Forums | MacLife

doctorb wrote:

Both issues that you mention are well known. The shadows problem has to do with the OGL renderer and pehaps other things as per the linked bug report. The sound problems are with the OAL implementation. A good source of info on these things is Ryan Gordon's .plan and his archives.

Ryan Gordon wrote:

Sorry, I meant Epic's OpenGL renderer (called "OpenGLDrv"), not the OS's OpenGL
drivers. Adding support to Unreal for pbuffers would be a real pain, so it
probably won't make it into the retail version.

I see... I hate to see that the final mac retail version will never reach the quality of the pc version. This sucks. One other thing it sucks is that only ONE person is responsible for the Mac port (Ryan Gordon), but for the PC there certainly are more.
The last thing that really sucks is that as Ryan Gordon said, he will *never* implement detailed shadows for Unreal Tournament 2004.

And now that I read his .plan... I don't think that he plans to improve the sound quality in the near future either.

Mac UT2K4 should have a bit better support...

LLEVIATHANN wrote:

Can't blame the developers too much. They can only work with what they have. Much finger pointing has to go back at Apple. It is their OpenGL that the developers have to use. Face it things won't improve until Apple takes gaming on Macs more serious and offers developers great tools.

As for Ryan going solo. He's such a *inx whiz that I'd rather have one of him then many half wits. I for one am glad it was him and not a bunch of crack pots that think they know what they are doing. Without his 1337n355 things could've been worse. Imagine having the Mac version and not being able to connect to PCs.

I have to agree to that. I believe Ryan is one of the most talented programmers mac gaming has ever seen. But even Superman cannot be at two places at the same times, meaning that even such a talented programmer should have one or two partners so that he can ease the burden. Heck, this man maintains postal, Call OF Duty, Unreal Tournament 2003, Unreal Tournament 2004, sometimes he writes code for UTPG, and most important...

He is the only one responsible for porting Unreal Engine 3 to the mac!!! (read his .plan). Do you realize how musch work this demands? Let alone all the other stuff he has to do.

I think that one or two people can really help him. At least he could give them the simple coding to do, and he can continue his work with unreal series!

Soulstorm wrote:

But even Superman cannot be at two places at the same times, meaning that even such a talented programmer should have one or two partners so that he can ease the burden.

I don't think he is totally alone.

If you go look at Bugzilla. Some of the bugs have solutions to them that are not Ryan's. He does take other's input for the greater good. He is a solid part of the Linux community and that community helps him out too. Really hard to speculate what goes on behind the scenes.

Then there are the "Mac Ninjas", his beta testing crew that beats up the code before releases.

I for one am concerned that at some point he'll bite off more that he can handle and burn himself out or even worse choke on an epic scale.

Soulstorm wrote:

I for one believe that if he hadn't all this work to do, he would concentrate his efforts into the unreal tournament 2004 mac port, and it would be as good as PC edition.

Actually, it is hard for me to believe that there is no way of optimizing the code for mac standards without having to re-write the unreal code from scratch. There is always a way, but Ryan also has to look after other games and ports, so little time has been left to do the work needed for unreal tournament 2004.

From my point of view, i think that UT2K4 is kind of a bad port... The work Ryan has done is great, considering the DirectX to OpenGL port.  But some things are left without care, such as the sound of the game, or the shadows. How Macsoft allowed a game to be released since they knew it was not yet completely done and it had some issues with the sound and shadows?

Tha game was released for the PC with no such problems, and I think that Macsoft should not release it for Mac until they were sure that it had reached the quality of the PC version.

Would you rather be waiting and waiting for the perfect Mac port or have the Mac port we have now?

doc-robc wrote:

Would you rather be waiting and waiting for the perfect Mac port or have the Mac port we have now?

I don't think it would take too long to optimize it a little better for mac os. You see, when a game is about to be released, the programmers and the companies put much more effort in making it better than after it is released. Now that the game is released, Macsoft does not put such effort in the game as before.

It's all about the "Just Good Enough" tactic. Now that the game is simply playable (and a little buggy, concerning the sound and shadows) and it is good enough to just be played, they don't find a reason to push themselves to make it better. They just leave all the work to Ryan (who I think is a bit overwhelmed at the moment) and they don't care about the game so much as before.

Last edited by Soulstorm (2005-03-08 3:58 am)

Soulstorm wrote:

would be as good as PC edition.....reached the quality of the PC version.

It will never happen until Apple's OGL or some other Mac API is as good as DX.

The flaws in the game are not Ryan's fault. It's the limits/quality of Apple OGL. The only thing I think Ryan could've done better was to make better use of the second proc. Currently it only handles sound. Better load balance would be nice, but I'm not a programmer and have no idea how involved that would be.

Texture filtering could use some help too...

Soulstorm wrote:

But it's so different from DirectX, or even OpenGL for PC.

