Giving up on linux

[Zombie9920]

Do you want to hear the scary thing? NVidia's Linux driver support is alot better than ATI's Linux driver support.


I think that it boils down to the fact that NVidia and ATI don't really give a shit about Linux. They make DirectX cards for use with..YOU GUESSED IT!!!...DirectX(which is only for Windows FYI). Of course they support OpenGL too, but OpenGL has not been updated in a long time so both NVidia and ATI focus on bettering thier cards for compatibility with new DirectX features introduced with every new directX release. They also focus on optimizing performance with DirectX while maintaining outstanding image quality. NVidia and ATI do offer decent support for MacOS(another mainstream, closed source OS), but they don't really focus on Macs either. Driver updates for MacOS are few and far apart(unlike the constant Windows driver updates that are always being pumped out).

There just isn't much market for OpenGL+Gaming anymore because OpenGL's graphical capabilites are primative to say the least. That may change a bit when OpenGL reaches 2.0 but I'm skeptical of that. DirectX is so far ahead in features I don't think that OpenGL has a chance of catching up. When OpenGL 2.0 is released(if it ever happens) MS will have another new DirectX ready for release that will supercede OpenGL again..and god knows how long it will take for OpenGL to obtain comparable features of the new DirectX(and when it does there will be yet another DirectX with more new features).

OpenGL is mainly used for professional 3D rendering on SGI machines done with high end OpenGL cards....like the Quadro and the FireGL anymore. There are a small amount of big name game makers that still rely on OpenGL(like ID Software), but not many. Most new games are made exclusivly for DirectX but occasionally you will find a new game that supports both. They usually recommend you use DirectX for graphical reasons but offer OpenGL support for older, slower machines that can't run DirectX well.

Life is a bitch for Open Source when major companies are out to support the closed source standards. Even used to be diehard OpenGL  gamers don't give a shit about OpenGL anymore because of it's lack of updates.

[ August 30, 2003: Message edited by: Zombie9920 ]

[Faust]

Meh I don't really give a shit about them.  

Once the drivers are installed (the ./NVIDIA_drivers part):
In the modules section of /etc/X11/XF86config add "load "glx"" and remove "load "GLcore"" and "load ""dri"."  Probably comment em out to remove em in case you need to change back later.
In the "grapics device" section change "nv" to "nvidia."
At the bottom of "/etc/modules" add the line "nvidia" to actually load the drivers at boot.

[Stryker]

couldn't hold myself back

 

quote:Originally posted by Zombie9920:
Do you want to hear the scary thing? NVidia's Linux driver support is alot better than ATI's Linux driver support.

and it installs perfectly for everyone i know, except him. i'm sure people have had more errors installing msoffice than nvidia's drivers

 

quote:
I think that it boils down to the fact that NVidia and ATI don't really give a shit about Linux.

That explains why nvidia recently updated their linux drivers.

 

quote:
They make DirectX cards for use with..YOU GUESSED IT!!!...DirectX(which is only for Windows FYI).

You ever ask why it's only for windows? i'm sure you know anyways. Microsoft makes it and microsoft knows if it gives source code or develops it for other operating systems it's monopoly won't be as strong.

 

quote:
Of course they support OpenGL too, but OpenGL has not been updated in a long time so both NVidia and ATI focus on bettering thier cards for compatibility with new DirectX features introduced with every new directX release.

i love opengl, as many people do. i get 95fps with excellent quality, as opposed to with directx i get 25fps with horrible quality.

 

quote:
They also focus on optimizing performance with DirectX while maintaining outstanding image quality.

the image quality i've seen directx put out is shit compared to opengl.

 

quote:
There just isn't much market for OpenGL+Gaming anymore because OpenGL's graphical capabilites are primative to say the least.

primitive? no older video card i've owned except my new 64mb nvidia mx440 supported opengl. sure it's a slightly old card, but it gives a lot better performance and quality with opengl than directx.

 

quote:
OpenGL is mainly used for professional 3D rendering on SGI machines done with high end OpenGL cards....like the Quadro and the FireGL.  

it's good enough for professionals but not for gamers?

 

quote:
Life is a bitch for Open Source when major companies are out to support the closed source standards. Even used to be diehard OpenGL  gamers don't even give a shit about OpenGL anymore because of it's lack of updates.

I just bought 2 games, both support opengl and NOT directx. RTCW and BF1982(might have directx in there somewhere). These are rather new games. I don't really play games that much, but from my experiences with directx, it sucks. and opengl is far superior as far as speed and quality. I dont see why they would need to update opengl, it works fine.


of course this is just my experience, i'm not going to spend $200 on a video card that works well with directx when i have a perfectly good card that runs excellent with opengl. forgive me if i sound stupid or anything, it's like 1am and i haven't slept much lately.

[TheKnifeThrower]

quote:Originally posted by Faust:
Meh I don't really give a shit about them.      

