as broad as GPL gaming sucks in general; Please bring up some reasons and don't get surprised if someone taps you for it.

If you think I'm an asshole for saying it, fine, I can handle that criticism.

Point is, in my earlier post I was trying to illustrate that if I say something that is going to be a divisive topic I should at least expect rebuttal and have some reasoning behind it. When I made my statement about OpenGL I thought it was obviously an intentional TROLL as a joke (too much caffiene for me today or something...). If you want to keep talking about it ('cause, I do think OpenGL has, much like Coach Z, "more than two problems") let's start a new thread instead of sending this one into further off-topic-ness.

And now I will take some time to smile and be happy, I hope you will too.

     

Alright back on topic.  GPL games have one disadvantage, which is usually evident in the final product (again in my observation and experience) and that is no-budget.  Based on the simple fact that it is usually voluntary involvement, more than likely on one's free time, this usually pushes the development cycle longer than the commercial designs.  As such once the game hits the market, it usually suffers from a Dikatana syndrom - Out-dated is some form.  Whether it be engine, graphics, gameplay, etc, it lacks that polish.  Or on the flip side, it is rushed to be out when it will be current to that out there from the commercial sector, and then suffers from un-polished, shorten story or buggy as hell.  I also find that originality is somewhat lacking as well, as they are usually based of another commercial game, or the code behind those when they do come out, taking away that feeling of a pure game.

Nice part of GPL games is that they have the ability to grow and upgrade faster than commercial based on the simple fact it is GPL.  This means that over time a GPL game can become something more than those of the commercial sector, allowing for a mutation effect to their benefit.

So there you go, there is my reasoning