UDK for Linux [Archive] - Epic Games Forums

View Full Version : UDK for Linux

Kirald

11-09-2009, 05:31 PM

I have one qst... When do you release linux versin UDK? Will it be released?

baron

11-18-2009, 11:24 PM

Am also interested in Linux support. But they haven't released the source code so binary distribution will be hard across multiple distros.

JBrandonS

11-19-2009, 12:03 AM

Considering there is no Linux version of UE3.. I don't think they will make a UDK for Linux.

baron

11-19-2009, 12:24 AM

I thought UE3 did have Linux support. Source: http://www.devmaster.net/engines/engine_details.php?id=25

th3flyboy

11-19-2009, 01:16 AM

I would like to see this myself, I'm currently working on an open source project that is designed for windows and linux, and if UDK were to go linux supported, it may become easy to justify using UDK for developing it (not quite as open source, however still possible to use).

saymoo

11-19-2009, 04:16 AM

Am also interested in Linux support. But they haven't released the source code so binary distribution will be hard across multiple distros.

Binary is easier to deploy then source versions. Since during compiling you need dependencies (libs sources), which is more difficult, then a precompiled (with included .so files). And all distributions can run it.
But, since this is proprietary software, the source release is not possible.

Look at for instance Maya for Linux, it's binary only too, and installs perfectly on every distribution. (other examples are: VMware, Skype)

The only difficult part would be packaging the release for every distro's own package format (.deb for ubuntu is different then that of debian).
But that can be solved by using "SELF" for the installer, or a crossplatform installation tool.:)

JBrandonS

11-19-2009, 05:27 AM

I thought UE3 did have Linux support. Source: http://www.devmaster.net/engines/engine_details.php?id=25

Looking at the Official website for UE3 shows it only runs on PC, Xbox 360 and Playstation 3. I'm inclined to believe that.

http://www.unrealtechnology.com/features.php?ref=technology-overview

baron

11-19-2009, 06:41 AM

from that website:

Unreal Engine 2 supports DirectX8 and OpenGL on PC, Mac, Linux, Xbox, and PS2

so maybe Linux was just supported for version 2...

elmuerte

11-19-2009, 02:38 PM

Looking at the Official website for UE3 shows it only runs on PC, Xbox 360 and Playstation 3. I'm inclined to believe that.

http://www.unrealtechnology.com/features.php?ref=technology-overview

So, it doesn't run on MS Windows either?

JBrandonS

11-19-2009, 03:45 PM

So, it doesn't run on MS Windows either?

PC = Windows. But then I get the feeling your just trolling.

baron

11-19-2009, 08:22 PM

Binary is easier to deploy then source versions. Since during compiling you need dependencies (libs sources), which is more difficult, then a precompiled (with included .so files). And all distributions can run it.
But, since this is proprietary software, the source release is not possible.

Look at for instance Maya for Linux, it's binary only too, and installs perfectly on every distribution. (other examples are: VMware, Skype)

The only difficult part would be packaging the release for every distro's own package format (.deb for ubuntu is different then that of debian).
But that can be solved by using "SELF" for the installer, or a crossplatform installation tool.:)

yeah I guess you're right - I have never had problems installing VMWare. I've used NSIS in the past for Windows - does a cross platform installer exist?

chayfo

11-19-2009, 11:16 PM

The UDK does work in linux, but you have to know what you are doing ... I mean R E A L L Y know what you are doing in linux.

First you have to get the bleeding edge version of 'wine'. I believe it is 1.1.33, I didn't try it with the stable 1.0.1 version of wine because I had issues with shaders on that version of wine.

Next you need to install DirectX 9.0c and DirectX 10 (XP hacked version) if you want DX10 support.

Last, install UDK using wine.

Run UDK, happy building. It's buggy ... but so is the windows version.

I currently use wine 1.1.33 with DX9.0c and DX10 on Ubuntu 'Jaunty' and 'Karmic' to run Everquest 2 and Assassins Creed. They both run beautifully with full shaders at 1680x1050 on an 8800 GTX.

saymoo

11-20-2009, 05:54 AM

:)
The UDK does work in linux, but you have to know what you are doing ... I mean R E A L L Y know what you are doing in linux.

First you have to get the bleeding edge version of 'wine'. I believe it is 1.1.33, I didn't try it with the stable 1.0.1 version of wine because I had issues with shaders on that version of wine.

Next you need to install DirectX 9.0c and DirectX 10 (XP hacked version) if you want DX10 support.

Last, install UDK using wine.

Run UDK, happy building. It's buggy ... but so is the windows version.

I currently use wine 1.1.33 with DX9.0c and DX10 on Ubuntu 'Jaunty' and 'Karmic' to run Everquest 2 and Assassins Creed. They both run beautifully with full shaders at 1680x1050 on an 8800 GTX.

Yes, but this thread is about a native linux udk version. Not a windows version running on Linux (through wine).

Jazz

11-21-2009, 10:44 AM

The UDK does work in linux, but you have to know what you are doing ... I mean R E A L L Y know what you are doing in linux.

No offence, but have you tried to run UDK using your own "manual"? :p Installing DirectX into modern version of wine is like a lethal dose of vaccine - if it won't work, it will kill it. Wined3d libraries work much different from native directx libraries and now level of wine directx support is much better than support using windows libraries, except helper libs.

Also, just installing DirectX9 does nothing - libraries need to be set up via winecfg. And do you really believe in DX10 for windows XP?

chayfo

11-23-2009, 11:58 AM

No offence, but have you tried to run UDK using your own "manual"? :p Installing DirectX into modern version of wine is like a lethal dose of vaccine - if it won't work, it will kill it. Wined3d libraries work much different from native directx libraries and now level of wine directx support is much better than support using windows libraries, except helper libs.

Also, just installing DirectX9 does nothing - libraries need to be set up via winecfg. And do you really believe in DX10 for windows XP?

No offense taken. It's going to take a lot more than a posting on a forum to get me upset. To answer your question, yes I have. Hence running Everquest 2 in DirectX 9.0c and Assassins Creed running in DirectX 10 ... and yes, I run UDK as well in linux.

Like I said in my original post, you REALLY need to know what you are doing in linux. I know installing DirectX9 doesn't automagically make it work, I know you have to edit winecfg, my post was just a brief synopsis, not a step-by-step walkthrough for noobs. The internet has enough walkthroughs already for getting DX9.0c to work in linux, google it if you want instructions. DX9.0c and DX10 are running stable for me. The fact is people have been running DirectX 9 games on Ubuntu since 'gutsy' and 'hardy', maybe even earlier releases. Check out the plethora of videos on YouTube.

I just wanted to point out that you can run the UDK using Wine in linux ... as far as a linux binary version of UDK ... keep on dreaming.

What do you mean "Do I really believe in DX10 for XP?". I run Windows Vista 64-bit Ultimate and Windows 7 64-bit ultimate, there is no need for me to even attempt to run DX10 on XP. Most of the time it won't work in XP because the game detects the OS first and then decides if it can use DX10. I haven't used XP since just before Vista was released to public. My point was I used the DX10 hacked installer for XP to install DX10 on Ubuntu.

DiegoBM

11-23-2009, 04:17 PM

Playstation 3 as for today is Linux. So UE3 must support Linux natively. I guess...

spooky_paul

11-23-2009, 05:05 PM

DiegoBM

11-23-2009, 05:24 PM

The corporate way is to cash in for every single chunk of code that they provide. Unreal Engine 3 is successful enough for them to need to provide their engine at "low cost" or even free for non-commercial. They don't need to do that. Of course they are taking an excellent chance of new profits with this move, but they don't need it.

I think that we must be thankful for the awesome oportunity that they are bringing us instead of trying to complaint for every single decission that doesn't fit our particular needs (because there are a lot of kinds of machines out there and specs to take care of). No ofense spooky_paul, it's nothing about you :). It's just that it's practically impossible to support every single pc and operating system in the world. They have done enough effort already going the "easy" way that is to support the most extended OS, and if in the near future this move is also productive for them, then they will invest more resources to give more support. That's my opinion.

Regards

JBrandonS

11-23-2009, 05:35 PM

UE3 supports Linux, the reason we don't have access to it is that they simply decided not to, just like we don't have access to x64 builds.

I hope that they will reconsider this and fully support the PC (like PhysX is now, v2.8.3 supports Win/Linux x86/x64) and not go the corporate way.

Well the official licensing website, along with wikipedia and several other sites, shows that they only support the PC (for computers), which is to say they only support windows. It also states that it uses Direct X, which is not available on any computer platform besides windows. I am not aware of a single Linux or OS X game built on UE3, if such a game exist it is most likely a custom port. As another point of fact neither UT3 or GOW2 supports OS X or Linux, if they took the time to port their engine to these platforms it makes no sense to exclude them when selling a game.

JBrandonS

11-23-2009, 05:42 PM

Playstation 3 as for today is Linux. So UE3 must support Linux natively. I guess...

Older versions of the PS3 have the ability to run Linux, like almost every thing out there. However to say that the PS3's native OS is Linux is extremely ludicrous.

DiegoBM

11-23-2009, 05:43 PM

Well the official licensing website, along with wikipedia and several other sites, shows that they only support the PC (for computers), which is to say they only support windows. It also states that it uses Direct X, which is not available on any computer platform besides windows. I am not aware of a single Linux or OS X game built on UE3, if such a game exist it is most likely a custom port. As another point of fact neither UT3 or GOW2 supports OS X or Linux, if they took the time to port their engine to these platforms it makes no sense to exclude them when selling a game.

PS3 games runs upon Linux, and there is no need to say that PS3 doen't and won't support Direct X. But UE3 definitely exists on Linux. Maybe the point is that is not really easy to sepparate the elements os UE3 that constitute UDK (remember that UDK is not "exactly" UE3), I mean binary side from source. Or maybe it's just a matter of libraries. There is a vast amount of linux distros to run on. Who knows. The point is to get into work with the resources we currently have. I guess that there is always a price to pay... for example if you want to make iPhone games you must buy a mac... Well you actally need a Windows machine (or virtual machine) to create games for UDK. But I bet that there will be a Linux version in the future

spooky_paul

11-23-2009, 05:48 PM

Don't get me wrong, I am psyched and I do appreciate the opportunity we are presented and that tinkering with UE for the masses is better supported, I am only emphasizing why we don't have access to those builds.

