Jump to content


Unreal Tournament 3


  • Please log in to reply
355 replies to this topic

#341 nagromme

nagromme

    Master Blaster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1954 posts

Posted 10 December 2008 - 12:00 PM

I don't buy the rumors of 10.6 in early '09. If all the Apple apps have gone from Carbon to Cocoa, then it seems like a chance for a huge new wave of little bugs that need to be caught, above and beyond those resulting from actual new features.

As a result I expect 10.6.0 could be one of Apple's buggiest .0 releases--a more solid foundation than ever, with unproven rewritten apps sitting on top of it--but that with future point releases the stability will return.

So I'm thinking this is a release Apple will take its time with.

#342 bobbob

bobbob

    Uberspewer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3367 posts

Posted 10 December 2008 - 12:14 PM

teflon said:

Well, clearly he only told you to stop suggesting it was MS because it wasnt MS... Which obviously means that its someone else
How stupid of me. Of course this has nothing to do with MS. It's no conspiracy, and the Japanese are certainly not involved. Ryan Gordon never said anything about the Japanese; why would they have anything against a US game console maker?

i.e. the problem is he said it's not MS, but yet he's the one who dragged MS into this, and why do that unless to finger the culprit? Unless there are some really psycho Maclots out there who keep emailing him and asking if it's MS*.

* it's obviously not.**

** since Sony did it.

#343 ltcommander.data

ltcommander.data

    Positronic

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 480 posts

Posted 10 December 2008 - 12:18 PM

View Postteflon, on December 10th 2008, 12:27 PM, said:

Of course, 10.6 is their prime concern right now, specially if the rumours of an internal Q1 target release are true, at which point they need to have OpenCL integrated by now to get extensive testing done on it. But that smacks of wishful thinking really, seeing as OpenCL was only just finalised so drivers wont have been fully fleshed out yet etc. etc. not to mention the whole boat load of testing it will still need.
Yes, I don't believe Snow Leopard will make a Q1 release either. As you say OpenCL just got ratified and I believe it's been reported that a major part of Grand Central was only just made available in the last developer seed. There's probably still a lot to be done to transition everything to Cocoa for 64-bit support, and 64-bit drivers have only been written for a handle of Macs. Hopefully, they are working on OpenGL 3.0 support as well. I think the most likely result is Jobs showing some whiz-bang demo at Macworld and giving away the latest seed with final release at or just before WWDC 09 so they can offer a bunch of development tracks. And of course the longer they take to release Snow Leopard, the more time they'll have to port their other apps to Cocoa with 64-bit support such as iLife, iWork, and the various Pro Apps. They'll probably like a nice ecosystem to be in place to justify the move to Snow Leopard.

In terms of OpenCL and PhysX, I'm really hoping that now that nVidia said they are adding OpenCL support to CUDA, they'll move PhysX over to OpenCL as well so hardware acceleration will work on all GPGPUs. But, I'm not optimistic they'll give ATI a freebie.

#344 teflon

teflon

    Bastard of the Popeye Analogy

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9589 posts
  • Location:London, UK

Posted 10 December 2008 - 12:35 PM

well NV already worked with getting it onto ATI cards. Admittedly, they didnt really do all that much leg work, and apparently it wasnt all that difficult (though likely not massively well optimised), so its not unreasonable to see them doing this in the future.

But, whilst hardware PhysX support would be nice, I dont see it coming to the mac for any other reason than to show that it can be done in OpenCL. The games arent there to make it worthwhile, and the GPUs arent there to make it worth using. i mean, UT3 will only be getting good enough frame rates to warrant turning hardware PhysX on when running on a Mac Pro or iMac with the 8800GS. In the former's case you would see better frame rates by dedicating a whole core on the CPU to physics processing and have the GPU dedicate itself wholly to graphics.

Quite simply, theres no point in porting it until theres a... well... a point in using it.
Polytetrafluoroethylene to my friends.

Macbook Pro - C2D 2.4Ghz / 4GB RAM / Samsung 830 256GB SSD / Geforce 8600M GT 256Mb / 15.4"
Cube - G4 1.7Ghz 7448 / 1.5GB RAM / Samsung Spinpoint 250GB / Geforce 6200 256Mb
Self-built PC - C2Q Q8300 2.5Ghz / 4GB RAM / Samsung 830 256GB SSD / Radeon 7850 OC 1GB / W7 x64
and a beautiful HP LP2475w 24" H-IPS monitor

#345 bobbob

bobbob

    Uberspewer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3367 posts

Posted 10 December 2008 - 03:32 PM

View Postteflon, on December 10th 2008, 12:35 PM, said:

i mean, UT3 will only be getting good enough frame rates to warrant turning hardware PhysX on when running on a Mac Pro or iMac with the 8800GS.
I think the MacBook Pro might be an interesting use, since it has an extra GPU. The 9400 might not be able to handle it, though.

