Quoting: LunielleIt's not that amazing when you see games like Monster Hunter World achieve just 70% of FPS compared to Windows.. Why do some games have such low performance while others can perform, even better than Windows sometimes? Aside from that DXVK is truly amazing.

Both Wine and DXVK still are "translation" layers that convert Windows calls to Linux/vulkan calls. These imply some overhead, as it's not a 1:1 translation with all the APIs outside Wine and DXVK being developed specifically for it, like those on Windows.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Guest

Quoting: rcritAccording to the dxvk-users channel on Discord the new driver and compiler are not great. FPS are cut by half and rendering is terrible.

It would surprise me if Nvidia would try to improve their Vulkan support significantly. All the Nvidia Optimus graphics cards in laptops still don't have acceptable Xorg Linux drivers.

And I can't login to the Plasma Wayland session via a discrete GTX 1050 card when I use the proprietary Nvidia drivers. Nvidia made their own EGL API implementation when everyone else wanted to use GBM.

The EGL solution worked via the proprietary drivers on my Gnome Wayland and Nvidia Optimus 425M Arch Linux laptop. But after certain updates it suddenly stopped working and the Wayland login option disappeared when I use the proprietary driver. The Wayland option returns when I use Nouveau. But I never had these severe issues with Wayland on AMD graphics cards or Intel integrated graphics.

Nvidia could have optimized their Pascal architecture for low-level API's like Vulkan if they really wanted this. But they focused their architecture twenty times more on the proprietary DX11 API. Even when they knew that DX11 is a huge bottleneck and that it's more taxing on the CPU and GPU.

There is an open alternative for G-Sync but Nvidia keeps pushing their proprietary solution.

I can understand that Nvidia wants to work together with Microsoft on new technology but why almost every time a new proprietary solution for essential hardware and API's.

"NVIDIA collaborates with Microsoft to bring proprietary DX12 development and debugging to the next level"
"NVIDIA G-SYNC gives you more of what you want in a gaming experience."
"Introduction to NVIDIA proprietary RTX and Microsoft DirectX Ray Tracing"

Their neglect for any solution that's not proprietary is really striking. And I think that this work philosophy really counteract 'the best and cheapest experience for customers' and 'to produce high quality software faster and easier'.

Because of all these reasons, plus NVIDIA GPP, is the motive behind the fact that I'm so eager for AMD's GPUs releases and, even through they are sometimes more expensive and having less performance than NVIDIA's GPUs (at least here on Brazil...even considering that everything is expensive here), I really want to buy just AMD from now on.

I just cannot support NVIDIA anymore and, personally, it's a shame that I have only NVIDIA GPUs on the computers on my house (including my notebook, where I cannot remove or change the GPU unfortunately because the GPU it is welded on the motherboard (bad, bad Dell..)).

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: abelthorne

Quoting: fjorgemotaIt's normal, as the game was not ported for the engine yet (I expected this to happen yet in 2017, but probably it will be finished in Q1 2018). =P

Yeah, I meant I forgot that Source 2 was a thing at all, as after being loudly announced for Dota 2, it kind of fell into oblivion. :D

AFAIK −and besides the CS:GO port that has yet to come− there hasn't been other games apart from Dota 2 that use it, right?

(But I'm sure it will be a great engine for HL3 when it comes out in 2091, just after the release of Star Citizen.)

According to the official Valve wiki [External Link], apart from Dota 2, there were other two "games" (I think that they are more like demonstrations than games itself) that use Source 2 as engine:

• Dota 2


• Robot Repair


• SteamVR Home

About CS:GO, I saw a video [External Link] another day that has good points about the port of CS:GO to Source 2 being problematic mainly because of the mechanics of the game, where changes to it may destroy the game and the communities around it. A big change in the physics engine, for example, may cause PRO Players to need to learn again about the tricks of the game, which can cause problems and criticism.