I believe that the "corporate way" is more detailed than "cash for every bit of product", being composed of complicated and delicate market maneuvers. Add to that the low interest in the end user and you've got yourself the "corporate way".

It's not asking for every platform that the engine supports, its asking for the PC only. As most of the market is now on consoles I find releasing the UDK for Linux still suiting the interests that brought the UDK in the first place.

I am not sure how supporting Linux will affect costs, but if they have a sole code-base it wont be that of a difference.

DiegoBM

11-23-2009, 05:58 PM

Well of course it's more complicated than what I said, but you now what I'm trying to say ^_^.
I don't think that they are specifically trying to bother a certain market such as Linux, this along with the "good intentions" shown providing this UDk version is why I think that to create a Linux version must be more than meets the eye. Who knows...

spooky_paul

11-23-2009, 06:06 PM

Well the official licensing website, along with wikipedia and several other sites, shows that they only support the PC (for computers), which is to say they only support windows. It also states that it uses Direct X, which is not available on any computer platform besides windows. I am not aware of a single Linux or OS X game built on UE3, if such a game exist it is most likely a custom port. As another point of fact neither UT3 or GOW2 supports OS X or Linux, if they took the time to port their engine to these platforms it makes no sense to exclude them when selling a game.

It can't support only DirectX. We have Bioshock on the PS3, and the PS3 devkit is based on a special breed of opengl.

Choosing the platforms to release to is not as "support everything we've got". There are a lot of market intrests regarding units sold, piracy on the given platform, support costs, so on and so forth.

And from what I know Microsoft Game Studios is the publisher for GoW. C'mon, would they support Linux? :P

DiegoBM

11-23-2009, 06:24 PM

It can't support only DirectX. We have Bioshock on the PS3, and the PS3 devkit is based on a special breed of opengl.

Choosing the platforms to release to is not as "support everything we've got". There are a lot of market intrests regarding units sold, piracy on the given platform, support costs, so on and so forth.

And from what I know Microsoft Game Studios is the publisher for GoW. C'mon, would they support Linux? :P

xDDD good point indeed, but do you really think that Microsoft is behind this? Even though GoW was published by MGS, the UE3 is completely a property of Epic. Now you made me wonder... xDDD

I have just thought that even though the engine itself has been ported to PS3, that doesn't mean that the development tools have also been ported... Maybe all the development studios behind UT3 tittles made their work in windows. If you think about it all those maps, scripts and config files created with the development tools are just intermediate files processed by the binary engine (a bunch of dynamic libraries along with a executable). What I mean is that maybe there exist a raw binary version of the engine for Linux but just the Windows version of the development environment. Just another option?

spooky_paul

11-23-2009, 06:30 PM

Hmm, this could be it. Not the full UDK ported to Linux, but only the executable we run the game with to be recompiled for Linux! This way the development still takes place on Win, but the games can run on Linux.

DiegoBM

11-23-2009, 06:44 PM

If that's it, I guess it should be coming... Waiting is our only choice anyway ^_^U

spooky_paul

11-23-2009, 06:49 PM

Waiting will get us nowhere. Getting people, allot of people, interested and psyched about this might draw the boys upstairs' attention.

Its like with any feature for any software: I will be done if it will be needed. Not by the few, but the many.

zoltanjr

11-24-2009, 01:12 AM

Jazz

11-25-2009, 09:47 AM

It also states that it uses Direct X, which is not available on any computer platform besides windows
PS3 does not support DX, though it support embed OpenGL

As another point of fact neither UT3 or GOW2 supports OS X or Linux
Fact 1: UT3 is ported on OS X and Linux ( http://icculus.org/cgi-bin/finger/finger.pl?user=icculus&date=2008-09-18 )

Fact 2: We don't have access to any information about Linux/Mac port for no reason. Ryan keeps working, but not over UT3 port.

DiegoBM

11-25-2009, 10:39 PM

The PS3 isn't a linux operating system natively. And also you don't need a mac to make iphone games either. Unity is an engine which will let you publish straight to pc,mac,iphone or wii without any troubles. And I use my PC to publish to all these formats never had to use a mac for it. As for non games the iphone uses cocoa for scripting so you still don't need a mac to be able to write that

As stated in Unity's webpage (I have never used Unity to make iphone games):

In order to license and use Unity iPhone Publishing, developers must meet the following requirements:

* You must be an approved Apple Developer for the iPhone and install the iPhone SDK (requires Intel-based Mac running OSX 10.5.4 or later)

Besides I've been playing with iphone/ipod touch programming quite a bit and you definitely will need iPhone SDK and Cocoa (and therefore a Mac running OSX) in order to play with iPhone's multitouch events, user interfaces and so on (btw Cocoa is not used for scripting. Cocoa is the top level framework that gives you access to most of the iPhone OS's services)

GamerKnight

11-28-2009, 02:44 AM

WOULD LOVE LINUX SUPPORT

even if its only a few major distros,

PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE!!!!!

Norwegiboard

11-28-2009, 03:36 AM

Linux support would be nice. I'm not asking for source code in anyway, i just would like to have the option to use UDK under linux.

dex008

11-30-2009, 03:18 AM

yeah, i think UDK for linux would be great for community to create better game that run in linux. i'll wait that

chiefwhosm

01-07-2010, 11:58 AM

I'd also like a linux version, I mean we were promised UT3 for linux and never got it......:(

On the subject of wine, how did people manage to get the UDK to work under it? I mean it relies on .NET 3.5 which is rated as "garbage" on the wineHQ appdb page.

robin1232

01-15-2010, 05:08 PM

there will be an official port of both GOW and UT3 for mac: http://www.destineerstudios.com/destineer/press/press_releases/ut3_mac.html
epic announced it too somewhere...

Jazz

01-17-2010, 03:42 AM

there will be an official port of both GOW and UT3 for mac: http://www.destineerstudios.com/destineer/press/press_releases/ut3_mac.html
epic announced it too somewhere...
This is ancient, ergo not reliable

GamerKnight

01-17-2010, 09:59 PM

i am still about the forums and actively using the udk since the first month of release.

i would very much like to see a linux port or atlest an osx port.

it is one of the big reasons my team my be moving away from the udk for future titles

ghost55

03-16-2010, 10:52 PM

you might be able to run the udk in WINE

saymoo

03-17-2010, 08:18 AM

wine and udk is a big fail, and not of interrest too.

native linux blobs are needed, not through layers (wine) etc.. since not everyone want wine on their linux machines (security comes to mind) and also it's not easy for most users to install a game made udk, to install if you need to first do this, then that procedure.
native is way easier, and more reliable (each wine version changes some stuff, and breaks something along the way)

fungos

03-17-2010, 03:01 PM

Yes, wine is not a very wise choice. Neither fast enough.

Why we haven't udk3 for linux yet? Is Icculus doing it or Epic just doesn't care?
And why we haven't if we are getting so close? http://www.techrockstar.com/2010/03/...s-gets-unreal/

PDK uses GCC+OpenGL+SDL... I doesn't see a real limitation than "we don't care" here.

Edit: Btw, I really want to PAY to play Mortal Online, but I will only do it if I can play in my Linux.
In this page https://account.mortalonline.com/ we have the following statement:

For Mac
We are currently not supporting a Mac or a Linux version.

They plan it, but Epic doesn't help?

Blade[UG]

03-18-2010, 08:52 PM

That's funny that you say it's not fast enough, when wine is regularly used for far more intensive games than UT3 and such. From what I gather having read a few things around, the parts of the system that actually play the games are fairly portable, but the editor tools are pretty much tied to Windows, and always have been, I'd guess probably always will be.

From an economical standpoint, it doesn't make sense to support Mac/Linux in this area.

fungos

03-19-2010, 07:59 AM

Well, I use wine regularly, and it really sux with sound and when there is any kind of anti-hack or protection systems. And it is slow, slow enough to turn a really good machine to run almost ok 2-4 year old games.

From an economical standpoint, it doesn't make sense to support Mac/Linux in this area.

So You're are smarter than Valve? Valve is non-sense to plan support to this area without an "economical standpoint".

saymoo

03-19-2010, 08:35 AM

economics is one thing.. but if it doesn't change, nothing will happen. And thus an unfair chance (abuse of monopolies).
There is also an innovative part, and innovation can only proceed by crossplatform use.
(thus bigger userbase, and equal developers. in all areas of software use)
Thus on the long run, it helps economics too. But most big firms only look at the QUICK money policies, and not the long term. And ontop of that: End user usage. (for which the product was created in the first place!!) most corps, don't listen to their source of income (end users). But do whatever they please, forcing users to go one path, and ripping their money of their chests along the way. I don't call that innovation, i call that theft and dictatorship (abusive behavior through force)

fungos

03-19-2010, 10:20 AM

But do whatever they please, forcing users to go one path, and ripping their money of their chests along the way. I don't call that innovation, i call that theft and dictatorship (abusive behavior through force)

And I call developers, that doesn't see this situation, complacent and accomplice.

Blade[UG]

03-20-2010, 09:32 AM

Well, I use wine regularly, and it really sux with sound and when there is any kind of anti-hack or protection systems. And it is slow, slow enough to turn a really good machine to run almost ok 2-4 year old games.

So You're are smarter than Valve? Valve is non-sense to plan support to this area without an "economical standpoint".

Why would a business spend thousands of dollars likely re-writing their toolchain, so that they can pick up an extra couple of DOZEN users... for a FREE software? Plus, now you need to get the companies that produce the other software your toolchains need, to get it to run in Linux and Mac, as well.

If you "use wine regularly", perhaps you should install Windows - it'll work a lot better for you. Considering that much of the work in wine, is to support cutting edge games (see how much work has been done on it in the past 4 months, to support Left 4 Dead 2, and other brand new releases), I'd say your performance problems are very likely local to you. Wine is hardly any slower than an actual native Windows implementation, considering that it IS a Windows implementation, rather than an emulator. Then again, considering that UDK doesn't work in Wine at all, may give you an indicator of just how tough it might be to make UDK work in Linux. The gameplay subsystems in Unreal Engine apparently are rather highly portable (judging by recent comments around GDC, that the gameplay components work on several other systems that aren't Windows .. but the toolchain will be Windows only) .. the rest of the system.. not so much.