Once the drivers are installed (the ./NVIDIA_drivers part):
In the modules section of /etc/X11/XF86config add "load "glx"" and remove "load "GLcore"" and "load ""dri"."  Probably comment em out to remove em in case you need to change back later.
In the "grapics device" section change "nv" to "nvidia."
At the bottom of "/etc/modules" add the line "nvidia" to actually load the drivers at boot.

I don't beleive it man. All that shit and all I was forgetting to do was edit "etc/modules" (I swear I had no idea I was meant to do that). Thanks Faust.

[Zombie9920]

quote:i love opengl, as many people do. i get 95fps with excellent quality, as opposed to with directx i get 25fps with horrible quality.

Linux gamers and gamers with old cards love OpenGL. DirectX Horrible quality? Shit. Compare these real quick. These aren't the GeForce 2 days anymore man.

This is RTCW(OpenGL) running on my GeForce FX 5900 Ultra. It would look exactly the same on a GeForce 2 as it does on the FX. It looks good for OpenGL, but it is primative and plain(nowhere near realistic looking).

http://www.ticz.com/homes/users/waltw/heinrich.jpg

This is Morrowind(DirectX 8.1). Look at how beautiful and realistic that looks. That is what EVB(Enviromental Bump Mapping) Pixel Shaders, Vertex Shaders and Advanced Pixel shaders can do.
DirectX 9 games will be able to produce even better graphics than that when they are released(Half Life 2 will be DirectX 9!             ). DirectX games run at 115+ FPS on my rig(w/GeForce FX 5900 Ultra). DirectX games ran well on my GeForce 3 Ti500 and my GF4 Ti4200&Ti4600. The 4600 to FX 5900 upgrade wasn't even nessicary because no games support DX9 yet. I have it for when DX 9 games come out though.            

http://www.ticz.com/homes/users/waltw/morrowind.jpg

       

quote:the image quality i've seen directx put out is shit compared to opengl.

See above. OpenGL can't even compare. I'm sorry, OpenGL is just outdated. Modern DirectX 8 and 9 cards can run DirectX 7 stuff(the equivalent to what OpenGL graphical capabilites have to offer) pretty damn good. They run DX 7 every bit as fast(I'd say faster) as they run OpenGL.

         

quote:primitive? no older video card i've owned except my new 64mb nvidia mx440 supported opengl. sure it's a slightly old card, but it gives a lot better performance and quality with opengl than directx.

No wonder you think DirectX is shit. That card is a DirectX 7 and below card. That card doesn't support any new directX features. Back in the days of DX6 and 7 OpenGL actually could compare.
You know the GeForce 4 MX isn't much faster than a GeForce 2 Ti don't you? The GeForce 4 MX is based on the GeForce 2 core(hence why it has no up to date features). A GeForce 2 Ultra can smoke that thing. You need a GeForce 3/GF3ti200/GF3 Ti500/GeForce 4 Ti series or a GeForce FX to enjoy the new DX features. DirectX isn't slow on a modern card made especially for DX. At least NVidia did the right thing by releasing a budget DirectX 9 card in the FX 5200. The GF4MX was just a total crock of shit.

         

quote:it's good enough for professionals but not for gamers?

Professionals have $600+ OpenGL cards that have capabilites that are not used in games. A Professional OpenGL card will not run OpenGL games any better than thier consumer counterpart(A Quadro FX will not run games better than a GeForce FX). The Professional cards have special GL extension support for movie 3D animation rendering purpouses only(to make computer animations for movies). No gamer would spend $600+ on a card that would only play games with the current OpenGL 1.4 specs.

         

quote:I just bought 2 games, both support opengl and NOT directx. RTCW and BF1982(might have directx in there somewhere). These are rather new games. I don't really play games that much, but from my experiences with directx, it sucks. and opengl is far superior as far as speed and quality. I dont see why they would need to update opengl, it works fine.

RTCW was released in September of 2001. That is not new by any means. ID Software is one of the very few software makers who still swear by OpenGL. Battlefield 1942 is a game made for DirectX.

http://www.fileshack.com/file.x?fid=853

As you see, You should have a card that can do Hardware T&L(a DirectX 7+ feature...your GF4 MX can do that at least). It may have OpenGL support in there(intended for the low end machines that can't run with good DirectX graphics). BF1982 is a Interstate mod for BF1942.  

Here is a screenie of that mod. God it looks terrible. It must be using OpenGL.                  

http://www.bf1942files.com/screenshots/21/news2/5422_1.jpg

[ August 30, 2003: Message edited by: Zombie9920 ]

edited because the pictures were huge

[ August 30, 2003: Message edited by: Stryker ]

[Zombie9920]

This is what Morrowind looks like without DX 8 features(How it would look on a Radeon 7500, a GeForce 2 series or a GeForce 4 MX series card). It looks as plain as it would look with OpenGL rendering(if the game supported OpenGL). YUCK!!!!! The first screenshot of Morrowind I provided (the one in my previous post) is about how it would look on even a GeForce 3.

http://www.ticz.com/homes/users/waltw/mwdx7.jpg

Like I said, no wonder you think DX is shit. DirectX isn't the problem, the problem is your hardware.

