Is the guy a developer? If it is, my theory is that he has only develop on Windows. I mean, it's clear that He only knows how to use Windows dev tools & technology, so when he has to think out of the his sandbox he simply can't (and my statement applies for many devs out there, not only this one).

I think that one of the biggest problem of all gaming/applications projects is that they always start with the multiplatform idea (you know, it sells!), but they just start programming using Windows development tools not even thinking nor testing if what you're doing can crosscompile. So, in essence, I'm convinced that all this guys/enterprise that starts a project and promise multiplatfom support simply think that they can pospone other platform support to a final stage of development, when it MUST be parallel work.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Another question came along to my head @ThorstenFolkers:

How are you testing the game on Linux? Distro? Nvidia drivers? Mesa? AMDGPU-PRO?

Thanks for all your answers so far!

View this comment - View article - View full comments

I'm interested too. Any plan of weather effects + handling simulation for those situations?

View this comment - View article - View full comments

I'll make a test during weekend. I also wishlisted!

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Boogiepop_Phantom

Weird part is that they are paying for software (at least for games like pubg).

This speech is 20 years old. Now there are lots of well off Chinese who can pay for their OS and games.

I know that it's quite dated, but as most of Chinese seems to be using W7 instead of 10 (being the last one a free update from the former) and that Liam thesis was that this update is not happening due that most of them use a pirate copy of W7, it's clear that they are not willing to pay the price of a Windows license. So, it's not that they don't want to pay for software, it's that they cannot afford some of the prices of Windows or don't see the point of paying a Windows license (and I really agree with them if you ask me).

View this comment - View article - View full comments

About 3 million computers get sold every year in China, but people don't pay for the software. Someday they will, though. As long as they are going to steal it, we want them to steal ours. They'll get sort of addicted, and then we'll somehow figure out how to collect sometime in the next decade.

Speech at the University of Washington, as reported in "Gates, Buffett a bit bearish" CNET News (2 July 1998)

Weird part is that they are paying for software (at least for games like pubg).

View this comment - View article - View full comments

And this is why I always buy Feral games. No matter if it isn't a game I really like or don't have enough time to play, with the guarantee that they enhance our platform is more than enough for me.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: BeamboomNo, I say it is so because it is so. It is public knowledge, they do have their technology middle layer they use to translate DX to OpenGL (and now Vulkan) - even the name of that wrapper is known (I don't remember now but it should be only a quick googling away).

I think you mistake Feral work with Virtual Programming work (their middleware is neon, is that the one you mean?)

Quoting: BeamboomRead the links others have provided in this very thread. This is fact. This is not assumptions. It's just how it is. How do you think they could do all these releases, and how can they be so stable as they are? Because the main game is left as it is - no core code is changed in any significant way whatsoever.

And this is important that we know when we do judge these releases, else it's just plain unfair to them and the titles we do have and will receive - all thanks to their wrapper. This is not a demonstration of Vulkan, it's a demonstration first and foremost of their middle layer software that translates for them.

I have read all the links and none of them proves that they have a generic wrapper to adapt games to Mac and Linux. In fact, I gave you an example of a game with an engine that supports Dx and Vulkan and the performance is poorer in Vulkan (The Talos Principle if you don't recall). Sorry, but unless you know someone that has access to the game code you can't prove that they're wrapping DirectX (an even if it's the case, there are software designs that doesn't give you another option).

I'll never understand why some of you guys have problems with a game that is supported on Linux with a decent performance but is "unnaceptable" that it doesn't give the same performance as in Windows. As I previously said, you save near 100 bucks with Linux as you don't have to buy a Windows license, and with that amount you can enhance more than a 30% your gpu power, so stop pointless complains about software design that has nothing to do with Linux gaming.

The big issue we have to get over in our system is the profitability. If we can manage to keep profitable, we'll eventually get the same performance as in Windows. Simple as that...

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: BeamboomSo "porting" is in practise about changing the platform specific parts of a code. If you compile a source code by having that code to access another api instead of system apis, that is for all practical purposes to be called a "wrapper".

We can discuss semantics until we grow grey hair, but fact remains that in gaming, the graphical part - who remains platform specific - is a major part of a games performance. MAJOR part. So adding a middle layer to translate DX calls to Vukan calls is no minor detail. It doesn't matter then if the sources are recompiled to access those libraries - this part IS wrapped. And that is in essence what this is about.

First off, by your concept of "wrapper" and "port" it will always be a grey definition. We don't know how a game is designed and how much coupled it is with original system, so all that we can discuss is a supposition game.

But let's get it simple: you assume that the games is "wrapped" due that it doesn't show a equal performance as Windows. But, why do you get that conclussion? It isn't possible that the way a game architecture focused on Dx11 is difficult to adapt to Vulkan? It isn't possible that a part of the gap is due that Nvidia hardware performs better with Dx11 than with Vulkan? You have lots of question to answer before conclude that Feral has a "wrapper" of Dx11...

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: BeamboomThe whole problem here is that we call these releases "ports", when they in fact are "wrapped". Nobody expects a game run in Wine to be on par with Windows performance. We should apply that same expectation on these games.

They are not ported, the source code is not "translated" to run natively. They have had added an extra layer so that they don't NEED to be ported. This is a crucial difference.

And from THAT perspective, these releases are pretty damn impressive. They are like Wine on steroids, with a 100% smooth experience and pretty darn good performance.

They just are NOT ports.

The loss of performance doesn't mean that there is Dx to Vulkan wrapper. It just means that the game was designed for an API in mind and then they decided to add support to another (just take a look on The Talos Principle benchs).

In the moment you see an elf file as executable, you can be sure that the game was compiled to run natively. We can discuss all day about "how much wrapped the game is", but we don't have access to the source code and sometimes there is no other way to make the port out of wrapping win32 calls.

The concept of "port" or "wine-like" is meaningless without the details of the low level design.

View this comment - View article - View full comments