You can't sanely argue that there are tons and tons of people out there that would make that something worth doing, when there are ... 4? people on the forum that want it .. and those 4 have no understanding of how difficult it would be .. (which is surprising, because the average Linux user usually does have an idea of how difficult software development is)

saymoo

03-20-2010, 10:02 AM

here some general rant, geared toward the topic of UE3/UDK not being supported on Linux:

is that to blame on the Linux part? (or mac even?)
no, it's because most dev companies (in this case Epic) want quick money, and status.

Thus a forced path to follow for being able to utilize the software and/or endproduct made with it.
(in this case Windows)

But, UE2 was Linux compatible, but since the deal with MS, Epic dropped the support for Linux as target platform with UE3. (though i highly doubt Epic will ever come clean about this, since it's not in their policies anymore since they are so knee deep inside MS structures)

They choose , because otherwise MS wouldn't publish gow, and would not be a big customer for their own made games, mechanics (like DirectX) that they knew wouldn't NOT work efficiently (if at all) on other targets. (except WIndows and Xbox360). For PS3, they made an exception, because just like windows and xbox360, it gains quick money from products released. (stangly enough it's OPENGL!! thus proves it can support other platforms if they WANT use to have that support..)

All in all it's the faulty by developers, choosing the wrong strategy and techniques.
If Epic e.g. would fully use OpenGL AND DirectX (dev's using UE, can choose which to use) and drop .net for the editor parts etc.. but stick to clean C++ code (thus not VC++, which is a non standard c++ language) and not C#, and use thirdparty tools that are in nature crossplatform, then Linux and Mac would be no hassle to port to. (this has been proven with UE2 e.g.)

I hope Epic will shortly see what strange choices they have made with UE3, as to target support.
And claim their promises to build a Linux support. (UT3 was promised to be Linux Native, but since GOW1 and 2 came into vision, and thus MS deals, it silently faded away... big FAIL if you ask me, and not very trustworthy either.)

Or better yet make UE4 be Linux/PS3/Xbox360/Windows/Iphone-pad compatible.
With Windows as defaults, but also possible to target another platform ontop of it. (in the full license for a X amount extra per platform, just like UE2 did back then)

If UE2 could be crossplaform, i know UE3 could have been, and still can (with some (major) changes).
It's not that UE3 is soo damn "WOW" compared to UE2, that it's trivial to use windows alone (and DX compatible platforms). No it's a carfully made choice to use C# and thus .net, and some choices in libraries of other devs, that are windows alone. thus not a technical barrier per see.

anyway, since there is currently no crossplatform support, i'm forced to use windows, thank you MS and Epic for chosing how i MUST use my computer for being able to start your allmighty engine/tools. amen.

let's pray for a better multiplatform support in the (near) future.

I'll will then fully forgive thou odd choices Epic games, may de gamedevelopment god be with you, amen. :D

Shelke

03-20-2010, 12:33 PM

Well this has grown... so I'm here to cast my vote, UE3/UDK for linux! :)

Makaze

03-20-2010, 12:59 PM

Wow that post puts the zealot in Linux Zealot...

UE3 could be Linux and Mac capable, if there was an economic justification for doing so. Currently there's not, oh they might break more than even but the time, energy, and money spent there is better spent on other tasks like upgrading UE3 on existing platforms.

The tools on the other hand... not even that. The return on investment for porting the tool chain is virtually non-existent. It means additional support costs on top of the development costs and the overwhelmingly vast majority of professional studios where Epic makes all of their money would not be interested as all of their other tools are on Windows as well. Also as someone who has written a lot of C++ and C# code I can say without a doubt that writing a forms based application in C# is far far faster and easier. Had Epic chosen to code the tools in "clean C++ code" (which is almost an oxymoron considering most C++ code you see :rolleyes:) then the editor would not be nearly as feature rich as it is today.

Additionally Valve did not move its games over to Mac because it thinks it's going to sell a bajillion of copies there, or even from the goodness of their hearts. They did it to position Steam on the Mac so it can attempt become the go to game distribution service on that platform, like it is currently on Windows, before Apple locks the market down via their own store and creates a complete monopoly as they tend to do. They're not looking to make money on TF2 or L4D, they're looking to make money on taking a cut off of Mac Steam sales.

Blade[UG]

03-21-2010, 03:12 AM

saymoo,

You have no idea what you are talking about.

The Engine itself has been ported to several different platforms. The toolchain, this is not likely to happen for. The editor, and all of it's dependencies have always been dependent upon Windows and Windows based tools. All the way back to the first editor. There is no Linux Photoshop, there is no Linux 3DS MAX, there is no Linux whatever any other external programs you need to make this work. Why bother re-writing the entire thing, testing, supporting, so on, so forth, for a platform where you will make NOTHING in return? The vast majority of Linux installations are on servers. People who use Linux as their primary desktop OS, probably have no use for UDK - they can't use any of the other tools required, so .. why?

fungos

03-22-2010, 09:57 AM

;27188762']Why would a business spend thousands of dollars likely re-writing their toolchain, so that they can pick up an extra couple of DOZEN users... for a FREE software? Plus, now you need to get the companies that produce the other software your toolchains need, to get it to run in Linux and Mac, as well.

;27188762']
The Engine itself has been ported to several different platforms. The toolchain, this is not likely to happen for. The editor, and all of it's dependencies have always been dependent upon Windows and Windows based tools. All the way back to the first editor. There is no Linux Photoshop, there is no Linux 3DS MAX, there is no Linux whatever any other external programs you need to make this work. Why bother re-writing the entire thing, testing, supporting, so on, so forth, for a platform where you will make NOTHING in return? The vast majority of Linux installations are on servers. People who use Linux as their primary desktop OS, probably have no use for UDK - they can't use any of the other tools required, so .. why?

First, if only the Engine was ported and running on Mac/Linux it will be good enough to make a lot of people happy. The toolchain is not so needed anyway, we want to PLAY on our choice platform. Secondly, there is Photoshop, 3DXMax and almost every tool on MAC. This is not only about linux it is about CHOICES. Something that clearly you doesn't have or doesn't care to have - your problem.

;27188762']and those 4 have no understanding of how difficult it would be .. (which is surprising, because the average Linux user usually does have an idea of how difficult software development is)

Well, I KNOW that it is NOT difficult to create cross platform software - I do this for living for about 10 years. I know that PORTING can be very difficult, but the difficult is HIGHLY linked to code-base quality, then and only then to API and 3rd party dependency. Seriously, I believe that udk3 is a very well maintained and with high quality code-base. If I'm remember well UDK3 uses wxWidgets - that was a smart move back then - nowdays we have a better option that is Qt. Still, there is no need of .NET dependency - but neither this is a serious problem to porting.

To me looks like you're a very limited developer.

Makaze

03-22-2010, 11:09 AM

What .NET dependency? You say you only want the engine ported and not the tool chain. Well the tool chain is the only thing with a .NET dependency. So, huh?

Also this is not about choices. It like everything else in this world is about money. You can dislike that, but deny it at your own peril.

saymoo

03-22-2010, 03:42 PM

Makaze, there is a twist:
Epic promised us a Linux version (platform support (game that is)). But without "given" reason they changed paths, and silently made the promise vanish.
That's why we are angry/disapointed etc.

Makaze

03-22-2010, 04:41 PM

Well aware, but it's not much of a twist since it's the same conclusion 99% of the rest of the industry came to. You're welcome to be disappointed, but you shouldn't be surprised. Corporations don't make "promises", they announce plans and like everything else in life plans change. In this case someone ran the numbers and found them wanting or more likely a better opportunity that required the developers who would be porting it emerged.

Again, you can be disappointed by the way thing turned out, it's only natural. But angrily frothing at the mouth accusing them of betrayal of all that's holy is a bit histrionic and represents both you and your cause in a poor light.

saymoo

03-22-2010, 04:51 PM

am i the only one, who actually stands up, and try to confront?
is the rest numb? scared? uncertain?

i do have a loud "voice" when justice is way, way past due. That's also (or at least should be common) human nature.
But that doesn't mean my cause is in poor light.. read between the lines, and think deeply.
Then, you may see (shining through the mist pretty much blocking view) what is really going on here, and why it should be mentioned, or a confrontation is required.

Makaze

03-22-2010, 05:04 PM

This is entirely my point. Not having a Linux port is not in any way, shape, or form an affront to "justice", it's a logical economic decision not a moral one. You act like they're raping babies or something and you're standing against their tyrannical oppression, while really you're just throwing a temper tantrum because they don't support your particular platform of choice.

Everyone else isn't scared, they just don't care, since everyone else doesn't game on Linux.

fungos

03-22-2010, 06:08 PM

Also this is not about choices. It like everything else in this world is about money. You can dislike that, but deny it at your own peril.

My point is that I can't see the cost of MacOSX port be too high to not justify a port to embrace a considerable amount of possible customers, the cost of maintaining a cross-platform engine can be very insignificant if done right. About the "size" of user base we can only speculate, as we have no real data about any AAA game for MacOS (maybe finding approximated numbers from WoW?). But looking at the future, as the Valve move to MacOSX with Steam and their games we can see that things ARE changing, like it or not.

Resume:
1. MacOSX has a significant user base awaiting to buy games;
2. MacOSX user base is growing each day;
3. Porting from MacOSX -> Linux has a total cost of U$0 if done right - this cost against the insignificant user base => some more sales;

A nice article from 2DBoys about their birthday promo sales:

http://2dboy.com/2009/10/26/pay-what-you-want-birthday-sale-wrap-up/

Everyone else isn't scared, they just don't care, since everyone else doesn't game on Linux.

Yes, since everyone else doesn't develop games for Linux -> then everyone else doesn't game on Linux -> since everyone else doesn't develop games for Linux -> then everyone else doesn't game on Linux -> since everyone else doesn't develop games for Linux -> then everyone else doesn't game on Linux -> since everyone else doesn't develop games for Linux -> then everyone else doesn't game on Linux -> ... brake this cycle!

Makaze

03-22-2010, 07:11 PM

I actually agree that the development costs are likely fairly insignificant. The issue is in support costs (which are far higher than you think) and the fact that the programmers at Epic who would be tasked with doing this are busy doing other things that make them more money than an OSX or Linux port. I also agree that due to the poor reception of Vista and the superb marketing and physical designers at Apple that OSX has gained a lot of market share as of late. At some point that market share is big enough to tip the scales and make porting over games, UE3 and others. It may be there now, honestly I don't have the numbers (install base, purchase probabilities, or most important to this discussion the estimated costs to Epic) my point though is that any decision to move forward with a port will be made for financial reasons and not for ideological ones.

