Quoting: SketchStickInstall LiveStreamer, it's a command that can catch the stream and open it in your choice of video player. There's even a good chance it's already in your distro's repository. http://livestreamer.readthedocs.org/en/latest/ [External Link]

Once installed you can just type in: livestreamer http://www.ustream.tv/channel/khronos-siggraph [External Link] best

Thanks! Wished I had known about this before. So much better watching this in mplayer.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Great news! Bought it immediately.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: SabunFrom the slides (since there's now way currently to actually see the live presentation), it would seem their ONLY focus is DX12. That really sucks. DX12 will only benefit the Windows Desktop platform and possibly Xbox One.

This leaves out:
1. Android
2. iOS
3. Linux desktop
4. Mac OSX desktop

They talk about Metal support, so Apple is covered. And it looks like Apple is going Metal exclusively, at least their logo is missing from recent Khronos Vulkan announcements. On the other hand Google/Android is supporting Vulkan, hopefully that will help.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: throghSeriously: Why is there no possibility having just a choice? Why not keeping the zipped packages? I want my games also working with Ubuntu 12.04 or other distributions. Now there is more work for me extracting the data-files. I want my own structure and not "pretty icons" added automatically. My system, my rules!

I, too, have always downloaded the tarballs where available, but it sounds like you can do pretty much the same thing in the new format according to the GOG thread:
unzip installer.sh 'data/*' -d target_dir
just unzip instead of gzip.
And from what JudasIscariot posted above, even when using the installer you can turn off the icons. You can also change the install directory when using the installer.

I think it's reasonable that they only want to support one format, more formats just add additional hurdles to releasing the game. And it's better that one format is easier and 'newbie-friendly' to allow anyone to game on Linux. People who know their way around the command line can still do the manual installation.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

I suspect having patches and more streamlined installers is a prerequisite for Galaxy.

But I hope having patches means that fewer developers will give 'lack of patches' as a reason for releasing the Linux version late (or never) on GOG.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

I've been downloading the drivers from nvidia. I don't really have a problem with that, but initially it took me some time to figure out what to do, including blacklisting nouveau and all that. Would be nice to have the current version in the official repositories.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

I re-ran my benchmarks making sure that 'vsync to blank' is off in nvidia-settings. I get
setting min max ave
low 64 212 117
medium 53 199 106
high 55 185 101
very high 52 176 96
ultra 50 174 89
Basically the same as before within the usual fluctuations even with identical settings.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Comparing my 980ti benchmarks to the phoronix results, it looks like I get 30-40 fps more. I don't know if I have 'vsync to blank' enabled, I thought I did, will check tonight. In-game vsync was definitely disabled. I have a 120Hz monitor though, so maybe that already changes the rates even with vsync.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: wvstolzingDo the 355.06 Beta drivers make any difference? (Just curious.)

Just installed it. I took each benchmark twice and averaged the results to reduce the fluctuations - on low, the first time the minimum fps was 41.19, the second time it was 64.3. I don't know if my system (or steam) is doing something weird in the background.
Anyway, these are the averaged numbers:

setting - min - max - ave
low - 53 - 205 - 117
medium - 54 - 193 - 107
high - 55 - 186 - 106
very high - 52 - 174 - 98
ultra - 51 - 165 - 92

I can only really compare the 'very high' settings to the benchmarks I did for 352.30 since I ran that one 3 times, I don't think a single measurement is reliable enough to compare.
The averages for 352.30 on very high are
very high - 51 - 173 - 95
The difference going to 355.06 is then min/ max/ave = +1 / +1 / +3
Maybe I should turn on some overclock and see if I can get the game to stay consistently above 60 fps...

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Just did some benchmarks with my GTX 980ti
i7-4790k @4.6 GHz
16 GB RAM
EVGA GeForce GTX 980 Ti ACX SC+ ACX 2.0+ (driver 352.30)
all at 1080p

setting - min - max - ave
low - 63.11 - 205.82 - 114.77
medium - 53.83 - 195.97 - 104.97
high - 52.60 - 184.64 - 99.28
very high - 50.88 - 168.80 - 93.48
ultra - 49.78 - 175.64 - 88.73

Just noticed that the max fps dipped at very high settings. I might redo that one later, don't have time to do more right now.
On the whole, the frame rate fluctuation is quite big.

Edit: reran 'very high' twice and got
49.07 - 176.85 - 94.74
53.49 - 172.49 - 95.32
so the min and max fps can differ quite a bit without changing anything else.

View this comment - View article - View full comments