[ August 30, 2003: Message edited by: Zombie9920 ]

edited because the image was huge.

[ August 30, 2003: Message edited by: Stryker ]

[Faust]

Yeah that does look pretty.  Hey I've played Morrowind (up until I found out I was the Nerevarine then I just got bored and went back to multiplayer on my LAN.)  I know it looks damn pretty, but there are also a lot of open GL games that look pretty nice too.  Quake 3 is absolutely beautiful, and given that Id still likes open GL I take it those beautiful Doom 3 movies I've been seeing will be open GL too.  Well when D3 comes out I'll try and remember to make a post about what it's like...  Is that out in the US yet?  Certainly isn't over here.

Eh he...  I didn't realise that either when I first tried Knife Thrower...  eh he, one of those "smack my head into the desk" little annoying things...  It would be so damn easy to have the installer do this too.  :rolleyes:

[Faust]

quote:Life is a bitch for Open Source when major companies are out to support the closed source standards. Even used to be diehard OpenGL gamers don't give a shit about OpenGL anymore because of it's lack of updates.

It's not so much that it's non free that pisses me off, but that it's closed standard so there can't be any free implementations.  So fucking annoying that so many companies aren't prepared to fight on a level playing field.  

[Zombie9920]

quote:Originally posted by Faust:
Yeah that does look pretty.  Hey I've played Morrowind (up until I found out I was the Nerevarine then I just got bored and went back to multiplayer on my LAN.)  I know it looks damn pretty, but there are also a lot of open GL games that look pretty nice too.  Quake 3 is absolutely beautiful, and given that Id still likes open GL I take it those beautiful Doom 3 movies I've been seeing will be open GL too.  Well when D3 comes out I'll try and remember to make a post about what it's like...  Is that out in the US yet?  Certainly isn't over here.

Eh he...  I didn't realise that either when I first tried Knife Thrower...  eh he, one of those "smack my head into the desk" little annoying things...  It would be so damn easy to have the installer do this too.    :rolleyes:  

I agree that Doom III looks like it is going to be pretty detailed. I'll be purchasing it when it comes out.....but I'm more excited about trying Half-Life 2 when it is released. Here are a shitload of Half-Life 2 screenshots.

According to the minifaq of HL2 it will run on lower end systems w/DirectX 6 minimum(the game won't look nearly as beautiful as those screenshots on one of those systems though). HalfLife 2 is going to be DirectX 9 feature rich(it will look good on DirectX 8 hardware too though). HL2 is going to be a smash hit just like it's predecessor.


http://www.planethalflife.com/half-life2/screenshots/


I have a feeling that Doom 3 is going to be like the original doom with better graphics. There will be virtually no storyline(ID Software is not known for making games with a good storyline). I'm sure it will be all about killing everything in site(no tactical challenges). It may recreate the environment of fear that the original Doom did(the reason why gamers loved the original Doom). If it sucessfully creates an environment of fear(it truely makes gamers feel alone and scared of what may happen next) it will be a success and it will be worthy of being called a Doom sequel. If you get the feeling that you are just running around shooting everything with no fear of the enemies at all it will ge boring quick. IF that is how it is I wouldn't call it a real sequel to the original doom(because back in Doom's day it kept gamers new to the game on thier feet and scared of what may pop-up next).

In reply to Stryker,

It does suck that closed standards creates an un-level playing field for the open developers. Back in the day OpenGL was the best API to use for many because it was infinitley faster than old DirectX implementations and it had the same graphical capabilites of the old DirectX's(up to DX 7). Now DirectX has all of this special stuff in DirectX and most game developers have pretty much abandoned OpenGL in favor of those new DirectX capabilites because gamers are expecting more and more realistic stuff nowadays. GFX chipset vendors focus on bettering thier DirectX support now and don't even think about OpenGL anymore. When you buy a new video card they market it as a DirectX card. It being DirectX whatever version compliant is it's main selling point. Back in the days of the R7500 and GeForce 2 they at least marketed it as a 3D Accelerator for DirectX and OpenGL.

 OpenGL has been at version 1.4 ever since Detonator 4 was released(a couple years now). 1.4 was a minor update for 1.3(it was at 1.3 for the longest time) to make OpenGL a little faster and it added a few extensions to improve OpenGL's anisotropic quality. Since 1.4 OpenGL hasn't had anymore updates.....it has been stuck with the same ol yesterdays' technology capabilies for a long time(it has been losing since DirectX 8). They really need to speed up the development of OpenGL 2.0....OpenGL 2.0 may then offer the graphical capabilities to rival the ones of DirectX 8(the capabilites that gamers and game developers love).

[ August 30, 2003: Message edited by: Zombie9920 ]