Having UE3 on Linux is not a right and not having it is not a humanitarian crisis, it's a business decision and couching arguments for it in those terms carries more weight than screaming about broken promises and non existent ethical obligations.

There are reason that make Windows a better gaming platform than Linux other than simple install base. DirectX for one is much more suited to gaming when compared to OpenGL. The OpenGL committee has been terrible about updating the spec and puts heavy focus on industrial uses over gaming. I'd also question why it's even necessarily desirable to break the cycle. Hardware fragmentation in PC gaming development is already a significant problem, compounding that with platform fragmentation creates even more permutations and raises development costs even more. There are many bad things about Window and its ubiquity, but there are also some good ones.

Blade[UG]

03-23-2010, 11:20 AM

as I said, though, why would they bother porting the tools, since no other part of the chain runs in linux? You have nothing useful for graphics, nothing useful for modelling, nothing useful for audio ... ( * nothing in the professional sense .. yes, there is Gimp, and Blender, and Audacity. Few people in their right minds accept these professionally though)

leegj

03-23-2010, 06:11 PM

;27193688']as I said, though, why would they bother porting the tools, since no other part of the chain runs in linux? You have nothing useful for graphics, nothing useful for modelling, nothing useful for audio ... ( * nothing in the professional sense .. yes, there is Gimp, and Blender, and Audacity. Few people in their right minds accept these professionally though)

I can't comment on the tools issue as I dont have the credentials to do that, so I'll leave that to the pros <wink>.

I do have experience with blender, both individually and knowing the developers, I can honeslty and openly that calling blender a non professional tool, or not used by professionals is clearly jaded and untrue. The only thing I am aware of that it lacks is asset hiding and that can be achieved with dynamic loading.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blender_%28software%29 < this also completely debunks the idea of blender having no professional abilities. Do some googling next time you make such accusations.

It is prob. correct to say that linux may not be a lucrative target for financial gain for games and toolsets, but if work can be done to make UDK and tools it uses 'crossplatform' like opengl is ( and no, opengl is no less capable than directX is, lets get that notion gone immediately! ), then as others have noted, I would hope the work needed is increasingly moot because all users regardless of OS, deserve access .

cheers
leegj

Makaze

03-23-2010, 10:51 PM

Blender may be capable of being used professionally but it is by and large not used professionally. The reasons for that are debatable but the consequences are not. Professionals are generally more comfortable with tools other than Blender, tools that do not exist for Linux and so prefer to develop on a Windows platform. I'm not an artist, I'm a programmer but what I hear from my artist friends are that the issues with programs like Blender or Gimp are not in a lack of features (except file format support in a lot of cases) but rather a degree of their ease of use when compared to their industry standard equivalent.

OpenGL is not strictly less capable but it does have a couple strikes against it in issues other than performance. DirectX is a monolithic feature set that is updated periodically. OpenGL on the other hand uses manufacturer extensions to enable new features. So OpenGL generally gets new features first (Good) but since the drivers are more complicated and are being made by multiple groups then driver support and stability tend to be comparatively spotty (Bad). Also since not all the hardware gets their extensions at the same time no one bothers to code to any of the new features till it's out in DirectX anyways as that ensures that everyone has it.

The OpenGL ARB also tends to be pretty stagnant and useless unless goaded into action. Before DirectX and during periods that it sucked we saw increasing divergence between graphics hardware and no advancements of the OpenGL standard since the manufacturers would refuse to agree to anything that might give their competitors even a slight advantage. Hate on MS all you want but them dictating through DirectX what will be in the next hardware generation has been a very good thing for the advancement and compatibility of PC graphics hardware, and OpenGL.

fungos

03-24-2010, 02:05 PM

Unigine Heaven 2.0 Benchmark Released, check here: http://www.unigine.com/products/heaven/

This version has all DirectX11 features implemented in OpenGL 3.3/4.0. Try it.

Makaze

03-24-2010, 08:41 PM

I think that I might have said that OpenGL gets features first didn't I?

So OpenGL generally gets new features first
Oh, yes it looks like I did.

So what's your point?

fungos

03-25-2010, 08:30 AM

I think that I might have said that OpenGL gets features first didn't I?

Oh, yes it looks like I did.

So what's your point?

lol, sorry. That was not for you. :)

Jazz

03-28-2010, 07:37 AM

;27190135']The Engine itself has been ported to several different platforms
According to Icculus it was also ported on Mac and Linux, he posted UT3 work-in-progress screenshots long time ago. Though, nothing more has been released.

;27190135']The editor, and all of it's dependencies have always been dependent upon Windows and Windows based tools
Using wxWidgets for UnrealEd interface && single post on Phoronix probably by Jeff Morris caused lots of rumors about porting it on Linux/Mac. At least interface now is not bound to Windows components.

;27190135']People who use Linux as their primary desktop OS, probably have no use for UDK - they can't use any of the other tools required, so .. why?
Too biased. I agree that, for example. photoshop got more functions than gimp, but I bet 95% of udk target audience are unable to tell wich ones.

Makaze, there is a twist:
Epic promised us a Linux version
No, they didn't

Unigine Heaven 2.0 Benchmark Released
Sad but this is yet another bad indie project. On random setups is might give very slow perfomance not depending on quality level, even on good CPU & GPU (seen test reports on one forum && tried it out by myself)

Blade[UG]

03-28-2010, 12:51 PM

jazz,

"most all of them". I used GIMP for years. I used Photoshop for two weeks, and never, ever loaded GIMP again.

sueds

03-28-2010, 01:18 PM

I was using blender for a couple of year even I got programming in python. Then I got my hand on lightwave then maya and I never use blender again.

computerquip

04-08-2010, 06:05 PM

Blade[UG]

04-09-2010, 03:30 PM

Its not much of an expense to compile mostly compatible software for Linux and distribute it as well if an expense at all. Full Unreal Engine 3 Source is supposedly fully cross-platform for Mac, Windows, and Linux. Why can't the UDK be for Linux and Mac? You have plenty of people who would do this practically for nothing and yet Epic refuses to do something that might possibly expand their reputation and even increase sells at a low expense.

I feel like I'm getting jipped here. I personally use both Windows and Linux but I would like to at least run a server on Linux for performance and stability which is currently not even possible.

You have no idea what the cost would be. I'd guess it would be "more than they are going to make on UDK". And no, "Full Unreal Engine 3 Source" is not fully cross platform for Mac, Windows, and Linux. The Game subsystems are multiplatform.

You know how you're getting gipped? By running Linux. And by then feeling like you are entitled to software that is not written for your choice of operating system.

TheAgent

04-09-2010, 11:54 PM

Mac Or Linux + Games or Engines = Nuclear explosion

computerquip

04-10-2010, 11:21 AM

Blade[UG], your statement doesn't make sense. I use Linux for stability and cost. And I fail to see the true expense in the cost here. Even if it is a small price, the amount of reputation gained is much heavier.

The fact that I can't develop on Linux with the UDK is bothering me slightly however I don't think that was originally possible anyways. The server is simply an inconvenient matter for me. When you have something thats inches away from being released on an ENTIRE platform, something as large as the Unreal Engine, why wouldn't you do it (not rhetorical)?

PhoenixWing

04-10-2010, 11:57 AM

I cannot imagine UE3 ever being released under linux. Linux, be it a fantastic OS, has such little users with demand for it.

With Linux holding only ~1-2% of all Desktop (Not including netbooks and such) in the world, and probably less than 1% of those requesting UE3.

Developing for such a minute crowd of people seems to me as ridiculous. Believe me, i have used Linux for my entire life, but I just cannot see Epic getting anything useful out of a linux client.

Blade[UG]

04-11-2010, 04:31 AM

Alright, great, stability. You have your operating system that runs primarily on obscure and/or obsolete hardware, and only in relatively common configurations of said obscure and obsolete hardware, all running software that is mostly in an unusable by mortal men state. The rest of us will have our systems that occasionally crash, but run >95% of all software created, some of which is surprisingly not terrible.

I used Linux from 1992 until 2005. I will never touch it again, except in embedded devices and systems where it's about the only option due to memory constraints. And I will use as little open source software as possible, because, and I've been an open source developer since before 1992, the interfaces and design of open source software is terrible. I can't think of anything other than "vi" and the tools required for gcc to operate.. and any person who's not already extremely experienced in those tools, would think that i was insane for doing so.

saymoo

04-11-2010, 09:56 AM

;27225165']Alright, great, stability. You have your operating system that runs primarily on obscure and/or obsolete hardware, and only in relatively common configurations of said obscure and obsolete hardware, all running software that is mostly in an unusable by mortal men state. The rest of us will have our systems that occasionally crash, but run >95% of all software created, some of which is surprisingly not terrible.

I used Linux from 1992 until 2005. I will never touch it again, except in embedded devices and systems where it's about the only option due to memory constraints. And I will use as little open source software as possible, because, and I've been an open source developer since before 1992, the interfaces and design of open source software is terrible. I can't think of anything other than "vi" and the tools required for gcc to operate.. and any person who's not already extremely experienced in those tools, would think that i was insane for doing so.

F U D, fud fud fud fud ALERT!!!
Using Linux for so many years (why would you do that if it is THAT terrible in the first place == you lie here, and spread FUD, or you like SM quite a lot) and then not touching it ever again, logica tells that a person stating such conflicting emotions is either not speaking the truth, or is following a hurd of people who he/she wish to be with. (in this case the anti linux hurd)

I mean come on! why cares how long you've supposedly been active as an opensource developer, does this has anything to do with the subject? NO not at all. It all (and only) proves you dislike linux, for some non important reason. (we're not talking about opensource projects, but about a commercial project :P)
That fine, but again, not adding anything serious to the thread here. It confused people, spreads a blanket over the discussion with a negative attitude based on distracting arguments. That's called spreading FUD. The person doing so is called a "troll", because he/she does it on purpose. Either to annoy, or to nag people or the subject. STOP IT!