OpenGL is an industry standard that is sitting at version 2.0 right now. Looking at the last 3 OS X updates Apple won't even tell you what version of OGL it's installing, just the fact that it is being updated. Anyone one know what version of OpenGL Apple is using? I fear the lack of this information is Apple's admittance that their behind and know it. Back in the day when they dropped Game Sprockets in favor of the OpenGL standard Apple was very vocal about OS 9/X's OpenGL version was the same and up to date.

Does OS X support OGL 2.0? Google says "no".

opengl.org wrote:

OpenGL version 2.0, released on September 7, 2004

If not, why? It's been six months. The 10.3.8 update says it updated it, but to what is unknown. I'm really curious to what version Macs are running. Even herethey don't tell you.

Google is your friend.
Looks that the base Jag (10.3) install has OpenGL 1.4. Long way from 2.0, hell my OS 9.2.2 has 1.2.1.

Digging deeper, at the time of UT2K4's release OpenGL 1.5 was out. Is 10.3 a year old? If so back then the PCs and Macs would've been very close (PCs 1.5 vs Jags 1.4). Cool but what the hell has happened since then.

Soulstorm wrote:

Apple's OpenGL support doesn't suck...

No it's even worse. They can't keep up.

Tough to make fancy new graphics on out dated software=Tough to program for features not supported in that version of OpenGL.

Soulstorm wrote:

OpenGL=DirectX

I'd agree with this if Apple had kept up. Maybe they have... Someone command-i their opengl files. Please!

Last edited by LLEVIATHANN (2005-03-08 3:19 pm)

Soulstorm wrote:

Apple is using Opengl 2.0.

Prove it.

That is the problem I can not offer any proof that 10.3 (Jag) uses 1.4 even. The Apple info just says "OpenGL". Apple is mum about exactly which version OS X is adhering to. I went with 1.4 because I did find several software packages that stated in the minium specs that it needed OS 10.3 and OpenGL 1.4. I deduced from that 10.3 must be based off of OpenGL 1.4. Since you can no longer just go to Apple and download new OpenGL updates like you used to be able to do.

What pushes us to think that Opengl for PC is the same as in mac?

Sigh...
OpenGL is an industry standard.

OpenGL.org wrote:

Most Widely Adopted Graphics Standard

OpenGL is the premier environment for developing portable, interactive 2D and 3D graphics applications. Since its introduction in 1992, OpenGL has become the industry's most widely used and supported 2D and 3D graphics application programming interface (API), bringing thousands of applications to a wide variety of computer platforms. OpenGL fosters innovation and speeds application development by incorporating a broad set of rendering, texture mapping, special effects, and other powerful visualization functions. Developers can leverage the power of OpenGL across all popular desktop and workstation platforms, ensuring wide application deployment.

High Visual Quality and Performance

Any visual computing application requiring maximum performance-from 3D animation to CAD to visual simulation-can exploit high-quality, high-performance OpenGL capabilities. These capabilities allow developers in diverse markets such as broadcasting, CAD/CAM/CAE, entertainment, medical imaging, and virtual reality to produce and display incredibly compelling 2D and 3D graphics.

Developer-Driven Advantages

Industry standard
An independent consortium, the OpenGL Architecture Review Board, guides the OpenGL specification. With broad industry support, OpenGL is the only truly open, vendor-neutral, multiplatform graphics standard.

Stable
OpenGL implementations have been available for more than seven years on a wide variety of platforms. Additions to the specification are well controlled, and proposed updates are announced in time for developers to adopt changes. Backward compatibility requirements ensure that existing applications do not become obsolete.

Reliable and portable
All OpenGL applications produce consistent visual display results on any OpenGL API-compliant hardware, regardless of operating system or windowing system.

Evolving
Because of its thorough and forward-looking design, OpenGL allows new hardware innovations to be accessible through the API via the OpenGL extension mechanism. In this way, innovations appear in the API in a timely fashion, letting application developers and hardware vendors incorporate new features into their normal product release cycles.

Scalable
OpenGL API-based applications can run on systems ranging from consumer electronics to PCs, workstations, and supercomputers. As a result, applications can scale to any class of machine that the developer chooses to target.

Easy to use
OpenGL is well structured with an intuitive design and logical commands. Efficient OpenGL routines typically result in applications with fewer lines of code than those that make up programs generated using other graphics libraries or packages. In addition, OpenGL drivers encapsulate information about the underlying hardware, freeing the application developer from having to design for specific hardware features.

Well-documented
Numerous books have been published about OpenGL, and a great deal of sample code is readily available, making information about OpenGL inexpensive and easy to obtain.

A hardware vendor can't say it complies with version X of OpenGL and have it not be true.

opengl.org wrote:

What's New in OpenGL 2.0
OpenGL version 2.0, released on September 7, 2004, is the sixth revision since the original version 1.0. Despite incrementing the major version number (to indicate support for high-level programmable shaders), version 2.0 is upward compatible with earlier versions, meaning that any program that runs with a 1.5, 1.4, 1.3, 1.2, 1.1, or 1.0 GL implementation will also run unchanged with a 2.0 GL implementation.