About HL3, I think that it will never be released, because of the hype around the game. Created? Yeah, probably it's in some HD of some Valve's employee, but released I think it will never be, like the CS: GO port to Source 2 may never be released (or even this PUBG-like mode)

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: abelthorne

Quoting: fjorgemotaWell.

I personally think that Valve will release a PUBG-like mode in Counter Strike Global Offensive as the video and the article shows. But it will not release it while using a engine like Source. That's because Source only supports maps with only 832 meters (source here [External Link], while Source 2 can manage maps a bit larger because it have support for 64 bit (which allow for really larger maps according to some unofficial calculation [External Link] AND level streaming, so there's no loading time between the levels in Source 2. Plus, it's already possible to already create large maps in Source 2 using Hammer (a tool for creation of maps in Dota 2), like this video shows: View video on youtube.com

As for the number of players, Source already supports something like 255 players, while gamers itself support far less players than that number, like Valve itself documents in it's wiki [External Link]. I do not have any information, however, about how Source 2 changes that number...But I expect a large increase in that number!

And if you're asking "hey, but wtf Source 2 has to do with CS:GO?". Valve apparently announced that CS:GO will be ported to Source 2 soon.

Well, with these changes I really think that CS:GO will be able to support a PUBG-like mode. What do you think?

[users-only]PS: Sorry for the big number of links here. I'm a bit hyped about that topic. =)[/users-only]

Thanks, these are interesting numbers. I completely forgot about the existence of Source 2.

It's normal, as the game was not ported for the engine yet (I expected this to happen yet in 2017, but probably it will be finished in Q1 2018). =P

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: abelthorne

Quoting: devnullA CS port/mod would be interesting, the engine certainly has some benefits like cross platform support -- and doesn't use BattleEye. There's a big difference in scale and play style though. Valve still prefers 24 player max for even TF2. BR is fun, in part due to the higher user counts. To be fair, it's not the only platform with such problems. Playing in an instance is not the same experience as a real, large world. And while some maps have breakable objects they are largely static in CS. There are larger maps like cs_blackhawk that would be interesting sandboxes though.

Bigger question is will the engine support it. Think it's kinda sad to see people like Lirik or Summit play on hardware largely out of reach to most, yet can't hold 120fps in games. It's not their fault.

That's what I was asking earlier but I think my question was overlooked: I didn't think about the number of player but just for the maps, is the Source engine technically able to handle huge ones? All Source games I know of have small maps (e.g. Team Fortress 2, Dota 2...) or bigger ones but divided in chunks/levels with loading time between them (e.g. Half-Life 2, Portal 2...) and I'm not sure if it's because of game design or limitations of the engine. I'm wondering if the engine would be able to handle a game mode similar to PUBG at all or if it's simply unfit for this.

If Valve have plans to make a PUBG-like but with only ~30 players and on maps the size of a small village, it'll fail.

Well.

I personally think that Valve will release a PUBG-like mode in Counter Strike Global Offensive as the video and the article shows. But it will not release it while using a engine like Source. That's because Source only supports maps with only 832 meters (source here [External Link], while Source 2 can manage maps a bit larger because it have support for 64 bit (which allow for really larger maps according to some unofficial calculation [External Link] AND level streaming, so there's no loading time between the levels in Source 2. Plus, it's already possible to already create large maps in Source 2 using Hammer (a tool for creation of maps in Dota 2), like this video shows: View video on youtube.com

As for the number of players, Source already supports something like 255 players, while gamers itself support far less players than that number, like Valve itself documents in it's wiki [External Link]. I do not have any information, however, about how Source 2 changes that number...But I expect a large increase in that number!

And if you're asking "hey, but wtf Source 2 has to do with CS:GO?". Valve apparently announced that CS:GO will be ported to Source 2 soon.

Well, with these changes I really think that CS:GO will be able to support a PUBG-like mode. What do you think?

[users-only]PS: Sorry for the big number of links here. I'm a bit hyped about that topic. =)[/users-only]

View this comment - View article - View full comments