If you have anything serious to add to the subject of this discussion, then do so, if not, shut your *rap, since you are disturbing the discussion. Let me be clear you don't have to say PRO linux comment's visions, but they have to follow the subject of this thread, AKA ONTOPIC. ;)

80% of all current commercialware is been raised from opensource projects.
(the TCP/IP stack for instance, an opensource project from the early days. Without that project, we now most likely would not have the internet we dearly love and use, think of that. Or what about SMTP, POP, IMAP, FTP, SSH, Telnet, HTTP, HTTPS, X509, to name a few protocols we nowadays ALL use in some way, have been emerged from opensource projects. So stating, "the interfaces and design of open source software is terrible" is beyong funny and NOT true at all. You happen to dislike the console, textbased gui's, that's fine, your choice, but you cannot bring that opinion as being the ONLY true opinion for all of us. If you don't like Linux/Unix/OSx (which is BSD under the hood thus a family of Unix) so be it, i won't fight you on that opinion, i respect that. But coming here and spread FUD, in a thread about making UDK linux friendly, is not welcome and hijacks the subject and intention of this thread in a whole. If you where telling true facts, measured and all. then ok, but you keep on repeating these kind of FUD statements, throughout the thread here. Like you have nothing else to discuss.

I pesonally think, that you dislike Linux/Unix, because you are "lazy" (meaning to much used to Gui's which can be operated with the mouse alone), and have a commercial mindset. (you make something, you MUST gain something (money)) and since most people think Linux equals gratis, you switched kingdoms and ended up with Windows. I really think that something in the line of this is actually the foundation of your posts.

UE2 was Linux ready, and EPic themselves have put a Linux version on they UT2003/4 retail releases, Icculus made the port compilation, but not much had to be changed in the code to make it Linux compilable.
Heck, even UE2 had official linux support as target platform for it's licensees, if they want that OS as a target. (each extra target platform 50.000 usd extra ontop of the first license cost, and Linux was one of them)

so, yeah, Linux can be done, Epic can do it, Money wise it was a good move, they sold quite a lot versions to linux users, because of the linux support.

But, with UE3 Epic made a big boo boo, why, that's speculating, but my guess is in the direction of Microsoft. (wanna know why? do your homework :P)

end of rant.

Shelke

04-11-2010, 12:53 PM

Makaze, there is a twist:
Epic promised us a Linux version

No, they didn't

I actualy found a quote form the VP
http://forums.epicgames.com/showpost.php?p=24890693&postcount=25

I had trouble finding it through the pletoria of results google gave me about "UT3 Linux". from what I gathered, UnrealED and the game itself was scheduled for linux but then something happend. there were many quotes form officials and folks working on the port, it appears it was actualy functional at the time.

so yes, apparently they did. I don't understand how you could be so sure of the contrary jazz, but this thread seems to be based on arguments of people that are "sure" of things, not on reality.

I don't mean this as a personal attack on you Jazz, just adding what I found..

BTW, I love this quote(http://icculus.org/pipermail/ut3/2007-October/000057.html)

> Would someone be so kind to tell whether there will be UnrealEd for
> Linux? I read that there will be for PS3 and I heard it's made in
> wxWidgets. No WINAPI dependency then.

UnrealEd now uses wxWidgets on all platforms (including Windows). The
editor won't be ready for Linux/Mac when the game ships, but it will be
made available later, if things go according to plans.

And if things don't go according to plans, I won't apologize when people
link to a copy of this email posted as news on BeyondUnreal. :)

--ryan.

I still woudn't mind having a linux port.. or a mac port, but I definitly don't want to fight for it.. Linux will be ace to developing in and mac means a larger client base. but I doubt Epic will come in and confirm a port, they don't seems to want to tie themself at all for the udk. future support is kind of limboish right now, I hope things work out :).

sueds

04-11-2010, 02:21 PM

Shelke

04-11-2010, 03:21 PM

just read Mark rein post and if you were more careful you'd understand what he meant by ut3 not UE3. some people already stated it the engine is easily portable but not the toolset. but anyway microsoft haters will still be microsoft haters. I don't think microsoft has any interest or enough power to stop epic from porting the engine to linux. If ther was some money there they should have done it. Look at iphone they ported it because they've seen some interest and demand. If you want an engine using linux buy shiva or try the ple . Or better write to epic sales to ask them directly.

Sueds, was that directed to me? I'm not a microsoft 'hater', I would just like the udk to support more platforms. I don't understand what the "UT3 not UE3" distiction is, I think he said UT3 will be available to linux and mac user. I also looked around and UnrealEd was part of the things that would be made available. obviously the plan was canceled, but it was a plan at some point. I didn't mentioned anything about the easy of porting a game(and its engine) and find it kind of OT.

the iphone UE3 prototype they showcased is as far I know in the same state as the linux port was, just in r&d or planned, it does not mean it will ever see the light. linux aparently also had alot of interest, or atleast the media had because google gave me lots of results, finding an official statement from someone at epic did take a while. if showing interest on a platform is what will make epic port the engine to it, then this thread is a wonderful place to show support. why is everyone so being agressive?

Also, sorry about the previews post, I just reread it and it does have a harsh tone to it. I didn't mean to do that.

sueds

04-11-2010, 05:55 PM

I'm just saying for example if I build tool like I did using winforms or whatever ui or program depending on windows library I'll be stuck with windows unless I rewrite most of my code. Tools work in a different ways than just game. The game engine itself depends on opengl or directx so it's fine to port the game but the toolset is another task and it can be dauting. I'm not familliar with linux so I'm just guessing but is it the same as asking how can port an ogre game into another game engine ? You probably need to recreate most of you code.
It shouldn't be a problem if the team is willing to do so but as an business you have to think if it interesting money wise. Is an indie game developper will port his game from iphone to zune if there a little chance i'll find some customer ? No. So I guess it's just common sense but at least I understand that you want to have udk on linux.

Shelke

04-11-2010, 07:15 PM

Thank you for your response sueds :). I'm not sure what toolset you are speaking of, I'm only aware of UnrealEd, other than that I can't think of any other tool. I don't know how tied that is to windows or if its already available to other platforms like linux. PS3 has a toolchain for windows but from pictures Ive seen of devhouses, they do seems to run some machines with it.

WYSIWYG editors are usualy an enhanced or specialised game engine. this is how they achive the 1-1 looks. but as you, I have no idea of how dificult porting UnrealEd will be. seeing what they have made for UDK, I think it will dificult to maintain. but frankly, that doesn't interest me, as you say, if there is a reason, they will do it anyway.

I think linux does have a future for indie game devs(or any type of development) because indies don't have the same market that industry games have, sure, they do sometimes end up there but usualy it is a diferent 'Scene' altogether. right now I don't see a userbase there, but UE3 is "big" enough to create one, or have one forming on its own. from a release point of view, I would love my stuff to be accessible to as many people as possible. sadly, the udk is very demanding. but having linux as well as mac deployment, even if the toolset stays on windows, would be nice.

Anyway, cheers. I think the concerns about porting should be Epic's and not for us to worry about. Maybe it will be better to wait till later, once the community has matured and games start to be released, to request something like this.

Blade[UG]

04-12-2010, 05:48 AM

saymoo: I'm not spreading any Fear, Uncertainty, or Doubt. I'm absolutely 100% certain, that Linux, as well as it's cadre of open source software, whilst perhaps technologically superior to other more well known and pricier up front alternatives, in some aspects, is otherwise far inferior to most comparable software in the world. I've spent half my life putzing with "technologically superior" operating systems and open source software, only to discover about 5 years ago, that the rest of the world had gone and surpassed almost all of that software.

Makaze

04-12-2010, 10:30 AM

why is everyone so being agressive?Because the Linux contingent while exceptionally vocal is also exceptionally tiny. The overwhelmingly vast majority of the user base would rather see limited development resources devoted to things like new features that actually matter to them rather than wasted on a port to an operating system that virtually none of them will ever use for any purpose but especially not for gaming.

Also several members of this thread have an attitude that they are owed something, that they demand a Linux port as their god given right. Personally that attitude somewhat offends me and frankly it's not the way the real world works.

saymoo

04-12-2010, 12:35 PM

Because the Linux contingent while exceptionally vocal is also exceptionally tiny. The overwhelmingly vast majority of the user base would rather see limited development resources devoted to things like new features that actually matter to them rather than wasted on a port to an operating system that virtually none of them will ever use for any purpose but especially not for gaming.

fud and rubbish, do your homework next time. (80% of the internet appliances or internet software services is running a flavor of Unix/Linux OS)
Major Corporations run many Linux/unix machines for mission critical things,
Most routers/modems run Linux/Unix,
Android uses Linux as foundation,
Apple uses Unix(bsd) as foundation,
Windows stole from BSD/unix code, for it's own implementations for protocol support (back in the early nineties)
etc etc etc.

Heck, i would even go as far as stating that the chance you have a device running linux in your household and/or job surrounding (device you use daily for work) is more then 70%.

Secondly dev's that only target the windows platform are narrowing down their innovation and future perspectives. I mean, look at the bigger picture, longer term. As seen with Apple OSX, once they had some thirdparty dev's taking the risk of creating a mac port of their tools, the popularity went sky high in a very short time. Also with Apple users don't do as much piracy as windows users do. Common fact. Same counts for Linux users.
So if you are talking about economics, most businesses are thieves of their own wallet. (piracy numbers alone proof it)

And, most importantly, linux dev's are NOT only focussing on Linux as an OS, but also CROSS PLATFORM software (in the true sense of the word), meaning everyone can run his preferred OS, and still use the software he/she wants. FREEDOM of CHOICE!!! and not locked in by the BIG boys wishes.

If no dev's dare to see what Linux is all about (linux does not EQUAL GRATIS) and actually are going to support it, the circle is penetrated, broken, and thus Linux get's a better marketshare, which leads to more sales for the company supporting it, etc etc etc If no-one does this, the share keeps small, and the companies think it's because it sucks or is too small to take the risk. Get the point?! (chicken - egg syndrome, or hurd of sheep logics)

FAIR CHANCES... that's the key phrase.

Also several members of this thread have an attitude that they are owed something, that they demand a Linux port as their god given right. Personally that attitude somewhat offends me and frankly it's not the way the real world works.

How on earth would that offend YOU? If you don't like the idea of having a freedom in choice, then go ahead, but don't come here and complain that there are people who DO care about the freedom of choice. (and started a thread about it to discuss the ideas/wishes etc)
Nobody forced you to visit this thread. If it's not for you, then move along. simple really. no harm done, no harm taken.

anyway, i'm not running Linux as a Desktop, but i do support the people's visions here:
wishing for freedom of choice and the support of developers making crossplatform software (opensource or not)

Shelke

04-12-2010, 02:14 PM

Blade[UG]

04-13-2010, 04:13 AM

saymoo,

You say "Linux/Unix" like they are the same thing. Linux is not Unix, it is not even A Unix, it is only remotely Unix-LIKE. No one STEALS anything from BSD, because BSD is on a completely open License.

