Jump to content

  • Log In with Google      Sign In   
  • Create Account


Zoomulator

Member Since 02 May 2010
Offline Last Active Dec 21 2012 06:19 AM
-----

Topics I've Started

NVidia and ATI standard inconsistencies?

28 November 2012 - 05:25 PM

I've got some troubles making my (C++) OpenGL project to work on ATI cards. I've only got NVidia cards myself so it's rather difficult to track down the exact point of failure. So sorry for the lack of code samples.

I'm only using OpenGL 3.3 core features, VBOs and that whole kit of stuff. There's no problems on any NVidia card I've tested so far, which is about 5 different models of varying age, some laptops some desktops.
SDL1.2 for input, window handling and context creation.

I've tested on two ATI Radeon mobility cards and both failed to run my project properly.
The first one, Radeon HD 5650, starts my project alright and renders most things. I'm using a RUI8 texture and I'm attaching that to a framebuffer for direct rendering to it. This seems to be failing on this ATI card since the feature using it simply fails silently, while all other 'usual' GL rendering works fine. I'm using the RUI8 texture more or less as a bitmask. I am checking for FB completion and there are no other errors from GL.

The second ATI card, 7670M won't even pass the test for GL3.3, which I'm doing with GLEW, even though it's GL4.1 card!
glewInit();
if( !GLEW_VERSION_3_3 )
{
cout << "OpenGL v3.3 required.";
exit(EXIT_FAILURE);
}
Goes without saying that all GL4.1 NVidia cards I've tested passed this.

I've tried searching for documented differences between these two manufacturers, but I've failed to find anything. Is NVidia more lenient so that my code perhaps shouldn't work in its current state according to the GL specs? Or is ATI patchy on less used features such as uint textures, at least on mobility/laptop cards? I do know that ATI is more strict with shader compilation, but my shaders are being compiled successfully on the ATI cards (I'm doing all checks).

Anyone encountered similar or any differences between NVidia and ATI regarding the standard core opengl 3.3?

What's going on over at diygamer?

03 July 2012 - 04:18 AM

The forums over at diygamer used to be pretty interesting I thought, but it's been closed down for months. Gibson left the site, which I can understand shook it around a good bit, but not even the 'about' section is updated and the stream of articles are starting to slow down.

Anyone got any info about the new administration?

And while I'm on the subject of indie game sites, what's going on over at TIGSource? The articles there are also down to a trickle, while it used to be blasting out several a day not too long ago.

I'm running out of good places to read about stuff. Most articles just seem to be press releases or linked from other sites.

I realize it's all volunteer work going in to those sites, but if they don't find the time they should make the effort to recruit some new talents. There's still some responsibility to their communities, is there not?

Any info about this or tips about other good article/review sites about indie development?

Discussion: Reinventing multiplayer games

05 October 2010 - 11:11 PM

Has anyone noticed multiplayer games being in a rot since the beginning of the new millennium? Unique ideas are hard to come by, and even harder to actually develop, but let's brainstorm a little and bring up the issues with todays mmos and host-client games.

As for mmo, it's been completely stagnant since WoW. Everyone copies the exact concept of gameplay. Character class and level system, Target interface, some statusbars, kill stuff, chat, and a simple crafting system. Taking from my own experience playing WoW from beta and a while there after, I found the game to be the most exciting when there was unknown parts of the map and constantly new things to discover. The combat was a part of getting along in the world.

But when the ignorance faded and databases with every detail about the game started to pop up on the net, it all fell back on the combat. The illusion of a brave new world was lost and all it had to fall back on was social interaction. The same thing had happened a few years earlier when I played the original Everquest. Not so ever in the questing as they would advertise.

There's a few games trying to break free of the grinding heritage of the mmo, but it seems they're just stuck in a pit and can't get out. An indie game like Wurm has really put an effort to being different and focusing mainly on crafting and social interaction. It's a nice game, but there's a few major flaws. Time investment required to play it is immense. I managed fine in the beginning as long as I played some hours every day, but when I began to live my life again my possessions in the game would decay and I'd spend every logged on moment fixing that instead of enjoying the game. So basically, grinding has just moved over to the crafting. It's the same thing as WoW, just a "peaceful" version.

Is there a way of reinventing how these worlds are designed? Some would say realism is the way to go, but is it really? Resulting in more time investment? Most would like to remain just casual players, but a lot of games wont let them. How do you create a world that is exciting to explore and that is interactive in more ways than only killing things and trading for new guns? Questing is nothing more than "go fetch that from that person" or "go kill # that". Isn't that just... work? It's suppose to be a game!

Character development always follow a leveling system that is completely naked to the player. All the numbers show, and you can compare and mathematically calculate every little detail. Could you cover up some or all statistics and still have a playable game? Would it lead to people fearing combat a bit more when there's uncertain factors? What could benefit?

An mmo world is constantly progressing while you're not around, which is a problem for the player not willing to spend a lot of hours each week. Friends run off and fight bigger monsters, so you tend to just lose interest. Smaller multiplayer, such as the normal FPS and a few other more arcade like games are better when you just want to play something for a couple of moments. Nothing changes much until next time and you can still play with your friends.

How ever, these games are all focused on fast paced combat, which not every person is overly enthusiastic about. There's no epic stories, nothing much social about shooting at each other and so on. It's a very narrow concept, which isn't bad, but it's nothing new.

What could be done here? Is there a middle ground between host-client type multiplayer and large server based worlds?

Think about it. Is your "new awesome idea for a mmo" really that different? The core idea is still the same in 95% of all the ideas I've seen.
Brainstorm with me! What could be done?

UDP and intrusion detection on routers

06 September 2010 - 05:35 AM

I'm currently working on a small action game with network multiplayer. Naturally I use UDP to update most of the states in the game world to the clients. I've got a lame router/modem from my ISP that has an Intrusion Detection enabled* that starts blocking UDP, even on the forwarded ports, if I send more than about 10 packets per second. I wouldn't figure 10-20 packets to be excessive amounts for an action game, or am I wrong? I figure future users that happen to have a router with similar limitations would be unable to play the game, or at least not be able to host one since the server may receive packets from +10 clients all wanting to deliver a steady stream each second.

What's the "standard" amount of packets sent per second to clients and server in an action game? Anyone else had any troubles with this, and is there any work around?

It'd be unfortunate to lose any potential players due to something like this.



* There's no option to disable this feature in the admin pages of the router, and if I try changing the ini file through ftp, nothing happens. If I restart the modem it simply resets the ini file. Annoying, huh?

PARTNERS