Doesn't look like much of an improvement over Xonotic but the Steam factor might give it some popularity.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Reading some more replies, it seems like they might go for a whitelist of applications and games known to work with it which does sound like a reasonable solution to me. However, some are not happy with the idea of having any kind of application profiles or specific lists, even just to get the ball rolling.

I do understand why some people are negative about such application profiles because in recent times these have been brought up multiple times and it seems that the Mesa devs are increasingly interested in using such profiles. As far as I'm concerned, if they really want to implement these profiles they should at least be kept properly separated from the main logic to keep the code clean in the long run. I would really hate to see Mesa become a mess of case-by-case optimizations on top of other case-by-case optimizations. I'm much more in favour of developers doing those optimizations themselves.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: GuestIsn't it a bit weird they are favouring compatibility with an emulator (which hasn't made much strides in supporting multi thread) instead of actual games? I mean i use that said emulator but still i think the priority should be on the finished product (the games) while ongoing development emulators could then adapt to the new circumstances.

Nvidia had their threaded optimizations disabled by default for a good while too before they were confident enough in shipping that as a default feature (which I think they did some time ago, but I might be wrong). It makes sense that this would be disabled until people can properly optimize it and evaluate its effects in various scenarios. I also read that it can be enabled with an environmental variable, just like Nvidia's thing, so people who want to try and squeeze some performance out of games can do so without it needing to be enabled always.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: cRaZy-bisCuiTThe great discount just shows how the game got abandoned. :/

If the GTX 480 will be able to provide FPS > 50 one day (which it should) I'd be buying the game. Since the game seems to be abandoned I don't feel like this will ever gonna happen.

I'm not sure about "abandoned" but what I'm sure about is that GTX 480 is aging and doesn't meet the minimum system requirements for DE:MD (even for the Windows version). On Linux it's doubtful you'd ever get consistent 50+ FPS even with the details turned all the way down. I'm not sure what the definition of minimum playable experience is for the Windows version but I'm going to make a guess and say 50 FPS won't happen there either.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Well, I do have an APU and a dGPU on my laptop. Maybe that will actually turn out well after all.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

While it's good that more and more games will run on Mesa without users having to do a lot of fiddling, I certainly hope that this doesn't become the norm. I don't really like the idea of Mesa becoming a mess of exception cases and strange code paths for all the weird things game developers do when they don't really know what they are doing.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Doc AngeloI have to say that I wouldn't have thought that 67% are not dual booting - not even another Linux distro. Is it really that common for Linux gamers to not have a Windows partition ready for the case a game will not have Linux support - or just older Games which do not work well with Wine?

Well, I for one don't have the patience to run Windows on anything plus I believe the only way to ensure the growth of Linux as a gaming platform is to buy and support games on that platform. So, no Windows games for me.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Armand Raynal

Quoting: Linas

Quoting: Armand Raynal

Quoting: m0j0r1s1ng

Quoting: Armand Raynal*FLOSS plz, not open source.

really? semantics? you realize the "os" in floss is for open source?

The semantical difference is important.

I am sorry, but it is not. Naming wars are not appreciated here as stated in posting rules.

Being neutral avoid those wars, for sure taking sides start them.

FLOSS isn't exactly neutral either you know. FLOSS is "free libre open source software" so essentially GNU definition of free software. Open source is the neutral one as it merely notes that something has source code available for free without going into further philosophical or ideological details. In simpler terms: free software is open source but open source is not necessarily free software. Easy.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: AnxiousInfusionGamingOnLinux

In this case this was covered because (or at least this is my assumption) GIFs are fairly popular in the indie circles, particularly on Itch.io. Also, we have covered other tangentially relevant software projects such as OBS because they are used in the context of gaming even though OBS can be used for non-gaming related purposes.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: tuubi

Quoting: Duckeenie

Quoting: tuubi

Quoting: Duckeenie

Quoting: tuubi

Quoting: DuckeenieI loved XFCE until I found out it was the slowest desktop for gaming even with compositing off.

Source [External Link]

That benchmark is far from scientific though. Seems like every single test gets conflicting results.

Don't know why you say conflicting results, XFCE comes last in every single test. Scientific or not without counter-evidence it stands. :P

Phronix did similar tests too. [External Link]

The Phoronix test uses Ubuntu's default settings with the compositors enabled.

Which is why I used the other link in the first instance... The point is two independent tests show that XFCE is slower when gaming.

And a quick googling will produce tests where it isn't. In my own tests on my systems against Mate and a couple of others left Xfce somewhere in the middle with insignificantly small differences overall (on my hardware at least), so I saw no reason to ditch the DE I'm most comfortable with.

It's likely that the performance disparity is not nearly as apparent on stronger hardware. Phoronix seems to have used Intel integrated graphics while the other test used Radeon R7 integrated. I will probably try out some other DE on my laptop and see if it makes a difference. Probably won't care enough to replace Xfce on my desktop though.

View this comment - View article - View full comments