None of your points are even remotely valid in the real world, only within the world that seems to exist commonly amongst Linux zealots. You are making no sense at all, if you could get this fog out of your head, you would be able to see that. Nobody cares about being able to run their software on EVERYONE'S PREFERRED OPERATING SYSTEM. If every person can have a PREFERRED OPERATING SYSTEM, you are automatically making the world far more difficult than it needs to be for developers -- the goal should be to have a SINGLE OPERATING SYSTEM that runs EVERYTHING. Unfortunatly, in the real world, that is a lot closer to Windows, than it is to Linux or to BSD/Mach/OSX, or any actual Unix.

On the bright side, Windows, and the vast majority of it's software, have increased dramatically in quality. Sure, it'd be great if it were all open source, but it's not. When you can get 95% of all the people in the world to use an open source system, then you'll have everyone that matters writing software for your platform, and not the others.

Everything beyond the kernel for Linux is utter crap, and no one that is using it is willing to admit it.

saymoo

04-13-2010, 10:56 AM

Blade, you cannot seem to stop spreading fud, can you!
This starts to get funny, and stupid at the same time. (sitcom is in the making)
But ok, you want it, so i'll feed your FUD spreading attention hunger/addiction once more with a reply, for you to chew on:

Here we go:

;27229397']saymoo,

You say "Linux/Unix" like they are the same thing. Linux is not Unix, it is not even A Unix, it is only remotely Unix-LIKE. No one STEALS anything from BSD, because BSD is on a completely open License.

No i didn't say that at all, i said they are family OS'es. (same blood relatives, in human language)
Linux (the child) is way closer to Unix(the grandparent) (by inheritances) as you state.
Minix (parent) is a mini unix, and Linux has been based on Minix. Linus (the other parent) + unix blood = Linux, hence the name.

As for the BSD (uncle) part (you clearly haven't done study on my posts), is about the BSD (version 4.3 if i remember correctly) BEFORE it went free/open (and renamed as FreeBSD (nephew), the commercial variant so to speak. (which was everything BUT open licensed back then)

;27229397']
None of your points are even remotely valid in the real world, only within the world that seems to exist commonly amongst Linux zealots.

odd comment for a person who has worked for the Unix/Opensource/Linux/BSD side of the spectrum. Declaring war towards his own former roots.
Doesn't make any sence, but bullying. you behave like a turncoat Windows only Zealot.

;27229397']
You are making no sense at all, if you could get this fog out of your head, you would be able to see that. Nobody cares about being able to run their software on EVERYONE'S PREFERRED OPERATING SYSTEM. If every person can have a PREFERRED OPERATING SYSTEM, you are automatically making the world far more difficult than it needs to be for developers -- the goal should be to have a SINGLE OPERATING SYSTEM that runs EVERYTHING. Unfortunatly, in the real world, that is a lot closer to Windows, than it is to Linux or to BSD/Mach/OSX, or any actual Unix.

who's "nobody" in your blunt statement here: the commercial developers, the so called Linux zealots? who? specify.
Ever thought how Windows came on this marketshare ?? Was that because the developers wanted that by their own wishes? Or where they FORCED (under the table) by Microsoft (lock in contracts, abuse of monopolies, etc etc) If you study the history of the consumer computing, and how it came to be as it is now, you would see a pattern here, MS all over the place like the pest. Frontal, and under the tables (secrects etc, bribals, lobying what not)
A single OS is the worlds most dangerous situation thinkable. Security wise, knowlegde wise, innovation wise, commercial wise.
Therefore the freedom of choice is so important. But, being not to run a program on a certain (well known) OS, is a NO NO.

Just imagine, this (blunt) example (hoping you get the point what it is all about):

Photoshop™ is only available for Windows, years and years...
But, suddenly Adobe chooses to make it only available for OSX, and drops Windows support because they like OSX better. Hmmm forcing millions of people to switch OS'es, to be able to keep on working with their needed or beloved software. Idiot huh? well let it flow trough your brains for like a day, and now reflect it on Linux.. do you see the idiotic thing, about forcing 1 os for the software to use? And the need of multi OS support?
(i somehow doubt you will see it, or can reach this thought at all, no offence, many can't once they are sucked in the pit of the bigbuck commercialisation first hand (meaning deserting for the BIG BUCK)

;27229397']
On the bright side, Windows, and the vast majority of it's software, have increased dramatically in quality.

define quality, it seems to me you confuse quality with visual controllable software and mouseclicks evolution.
Quality and visual control, are not a good mariage per se:
Windows 9x, ME, Vista anyone? you get my point.
so once again, define quality.

;27229397']
Sure, it'd be great if it were all open source, but it's not. When you can get 95% of all the people in the world to use an open source system, then you'll have everyone that matters writing software for your platform, and not the others.

You are making the same mistake, as many Windows AND big buck commercial folks make. Let me try to eliminate these false "facts".

Linux, and you as supposedly experiences OPENSOURCE/LINUX programmer should known by now, is not the same as GRATIS. What does this mean?
Simple, it's not that any software program on the Linux platfrom MUST be gratis AND Opensourced.. NO NO NO
The Kernel is opensource and gratis, the GNU packages are opensource and gratis, BUT the rest ontop can be anything. Proprietary licensed, GPL licensed, BSD licensed, NDA licensed, etc etc.. It's the choice of the enduser(s) on WHAT they want or not. Same as with Windows, you don't HAVE to use Office , you can use OpenOffice.org if you wish. You don't have to run IIS, you can run Apache or lighthhtp or whatnot if you whish.
Why? because the developers of those mentioned packages made it CROSSPLATFORM, and keeps the respect of humans choices intact, by not forcing them into 1 OS.
Commercial available software for Linux platform is fine by most endusers, and some developers see that light, and are now on the front row of the upcoming linux commercial available software, and earning money with linux users, just as they do with windows and OSx users.

MS forced us into using only Windows, and now we think only Windows exists as the OS of choice, because we're brainwashed, falsely pushed into forsights made by MS. And big companies like big money, and saw the potentials for quick bucks, because of this windows thing. Luckely OSX strikes back quite a large percentage of windows users, and thus developers, but still.. Linux remains in the dark corner, because most developers and managers think linux is all about GRATIS (non commercial) software. IT IS NOT.

;27229397']
Everything beyond the kernel for Linux is utter crap, and no one that is using it is willing to admit it.

LOL, define crap, hmm if it is what i think it is: useless software, only bugs in it, not doing what it was supposed to do.....
most packages byond the kernel are infact multiplatform, not GNU packages, free to install or not, widely used (why would that be? if it where utter crap?)

for instance: Firefox, thunderbird, openoffice.org, apache httpd, mysql, bind, openvpn, filezilla, putty, openssl, php, python, chrome, cgi, perl, awk, c, c++, Maya for linux, Nero for linux, etc etc etc the list goes on and on.
Why would (even windows users) use these packages, if they are all so giantly utter crap? BECAUSE IT IS NOT!
people don't use stuff they don't like, quite easy right?
So there must be something about these programs, they like, otherwise they wouldn't be used so much in the REAL world.

oh and one ONTOPIC piece of software!:
Why on earth would Epic want a Linux version of their game (twice!! UT2003/UT2004), and the official support of the linux platform as target platform for their engine (UE2 series)
if as you state, Linux is such craptastic software/OS, plain logics tell me, Epic is not very smart as a company, and since they supported Linux, and you stating All linux software except the kernel is crap, would make Epic's software is crap too ;)
someone made a booboo, can you guess who? :rolleyes:

Linux adepts, zealots, developers, supporters are very vocal in nature, granted, but we do complain about our own software too, when it doesn't function etc. If you would make some researches, you would notice that too.
Just like Windows adepts, zealots, developers, supporters complain about their own software too, when it doesn't function etc. So just like everybody else, admitting is done, and maked your statement useless, false, and FUD (once again).

Conclusion: your statements are FUD, speculating gossip fed remarks, not contributing anything useful to the thread except distraction and personal attention, as stated in an earlier reply.

anyway, i support the freedom of choice, and not the "freedom" of forced choice. Even if i choose as enduser to not run Linux as desktop, it's my choice to pick an OS i want , and the software i want. (and that choice of general used software shouldn't be be bound to choice of OS!) Therefor, OS restrictions are very close to dictatorship (we see in politics, and everybody hates it, why would we grant that on technology? let's make a fist towards technology dictatorship aswell).

and i am both linux and Microsoft Certified, knowing both camps.
I like Windows, just as i like GNU/Linux. But facts are facts in discussions, Like it or not, that's a whole other story.

Makaze

04-13-2010, 05:06 PM

But, suddenly Adobe chooses to make it only available for OSX, and drops Windows support because they like OSX better.This is not how corporations work. In not fantasy utopia land decisions are made based on return on investment, which is why this situation would never come to pass and why Linux support is so thin.

define qualityNot crashing. I'm a 3.10 veteran so I know what crappy Windows looks like and they've come a long ways baby. 98 was a massive step forward and 2000 was almost unrecognizable as an MS product it was so much better than 98.

define crapXwindows, it plain blows. Just about all of those apps you list are also on Windows and are used more in Windows than in Linux. So really any development effort on them is spurred by their Windows users, they just happen to be the only option for Linux and so are associated with it.

people don't use stuff they don't likeI know, which is why Linux has a <1% desktop share...

Why on earth would Epic want a Linux version of their game (twice!! UT2003/UT2004), and the official support of the linux platform as target platform for their engine (UE2 series)Because they thought at the time that you were right. You'll notice that they've since run the numbers and decided that their resources are better spent elsewhere.

Linux adepts, zealots, developers, supporters are very vocal in natureExtremely. Obnoxiously so.

Windows adepts, zealots, supportersAre idiots, Windows is a tool nothing more. It's far from perfect but does happen to be the best tool out there at the moment.

i support the freedom of choice, and not the "freedom" of forced choiceI agree, which is why I respect the choice of software developers to develop or not develop on the platform that they choose for whatever reason, in most cases financial. I also respect your freedom to either use or develop another engine with equivalent features that supports Linux.

