1  |   Order by index

Oct 29, 2001, 6:22pm

A linux version of AW would be great.. WINE'ing a program has some
disadvantages compared to something written specifically for Linux. I'm
sure I'm not the only one out there. Anyways that's my wish :)

--Bowen--

Oct 30, 2001, 6:03pm

Yes! Since I plan to play around with Linux (I'm going to petition to my
school to switch to PCs using Linux over crapintoshes since only 2 people in
my grade have macs at home) I'd love to have AW for linux. Espexially since
my Linux drive would be my backup drive in case my Windows 98 (damn proud of
having 98, beats XP) drive gets infected with some virus.
[View Quote]

Oct 30, 2001, 6:17pm

LoL that's true, even 3.1 beats having XP on your system.. so many security
risks to it. Linux works on Mac! Better hardware compatibility too, since
everything used by the new macOSX has to be unix compatible (OSX is a unix
based OS) :) I don't think it's going to be made though, Roland uses
Windows based functions with AW.

--Bowen--

[View Quote]

Oct 31, 2001, 3:59pm

he syas switching rendering engine would take a year at least, don't think
he'll spend a year or twoporting it to linux... the possibility would be a
way of porting the SDK to Unix and create a sort of pseudo-AW...

KAH

[View Quote]

Oct 31, 2001, 8:11pm

The rendering engine should be changed anyways. Criterion just isn't
cutting it with RenderWare.
--
SW Chris
Eagle Scout, Philosopher, Peacemaker, and... Kung Fu Master?
http://www.winternet.com/~mikelr/flame1.html

[View Quote]

Oct 31, 2001, 9:06pm

RWX is fine, it's one of the easiest, non bloated 3d object scripts to get
into. TS takes a lot of time to render since they contain a lot of
non-essential polygons, same with 3ds max, and lightwave. Since it has to
be done in real time.. the smaller and the simpler the better. That's why a
lot of worlds are laggy.. they contain TS's objects (unless they're not good
with RWX, not that all TS objects get this bad).

--Bowen--

[View Quote]

Oct 31, 2001, 9:13pm

Afaik the RWX isn't handled by the Renderware library, so
it could stay independant from the render engine

[View Quote] --
"_
|
/\
\ /
__/ /_

Oct 31, 2001, 9:20pm

Yeah I forgot RW dropped RWX a while back. If AW made their own.. they'd be
spending about 2 years in development so that'd not be worth it.. although
it might be faster in some areas.

--Bowen--

[View Quote]

Nov 1, 2001, 12:18am

They could simply sign on with another company. Course it's probably not
that simple. ;)
--
SW Chris
Eagle Scout, Philosopher, Peacemaker, and... Kung Fu Master?
http://www.winternet.com/~mikelr/flame1.html

[View Quote]

Nov 1, 2001, 3:32pm

not far, really, I don't believe Roland when he says it would take as long
as a year to switch engine... they could simply do something which would
have a programming interface similar to RW's...

KAH

[View Quote]

Nov 1, 2001, 5:43pm

They would have to program it from scratch though. So yeah, it could take a
year.
--
SW Chris
Eagle Scout, Philosopher, Peacemaker, and... Kung Fu Master?
http://www.winternet.com/~mikelr/flame1.html

[View Quote]

Nov 2, 2001, 4:08pm

yes, the engine would probably take some time to write, Roland was saying 1
year to adapt AW to the new engine...

KAH

[View Quote]

1  |   Order by index