#346 teflon

teflon

    Bastard of the Popeye Analogy

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9589 posts
  • Location:London, UK

Posted 10 December 2008 - 04:29 PM

oh yeah, it has the extra GPU, but that is, through software, currently not usable in a SLI configuration with the 9600. Its either or.
Should Apple see fit to add more controls for the GPUs (I mean dynamic switching without logging in and out, just a video reboot, and also the ability to have SLI), the most likely time being with 10.6, then the MBP will be able to do hardware PhysX without a problem. But until that point, the Mac OSX port of UT3 will most likely not offer the performance level that would warrant hardware physics on the 9600.
Even in Windows I think it would be doubtful that youd rather have superfluous physics calculations instead of running the game with higher graphical detail...
Polytetrafluoroethylene to my friends.

Macbook Pro - C2D 2.4Ghz / 4GB RAM / Samsung 830 256GB SSD / Geforce 8600M GT 256Mb / 15.4"
Cube - G4 1.7Ghz 7448 / 1.5GB RAM / Samsung Spinpoint 250GB / Geforce 6200 256Mb
Self-built PC - C2Q Q8300 2.5Ghz / 4GB RAM / Samsung 830 256GB SSD / Radeon 7850 OC 1GB / W7 x64
and a beautiful HP LP2475w 24" H-IPS monitor

#347 ltcommander.data

ltcommander.data

    Positronic

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 480 posts

Posted 10 December 2008 - 06:07 PM

View Postteflon, on December 10th 2008, 05:29 PM, said:

oh yeah, it has the extra GPU, but that is, through software, currently not usable in a SLI configuration with the 9600. Its either or.
Should Apple see fit to add more controls for the GPUs (I mean dynamic switching without logging in and out, just a video reboot, and also the ability to have SLI), the most likely time being with 10.6, then the MBP will be able to do hardware PhysX without a problem. But until that point, the Mac OSX port of UT3 will most likely not offer the performance level that would warrant hardware physics on the 9600.
Even in Windows I think it would be doubtful that youd rather have superfluous physics calculations instead of running the game with higher graphical detail...
The whole point of PhysX on GPU is so that you don't need SLI. SLI is useful to put graphics on the screen since the game needs to see a single GPU. With hardware PhysX, it can run independently on the 9400M while graphics run on the 9600M GT without worrying about SLI and overhead for synchronization, etc. This is kind of the point of Grand Central in Snow Leopard to be able to take advantage of multiple CPU cores and multiple GPUs. It isn't to SLI them, but to assign tasks to each independent core and GPU.

http://www.firingsqu...mance/page4.asp

And GPU acceleration for PhysX is a lot faster than running on a CPU. Even a quad core QX9770 at 3.2GHz is 4 times slower in fps than a 8800GTS accelerating PhysX. This is with the 8800GTS running both graphics and PhysX. This would be likely what we'd see on the iMac with 8800GS and Mac Pro with 8800GT. Devoting the 9400M for PhysX and the 9600M GT for graphics would probably still see a boost since the MBP doesn't have the CPU power of a 3.2GHz Quad Core desktop processor.

#348 teflon

teflon

    Bastard of the Popeye Analogy

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9589 posts
  • Location:London, UK

Posted 11 December 2008 - 02:31 AM

yeah, but you still need Apple to enable both GPUs to be working at the same time, and if theyre SLI (which they are) then they can work in tandem or not, it doesnt matter. Either way, right now, you cant have both GPUs active at the same time in OSX.

I wasnt up on the statistics you pulled, but fair enough.
On the other hand, saying "4 times slower" is almost taking the scores out of context. You see, neither 5FPS nor 20FPS is playable, so its really a moot point whether its accelerated or not, in both cases you want to disable PhysX and play the game with a much higher frame rate. its not until you have the GTX 260 that you have a playable frame rate, and even then many players would be complaining that its too low and turning off the superfluous effects to get more frames.

And when we look at the SLI results (even though theyre working seperately) you see that at 1600x1200 (yes the MBP would be at 1440x900, but its chip is also much lower powered) the 9600GT struggles on its own, but is quite competent with another in tandem. Thus validating that unless Apple add SLI to the MBP, there is no point at all in bringing hardware PhysX to the mac.
Polytetrafluoroethylene to my friends.

Macbook Pro - C2D 2.4Ghz / 4GB RAM / Samsung 830 256GB SSD / Geforce 8600M GT 256Mb / 15.4"
Cube - G4 1.7Ghz 7448 / 1.5GB RAM / Samsung Spinpoint 250GB / Geforce 6200 256Mb
Self-built PC - C2Q Q8300 2.5Ghz / 4GB RAM / Samsung 830 256GB SSD / Radeon 7850 OC 1GB / W7 x64
and a beautiful HP LP2475w 24" H-IPS monitor

#349 placy

placy

    Legendary

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 900 posts
  • Location:Eastern Washington state

Posted 11 December 2008 - 10:20 PM

I hope the problem with the delay is not related to Midway.  Some investor bought 87% of the
shares in the company for $100,000 the first of December and they are still in financial trouble.