Bottom line is that you're on an ideological crusade. You want to fight the man and live in a utopian fantasy world where everyone and everything is free (free to agree with you). On the other hand most of us are here to make games and have people play them. Right now, for reasons that are completely irrelevant because they don't change the situation at hand, Windows and not Linux is a better platform for that endeavor. Fact.

Blade[UG]

04-14-2010, 01:03 AM

You kind of ignore the fact that Photoshop was originally Mac only software, until someone realised that they would have far, far more users, if they wrote for Windows.

As far as I'm concerned, fact of the matter is, there's not a single piece of open source software that has a competent user interface. And I still develop open source software, and I include the pieces that I still work on in that list (although when I do have time to work on them, I do spend time working on the interfaces) .. There may be a few pieces here and there, but I certainly haven't run into them. Probably the closest is an un-extended Mozilla .. which would be great by 2002 standards.

Since switching to Windows 5-ish years ago, i've spent a ton more time -doing things- with my computer instead of doing things to my computer (like compiling kernels endlessly to make hardware work, compiling tons of software or installing dozens of megabytes of dependencies to make a single piece of software work)...

chiefwhosm

04-18-2010, 01:12 PM

tbh I'd say linux has advanced greatly in those 5 years since you switched to windows, but I agree with alot of your negatives against linux.

I'm still pro-linux, but the trouble with the UDK being on linux (and even *shudder* macOS is that from what I gather (from someone I know who uses such things) more of the UI elements are being made with Windows Presentation Foundation (WPF) - hence a heavy reliance on the .net framework.

Since the likes of mono (which to my knowledge is the only .net equivilant for linux) do not, and have no intention of supporting WPF then a linux clone is pretty much sunk unless they redo the UI.

It seems strange to start using WPF after switching the Editor over to that GUI cross-platform thing (which I forget the name of :p) but there we go.

Maybe the inclusion of Scaleform GFX into UE3 and the UDK can be used to remove the reliance of WPF but I don't know enough about Scaleform really.

The only people who can really answer as to osX or linux ports would be Epic, and they're remaining tight lipped or they'd have replied to the thread already.

At the end of the day though there's no use arguing, it'll either happen or it won't and it's all up to Epic.

Chief.

Jazz

04-18-2010, 02:55 PM

Uh, well, it's not really a good idea to flame war here. Linux is not in a best position, I admit, but Blade[UG], you are wrong in many points.

I'll just drop in single fact: Ryan posted screenshots of UT3 running under Mac and Linux, ergo game was basically ported and most of the work is already done

Blade[UG]

04-18-2010, 04:38 PM

Irrelevant to the point that I'm trying to make, Jazz, in that yes, the game systems function on all kinds of hardware and software, but the content creation systems do not. What's the point of having the editor on a platform, when there's no acceptable software for the content creation on that platform? why would epic bother to even waste the time/money involved to ensure functionality on a platform where you can't create anything anyway?

saymoo

04-19-2010, 08:09 AM

Blade, if you'd read carefully throughout the thread, we're not talking about de editor/toolset (UDK/UE3) to be available for linux, but the endproduct created with it (game/application itself) to be available to linux aswell. Just like it is with other TARGET platforms. (Xbox360, PS3 etc.. ) on those TARGET platforms, the Editor won't run either, but the endproduct does. (once compiled on the target devkit, as it is now. Or through the frontend packaging tool. I don't know how it's done with UE3, but doesn't matter, the sourcecode for the endproduct is crossplatform, for some targets anyway. and since UE2 series had Linux as target platform available, why not UE3, i think it's a lockindeal with MS, that's the reason, since the port for linux was ready for UT3 (well close to it), and suddenly, Epic skipped it, AFTER signing the deal with MS for GOW, how typical (MS has a reputation for that))

But, for your statement that there is no acceptable contentcreation tool available is not true, as a whole. Since Maya is available for Linux (native). And there are more 3dpackages (commercial ones) too. but alas, since we're not talking about the Creation toolset of UDK/UE3, but the endproduct (game/application) build with it, it's beyond the scope of the thread. ;)

StingReay

04-19-2010, 05:46 PM

Makaze

04-19-2010, 07:47 PM

I stand by my statement with the following clarification, change use to directly use.

The overwhelming majority of UDK users and general computer users in the world have never, and very well may never, directly use a Linux based machine. I agree that a great deal of computing infrastructure that we all use indirectly is *nix based, it's great for that. Linux and *nix in general are stable and scalable when configured properly, better than Windows when those two factors are of primary concern. But as a desktop operating system it's a flop. We can debate why it's a flop or if it deserves to be a flop till eternity but it doesn't change the fact that Linux has a minute fraction of the desktop install base.

Vista may have sucked but there are currently 23 times the numbers of desktops running Vista as Linux, and 52 times as many still running XP. So yeah in terms of desktops Linux barely even registers. If we were talking about porting a web server or network monitor to Linux then I'd say it's a no brainer. But we're talking about a game and game development toolset, those don't run on servers those run on desktops, where Linux isn't. As for trends, call me when Linux hit a 10% share, this idea might actually have merit then.

Also as a side note I love how everyone lumps MacOS in with Linux. From a tech standpoint that makes sense but from an attitude and agenda standpoint it's baffling. I mean if there is one company that is more monopolistic, anti-freedom, it's our way hardware/software/soul than Microsoft is then it's Apple.

DW>Fry

05-10-2010, 11:21 AM

;27188762']Why would a business spend thousands of dollars likely re-writing their toolchain, so that they can pick up an extra couple of DOZEN users... for a FREE software?

A couple dozen users. While that is funny, we're talking about TODAY's stats. And you say FREE software, as if you can't sell games for Linux.

Look at the Humble Bundle's stats... in a week, they've had 80,000 sales where you can pay whatever you want for the pack. 25% of purchasers are Linux users so grateful to have a modern game natively supported... and they decided to pay, on average, TWICE what Windows and Mac users paid.

What was that again about there being no profit in Linux gaming?

Blade[UG]

05-11-2010, 03:19 AM

The UDK is free is it not? Fact of the matter is, you can't run the other professional grade tools needed, why bother porting?

Manu6502

05-11-2010, 08:29 AM

Time spent arguing is time not spent programming.

saymoo

05-11-2010, 08:37 AM

;27303890']The UDK is free is it not? Fact of the matter is, you can't run the other professional grade tools needed, why bother porting?

once again a nonsense argument.:confused:
The topic is about a linux version of the END product, made with UDK (and tools surrounding it, e.g. bink, facefx, speedtree).

You neglect that vital part of the discussion, not for the first time in this thread to be exact. :rolleyes:

elmuerte

05-11-2010, 07:32 PM

;27303890']The UDK is free is it not?
Free as in beer, not free as in speech. Thus, we generally use gratis instead of free in these cases.

Blade[UG]

05-12-2010, 03:57 AM

once again a nonsense argument.:confused:
The topic is about a linux version of the END product, made with UDK (and tools surrounding it, e.g. bink, facefx, speedtree).

You neglect that vital part of the discussion, not for the first time in this thread to be exact. :rolleyes:

except, that's the part that i brought TO the discussion -- the game subsystems are highly portable. The UDK however, is not just the game subsystems, it is the whole kit and kaboodle.

You don't have a RIGHT to have software someone else wrote do things you want it to do. Unreal Engine games can exist on many platforms now, but the UDK IS FOR WINDOWS. If you don't like that, use a multiplatform engine that has multiplatform tools.

saymoo

05-12-2010, 08:02 AM

it's about requests, nothing else. (or idea pool for that matter)
and users (including myself) have RIGHTS to wish/demand for some additional features/uses etc..
If the wishes or demands will be granted is a whole different matter (and beyond the scope of the discussion).

robin1232

05-13-2010, 01:47 PM

robin1232

05-17-2010, 02:57 PM

it might be closer than we think guys, I mailed the development team at destineergames (MacSoft) and they replied me that they were still working on the UT3 port.
so when the engine gets ported UDK might not be far away.

http://www.beyondunreal.com/view_story.php?id=12580

Shelke

05-18-2010, 02:16 AM

valve will be releasing steam for Linux (the Mac OS-X .sh file which launches steam mentions Linux, I have seen it myself).
so maybe Epic will make UDK compatible with Linux and Mac OS-X, we just need enough developers.

That is rather interesting. but since MacOS and linux are both POSIX compliant, it woudn't surprise me if its 'just' there for internal testing purposes. but then again, they are so similar that maybe linux is a step away :).

elmuerte

05-18-2010, 04:28 AM

Getting Linux stuff to work on MacOSX is easier than the other way around. As MacOSX often use non-POSIX MacOSX specific stuff provided by Apple. And that stuff isn't portable. But if you stick to OpenAL, OpenGL, SDL, ... porting will be much easier.

ps, just because something is named doesn't mean that it will actually be realized. It might just be a placeholder.

Blade[UG]

05-19-2010, 02:20 AM

From reading the complaints of some potential Mac or iPhone devs, it seems that Mac and iPhone are actually very, very different in some key areas regarding OpenGL and fun stuff like that.

Ninja Inc.

08-21-2010, 01:01 AM

So, will it be released?

I think someone from EPIC should answer this

Blade[UG]

08-21-2010, 01:47 AM

Linux UDK? I'd say probably not likely.

StingReay

08-23-2010, 07:37 PM

That's what the people who wanted the then Mac-exclusive Unity on Windows said. That happened. Who's to say UDK on Linux won't?

Blade[UG]

08-24-2010, 02:10 AM

...and it's a terrible product. I'm not going to say it won't happen, but it's pretty unlikely, that you'll even be able to generate games that will run on Linux, let alone actually use the tools on Linux, because a huge amount of the support software that is needed does not exist on *nix compatible systems.

GeekyPayback

08-24-2010, 05:50 AM

In terms of linux think the only important bit is being able to host a server isn't it?

I mean from what I remember of halflife 2 and ut 2k4, it costs more for a hosting company to run and maintain a windows server than it does a linux one.

So any games you make that require a dedicated server instantly have a higher hosting price tag simply because the linux option isn't there.

I know all the linux fans (myself included) would love to be able to play UDK based games natively, but money makes the world go round and linux dedicated servers are a part of that cycle.

StingReay

08-24-2010, 04:13 PM

Wizzard~Of~Ozz

08-24-2010, 10:19 PM

I agree for dedicated servers, Linux is superior for most server applications, it was designed for it. I think that is only a small part of UDK tho.

Ninja Inc.

08-29-2010, 04:48 PM

Just to make a point, you CAN run windows under linux, mac too, it may not work as fast, but that is a matter of computer.