Following are brief descriptions of each addition to OpenGL 2.0...

You say OGL 2.0 has been out for a long time. Six months is not a long time. OGL 1.5 is more than a year old.

This is new enough that I don't see how Doom3 could even be based in OGL 2.0. You want links, well so do I.

From here:
http://www.macaddict.com/forums/topic/53346/3

Twisted Guy wrote:

Did you actually look at the Barefeats page?  It pretty much contradicts your statement about Quake 3's performance.  The G5 sits at the top, and the G5 with just an X800 even bests the 2.6 GHz Athlon64 equipped with two 6800's running in SLI mode by nearly 10%.  The only system that outperforms the G5 in Quake 3 is the Dual 2.6 Opteron, and it only does do by 5 FPS.

But in every other test, the G5 is defeated by a large margin.

So, I think the Quake 3 test is rather telling.  It demonstrates the importance of optimization, and the simple fact that few, if any, games are actually optimized for the Mac to the extent that they could be.  It also demonstrates that Apple's OpenGL is great when it comes to an older game, but that Apple is really slacking off when it comes to handling newer OpenGL features.

Apple needs to deliver some better compilers and optimization tools to help developers utilize SMP, AltiVec, et al, and needs to improve their OpenGL.  Then the developers actually need to take advantage of the G5's features.  Yes, I know they work hard to do what they do, but when SMP, AltiVec, etc. are not being utilized 99.9% of the time, and performance lags as a result, then they're not doing enough.  But, we've all been saying these things, about Apple, about the developers, about the Mac gaming industry in general, since the first G4 hit the market in 1999, and nothing has changed in those 6 years, so I doubt it's going to change now.

Also

Glend Adams wrote:

There will be benchmarks galore on various web sites over the coming weeks...

As far as Altivec, how much does it help- I don't have a hard number, since we haven't built a non-altivec version in several months. Its faster than without Altivec, but we're not getting double the speed or anything like that. It helps a few percentage points, since its mostly for sound and physics.

Most of the application level optimizations for Doom3 are also like this- they gain a few percentage points here and there. The engine is well engineered and optimized to start with, so it is feeding data to OpenGL about as fast as the drivers/cards can handle it. The PowerPC architecture does have some inherent overhead issues (float to int conversion, data alignment problems) that can't be optimized away, so most of the app level things we did were spot fixes.

Glenda

You may be right. I told you, we cannot make assumptions since we cannot know what the heck does apple do with OpenGL drivers.

llevitathann wrote:

Does OS X support OGL 2.0? Google says "no".

Links plz! (or you mean you made a search?)

I really do believe that you have a point there. I can't be sure about the version of the OpenGL drivers... I believe that if apple would give more importance to the mac gaming aspect, we would see better optimized drivers fast, maybe in the next update! (Although I must say that the last 3-4 updates done to Panther really boost OpenGL performance significally. I noticed a small boost into UT2004, Halo, Homeworld 2, and a significant boost in World Of Warcraft.)

We nned better optimized drivers though...

I hope you are wrong about Apple falling back. This company exists today because of its ability to be ahead from everyone. Falling back in OpenGL (which is a vital part of the OS for Apple, it's not like PC's that can also support DirectX if necessary) is a big matter. I hope they know that and try to fix it...

Back to UT2004...

bat wrote:

Oh, and UT2004 can't make other use of CPU#2; it's impractical to multithread a single-threaded app, which the original is. OSX can spin off sound as a separate process; that's about it.

At this point Ryan would probably have to rewrite the OGL renderer using recently supported extensions to fix the shadowing issue. In re: Doom 3 again, it can be tried on an underspec CPU, but anything prior to OS 10.3.8 (and its attendant OGL updates) is a fatal error.

I didn't say that he should optimize it for multiprocessing. I said that he should at least work out the sound problems.

And I think, that is fou say it's true, lleviathann, that the shadows problem UT2004 has is a result of old OpenGL drivers. (Realistic shadows and generally shadows issues are handled with OpenGL 1.5 and later releases (i think))

Soulstorm wrote:

Links plz! (or you mean you made a search?)

Yes I did a search, many searches with keywords like:
opengl 10.3
opengl OSX
opengl apple
10.3 opengl support
10.3.8 opengl
10.3 opengl version

blah, blah, blah

Came up empty on all.

Soulstorm wrote:

Links plz! (or you mean you made a search?)

This might help out the discussion: http://www.realtech-vr.com/glview/

On this site is a really cool app, GLView, that let's you view the supported version of OpenGL on your system and the number of extensions. The same app also holds a database of submissions from other platforms and cards. You'll notice that the PC supports far more extensions than the Mac. Does the lack of these extensions make a difference in Mac OpenGL performance? Who knows. However, the more extension you have, the more ways, and potentially quicker ways, you have to solve any particular problem.

By the way, the are currently some nVidia beta drivers floating around in the PC community that support OpenGL 2.0. Apple better get their butt in gear.

(P.S. Cool forum! I hope to see you all around here more often !)

abc