#350 ltcommander.data

ltcommander.data

    Positronic

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 480 posts

Posted 11 December 2008 - 11:24 PM

View Postteflon, on December 11th 2008, 03:31 AM, said:

I wasnt up on the statistics you pulled, but fair enough.
On the other hand, saying "4 times slower" is almost taking the scores out of context. You see, neither 5FPS nor 20FPS is playable, so its really a moot point whether its accelerated or not, in both cases you want to disable PhysX and play the game with a much higher frame rate. its not until you have the GTX 260 that you have a playable frame rate, and even then many players would be complaining that its too low and turning off the superfluous effects to get more frames.
I agree that the PhysX is being used in games right now is really only as a tech demo, kind of like early DX10 games. I'm sure if we were to look at the code it's doing a lot of things that couldn't be done before, but all the minutiae is only useful to show the GPU is faster than the CPU in physics but doesn't improve things for the end user and only lowers overall fps. However, now that everyone agrees the GPU is faster in physics, I hope future uses of PhysX will be to add value. For example, if the entire physics engine or just parts of it are offloaded to the GPU, you could probably balance it in such a way as to load up the GPU with as much physics as you can while limiting the overall fps hit to 10-15%. Since the GPU is faster than the CPU at physics, that 10-15% probably frees up a significantly larger portion of CPU time, which can then be used for a more sophisticated AI. In such a case, with faster physics, better AI, a 10% fps hit may be reasonable and then you're actually adding value.

My hope that they add hardware PhysX acceleration to Mac is not really for current games and GPUs but for the future. PhysX is an integral part of Unreal Engine 3, and UE3 will be around for a while (UE4 probably won't be here for another 2-3 years) and already seems to be a very popular game engine. If UE3 is being ported to Mac they might as well support all the features that are available on Windows since they are no doubt going to be used in future games and the best of them are no doubt going to make it to Mac. And certainly GPUs are going to improve very quickly. I wouldn't be surprised if the upcoming iMac refresh offered a something like a 9800M GT for BTO (current 8800GS is actually a mobile 8800M GTS) and the Mac Pro offered a GTX 285 option (faster clocked, probably cheaper, 55nm refresh of GTX 280 coincidentally due January), which would already be quite capable of accelerating PhysX. It can't hurt to be prepared.

#351 PKGuy323

PKGuy323

    Fan

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 13 posts

Posted 17 January 2009 - 07:25 PM

Sure would be nice to hear an official update status of UT3 for Mac....

#352 Sneaky Snake

Sneaky Snake

    Official Mascot of the 1988 Winter Olympics

  • IMG Writers
  • 3304 posts
  • Steam Name:SneakySnake
  • Steam ID:sneaky_snake
  • Location:Waterloo, Canada

Posted 17 January 2009 - 08:35 PM

When was this game announced for Mac?
2015 13" rMBP: i5 5257U @ 2.7 GHz || Intel Iris 6100 || 8 GB LPDDR3 1866 || 256 GB SSD || macOS Sierra
Gaming Build: R5 1600 @ 3.9 GHz || Asus GTX 1070 8 GB || 16 GB DDR4 3000 || 960 Evo NVMe, 1 TB FireCuda || Win10 Pro
Other: Dell OptiPlex 3040 as VMware host || QNAP TS-228 NAS || iPhone 6S 64GB

#353 Mister Mumbles

Mister Mumbles

    Uberspewer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2511 posts
  • Location:Not here; not there; not anywhere!

Posted 17 January 2009 - 10:50 PM

Winter '07
Formerly known as a Mac gamer.

#354 Sneaky Snake

Sneaky Snake

    Official Mascot of the 1988 Winter Olympics

  • IMG Writers
  • 3304 posts
  • Steam Name:SneakySnake
  • Steam ID:sneaky_snake
  • Location:Waterloo, Canada

Posted 18 January 2009 - 02:43 PM

View PostPegasus, on January 17th 2009, 11:50 PM, said:


2 years ago... dang ... and what's the hold up?
2015 13" rMBP: i5 5257U @ 2.7 GHz || Intel Iris 6100 || 8 GB LPDDR3 1866 || 256 GB SSD || macOS Sierra
Gaming Build: R5 1600 @ 3.9 GHz || Asus GTX 1070 8 GB || 16 GB DDR4 3000 || 960 Evo NVMe, 1 TB FireCuda || Win10 Pro
Other: Dell OptiPlex 3040 as VMware host || QNAP TS-228 NAS || iPhone 6S 64GB

#355 nagromme

nagromme

    Master Blaster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1954 posts

Posted 18 January 2009 - 03:32 PM

Ryan Gordon has said something along the lines of, we wouldn't believe it if we knew. (And we may never know.) He showed screenshots of it on Mac months ago, though, so it exists, whether finished and awaiting legal issues, or still in progress.

I would have guessed middleware legal/pricing issues were the holdup, except that IS believable.

#356 PKGuy323

PKGuy323

    Fan

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 13 posts

Posted 18 January 2009 - 04:08 PM

The MacSoft game site says it is coming THIS Spring, although that was at least 1-2 Springs ago.....

I bought the Windows version and it plays well on the BootCamp, but I want to run it within Mac...