Oblivion2500

09-11-2010, 11:38 PM

UDK for linux should be very possible! UT3 has a patch to support the linux OS.

Blade[UG]

09-12-2010, 01:51 AM

UDK for linux should be very possible! UT3 has a patch to support the linux OS.

I don't think Linux UT3 has ever come out publicly. Also, most all of the middleware included in UDK does not exist for Linux.

Oblivion2500

09-12-2010, 02:04 AM

;27646932']I don't think Linux UT3 has ever come out publicly. Also, most all of the middleware included in UDK does not exist for Linux.

Oh. But there is a patch you can download on the official unreal site where you can download Linux support for UT3.

DIFTOW

09-12-2010, 06:54 AM

Support for Linux is never a bad idea as long as it is economical.

Competition is good for the market. Helping Linux become a major player in the desktop market will actually make Windows better.

Anyway, I just wanted to let my voice be heard in favor of Linux support in case the devs are looking at this.

Blade[UG]

09-13-2010, 01:09 AM

Oh. But there is a patch you can download on the official unreal site where you can download Linux support for UT3.

Wasn't aware of that, last I'd known, it was still "coming soon"

saymoo

09-13-2010, 09:15 AM

link please?

Oblivion2500

09-13-2010, 04:34 PM

;27648887']Wasn't aware of that, last I'd known, it was still "coming soon"

www.unrealtournament3.com. Just click on download and you will find UT3 linux support patch. Just download that.

Blade[UG]

09-14-2010, 01:59 AM

No, there's a Linux Server installation, but not a playable game.

Oblivion2500

09-14-2010, 04:38 PM

;27651383']No, there's a Linux Server installation, but not a playable game.

Oh. Thought it was also for linux.

tomacmuni

12-02-2010, 11:23 AM

[QUOTE=chayfo;26991235]The UDK does work in linux, but you have to know what you are doing ... I mean R E A L L Y know what you are doing in linux.

First you have to get the bleeding edge version of 'wine'. I believe it is 1.1.33, I didn't try it with the stable 1.0.1 version of wine because I had issues with shaders on that version of wine.

Next you need to install DirectX 9.0c and DirectX 10 (XP hacked version) if you want DX10 support.

_

With Wine, how to get around the Visual Studio and Dot Net FX setup not setting up?

Is there a straight forward tutorial for UDK under Ubuntu?

robin1232

03-02-2011, 06:57 AM

With Wine, how to get around the Visual Studio and Dot Net FX setup not setting up?

Is there a straight forward tutorial for UDK under Ubuntu?

It's not possible, he was just talking bull**** when he said that.

TheAgent

03-02-2011, 02:15 PM

just get windows

UDKUser

03-03-2011, 10:17 PM

I find this unlikely. Linux, though many love it, just isn't the primary OS for many people. There market share is to small, and even companies like CCP are dropping support for it instead of adding it.

micahpharoh

03-04-2011, 01:52 AM

just get windows

To me that's not the point. I have a Windows PC, but I also have a pretty kickin' linux computer, which is much "lighter" than Windows. I can't say that I'd do any real developing on Linux, but I would personally like linux Swarm support so that I could still use it for a render farm.

robin1232

03-05-2011, 05:41 AM

just get windows

Don't use the OS you like, just do what everyone else does because everyone else does it.
Yep, makes sense. We will really see healthy competition between Operating Systems if everyone thinks like that.

SirKline

03-11-2011, 07:02 AM

Don't use the OS you like, just do what everyone else does because everyone else does it.
Yep, makes sense. We will really see healthy competition between Operating Systems if everyone thinks like that.

The point is that you have to accept when certain programs are developed for certain OSes you have to use them. You can whine about a PS3 or a DS or a Wii game not running on Windows / Unix / Apple but you have to ACCEPT it.

Wildebeest

03-12-2011, 05:52 PM

Blade[UG]

03-13-2011, 07:45 AM

wildebeest:

wine udk server mapname -nullrhi

3dimentia

05-01-2011, 11:13 AM

Epic builds UDK to serve their customers and make money. Their customers use Windows (and probably at some point in the future, Mac OS). It is not in their interest to bolster "healthy competition between Operating Systems". They make games, not idealistic diatribes.

That said, I'd love to see dedicated server support on Linux, since a lot of hosting companies don't support Windows. Dedicated servers are headless, and iOS is (on some level) Unix, so I don't think this would be entirely unreasonable (at least, not nearly as much as getting the full game running on Linux would be).

EDIT: Where is the UDK Linux dedicated server? All I can find are downloads for the UT3 dedicated server.

Unlikely you would ever see udk/unreal engines on Mac. The costs to both epic and game companies would be far too great for not offering anything more than a different os. The cost of supporting an equivalent opengl implementation as well as direct would be interesting to see. Also what you said above contradicts itself. Games are made for windows, because that's where the most support is.

Wildebeest

05-01-2011, 11:22 AM

Unlikely you would ever see udk/unreal engines on Mac. The costs to both epic and game companies would be far too great for not offering anything more than a different os. The cost of supporting an equivalent opengl implementation as well as direct would be interesting to see. Also what you said above contradicts itself. Games are made for windows, because that's where the most support is.

They are developing for Mac OS. http://www.unrealengine.com/platforms

I wasn't contradicting myself. I was merely noting that Mac market share is going up, so it might be worth their while in the future.

3dimentia

05-03-2011, 01:40 PM

Well lookie there. Still, I doubt you'll see many studios make the jump to a mac pipeline.

robin1232

05-03-2011, 08:38 PM

Well lookie there. Still, I doubt you'll see many studios make the jump to a mac pipeline.

When the engine gets it, it won't take a lot of effort for studios to port.
Mac gaming market is about 5% (Steam data) and there's a lot less games for it (so let's assume 10% of your sales are Mac sales). There's no developer who's gonna throw away 10% more sales without much more effort.

3dimentia

06-11-2011, 01:39 AM

When the engine gets it, it won't take a lot of effort for studios to port.
Mac gaming market is about 5% (Steam data) and there's a lot less games for it (so let's assume 10% of your sales are Mac sales). There's no developer who's gonna throw away 10% more sales without much more effort.

I'm not saying they won't compile for mac. Of course they will. I'm saying you won't see many game companies make the jump to a mac pipeline, as in using them for content creation.

Sir_Brizz

07-18-2011, 03:25 AM

It's doubtful that the engine tool pipeline will be ported as opposed to just having a build target for Mac. Which makes it even more ridiculous that they won't support Linux at the same time.

Also, the Steam stats are skewed. 5% of the people who access Steam do so from a Mac, but there are no stats on how many of those 5% actually play any games (particularly games on the level of UDK).

EchelonV

07-18-2011, 05:48 AM

I believe they are about to port the UDK not with PC/Mac games as main target developer audience but for iOS developers. They are more likely to make the jump and move their toolchains to iOS. I hear Maya is working pretty nicely and XCode is at least usable, too.

muzzwood

10-06-2011, 02:33 AM

Well hopefully now that UDK is able to compile for Mac, it won't be too long before it can do the same for Linux. Linux architecture is a lot more similar to OSX than it is to Windows so it shouldn't be a huge effort now that the foundations are in place.

Also just looking at the stats of the past Humble Indie Bundles, the Linux market share is just as big as OSX - and Linux users are even willing to consistently pay more.

Being able to distribute games for Linux in addition to Windows and Mac will greatly increase the potential customer base for UDK games - and it will only continue to grow!

jx53

10-06-2011, 05:54 PM

I really hope to see a working verssion of the udk on linux so I can finally remove windows 7 instead of having it in dual boot...

darthviper107

10-06-2011, 06:11 PM

It really isn't likely to happen.

muzzwood

10-07-2011, 01:38 AM

I really hope to see a working verssion of the udk on linux so I can finally remove windows 7 instead of having it in dual boot...

Completely agree, that would be beyond awesome! Unfortunately that would be a lot more work than just being able to compile for Linux.

muzzwood

10-07-2011, 01:40 AM

It really isn't likely to happen.

It wasn't long ago that people were saying the same thing about OSX... ;)

darthviper107

10-07-2011, 02:07 AM

Fartuess

10-07-2011, 10:11 AM

And it still took forever to become available, and is only output for Mac, the editor is still PC only.

Considering that the Linux userbase is an even smaller percentage than Mac, it's not likely to happen.

And Both Mac OS and Linux are Unix operating system, so 80% of work is probably done now :)

darthviper107

10-07-2011, 12:45 PM

Probably not the same

Fartuess

10-08-2011, 06:06 PM

Not the same but theres more similiarity between MacOS and Linux than Windows and MacOS.

ironbelly

10-20-2011, 03:59 AM

Alternatively Epic cuold just do what Google did when they put up the money to help make sure that Photoshop ran well through WINE in linux. It would be far more cost effective for Epic just to drop 30-60k to the guys over at cedega or WINE to make sure that Unreal ran as flawlessly through WINE as possible. You wouldn't see the performance gains from having it run natively in linux but it's beter than nothing. If you wanted it to run natively in linux the entire DX architecture would have to be dropped and OpenGL brought in. I'm not programmer but I imagine that would be like rewritting the entire engine, probably a few millions dollars in labour and testing to pull that off and for what? For a .5% market share if that?

Keep in mind that while linux users are gamers most of them are not in linux to game, we all have dual boot systems setup and if a game is damn good I'll just do what I'm doing right now to play dungeon defenders and boot into windows to play it. The same can not be said about the majority of MAC users which is why a mac port makes more sense, that's 5-10% oef the market they would NOT have otherwise. Whereas with linux that's .5% of the market that will probably just dual boot into windows to play it anyways as apposed to passing it up. I mean don't get me wrong, games like Savage 2 with native linux clients, or braid, or the humble bundle I buy just because those guys went to the trouble to make a linux client but I tell you this, when Mass effect 3 comes out, there's not way in hell I'm passing on playing that just because I have to boot into windows.

Epic knows this and that's why we're never going to see a Linux client.

Blade[UG]

10-21-2011, 01:14 AM

of course with there being hundreds of different linux distributions that are common and millions of hardware combinations, you have significant support problems. When you can target a specific known set of apis like with android at lest you can guarantee some specific functions.

darthviper107

10-21-2011, 02:17 AM

And also there are very few projects that even go for sale, and probably none of them that have gone for sale would care about supporting linux