Only one light source at a time?

[Cmdr Eagleboy]

Thing is, it's now beyond obvious that Apple aren't going to improve their OpenGL without a very good reason to do so. FDev have to move to Metal (I refuse to believe it's not up to it) or halt development of the Mac platform. It's not funny any more. I appreciate that it's a lot of work, but they've already done so recently for the PS4 (I doubt Sony are using DirectX) so it's completely doable. The only remaining question is whether it's financially a good decision, and only FDev can answer that.

But Mac users have been left twisting in the wind for too long now. It's time FDev stated their intentions.

Positive spin to all this is that moving to Metal 2 (if it is possible, in theory it is, but I haven't heard FD devs stating anything about Metal 2 capabilities - and I guess they won't, considering it might seen as official stance about Mac version) will enable Horizons and beyond.

So if FD decides to do Metal 2 port, it will allow them not only ditch DirectX 10 and OpenGL 4.1, but also move forward and offer Horizons to Mac players (which is most likely very desired).

Also if they do engine enablement for Metal 2, structure wise it is not that far behind Vulkan. There's certainly interesting possibilities.

 

[VR StarLightPL]

I'll chip in with a speculation on the beigeification (which is mildly related to lightning model, I'll give you that ;-) ). FDev mentioned that it originated from the fact that they tried to make the planet colour tied to the chemical composition of the stellar body in question. They also mentioned on a few ocassions, that they don't work on systems which they know they will scrap totally in the future. If anything, the beigeification gives me hope they're working or plan to work heavily on this part of the code soon, hence it's untouched.

Regarding the Mac version, I treat them the same as people running E: D on 32-bit, dx 9 "potatoes". Sorry, tough luck. It was their platform choice, it was their platform owner's choice who cut the support in an effort to push their own solution. FDev promised Mac version in the kickstarter, which they delivered. It is Apple that decided to break the Wheaton's Law. FDev owes nothing to these people, if I would be in FDev's place I'd offer a free PC key to existing Mac users and be done with the topic once and for all.

And regarding lightning, it would add a bit of variety but in the end in current state of landable planets it would add no new gameplay, so meh either way. My immersion isn't butt-hurt by it. Dark side is not dark fixing would add a wee bit more.

 

[GreyAreaUK]

It is Apple that decided to break the Wheaton's Law.

Hardly.

Apple used OpenGL to begin with as it was out there and largely worked, but now that Apple have two separate-but-linked hardware platforms (and operating systems) then OpenGL is no longer a good fit, so they're doing a Mcrosoft and developing their own graphics libraries to take best advantage of their own hardware.

Microsoft have DirectX for PC and XBox.
Sony have whatever it is that Sony have.
The Open Source community has Vulkan.
But somehow, when Apple do their own thing then somehow they're bad guys.

Riiiiiight.

 

[-VR- Max Factor]

I'll chip in with a speculation on the beigeification (which is mildly related to lightning model, I'll give you that ;-) ). FDev mentioned that it originated from the fact that they tried to make the planet colour tied to the chemical composition of the stellar body in question.

That is not correct. The reason for beigeification is that the colours where based earth colour standards, but didn't take into account the varied colours from different conditions. They do use the composition of the planet but use earth conditions for the colourisation. As stated by michael they are working on a new flexible system, which makes me think they are pushing towards a materials system that is correct for a vast range of different environmental conditions whether that is a vacuum or different atmospheres.

They also mentioned on a few ocassions, that they don't work on systems which they know they will scrap totally in the future. If anything, the beigeification gives me hope they're working or plan to work heavily on this part of the code soon, hence it's untouched.

This is what I think as well. Maybe with a push to basic atmospheric planets in the nearish future.

Regarding the Mac version, I treat them the same as people running E: D on 32-bit, dx 9 "potatoes". Sorry, tough luck. It was their platform choice, it was their platform owner's choice who cut the support in an effort to push their own solution. FDev promised Mac version in the kickstarter, which they delivered. It is Apple that decided to break the Wheaton's Law. FDev owes nothing to these people, if I would be in FDev's place I'd offer a free PC key to existing Mac users and be done with the topic once and for all.

Mac users can download the Mac or PC version as it is. As Macs have boot camp and Windows 10 being pretty cheap I see not reason why they can't run horizons on bootcamp. For some reason, people refuse to run windows on their Mac when there is nothing that wrong with it. I prefer the MacOS, but for games I will use windows everytime and a PC dedicated to gaming.

And regarding lightning, it would add a bit of variety but in the end in current state of landable planets it would add no new gameplay, so meh either way. My immersion isn't butt-hurt by it. Dark side is not dark fixing would add a wee bit more.

Again, I agree. It's not the end of the world. It would be a nice option to have to choose between 1, 2 or 3 light sources, but really it is not that important.

 

[Cmdr Eagleboy]

Hardly.

Apple used OpenGL to begin with as it was out there and largely worked, but now that Apple have two separate-but-linked hardware platforms (and operating systems) then OpenGL is no longer a good fit, so they're doing a Mcrosoft and developing their own graphics libraries to take best advantage of their own hardware.

Microsoft have DirectX for PC and XBox.
Sony have whatever it is that Sony have.
The Open Source community has Vulkan.
But somehow, when Apple do their own thing then somehow they're bad guys.

Riiiiiight.

I think you are getting a bit way too defensive here, no one's calling Apple bad guys for inventing their own low level graphics API. It might be short sighted, it might be short term thinking, it does not make sense when Vulkan is supported by rest of universe (on Windows included, and this time it beats DX out of the water). But overall it is not because they are bad or something.

OpenGL and OpenGL ES was good enough for Apple...till it wasn't one day. Till they decided they wanted to have full control of platform and create walled garden around it. Yes, they aren't bad guys because of this. Microsoft have done this for years. And I see it as evil practice.

OpenGL might not be best suited for Microsoft or Apple (it only got better around 4.3, so it took time to stand on it's feet). However Vulkan with it's fast moving global support is completely different story. There's absolutely nothing preventing Apple to support Vulkan. Only reason not to do is to avoid competition of porting games from iOS to Android using it.

Anyway, Apple has been doing their own thing for long time now, and their lock in practices does not surprise me or make me feel better or worse about them.

 

[S3B4ST13N]

..no one's calling Apple bad guys..

Apple are bad guys.



Edit:
I read a while back that the reason Apple haven't updated to a later OpenGL is because they vet it every single time or something like that. It will not go into their OS unless they are 100% happy with it, So, maybe that's one reason why?

 

[-VR- Max Factor]

Hardly.

Apple used OpenGL to begin with as it was out there and largely worked, but now that Apple have two separate-but-linked hardware platforms (and operating systems) then OpenGL is no longer a good fit, so they're doing a Mcrosoft and developing their own graphics libraries to take best advantage of their own hardware.

Microsoft have DirectX for PC and XBox.
Sony have whatever it is that Sony have.
The Open Source community has Vulkan.
But somehow, when Apple do their own thing then somehow they're bad guys.

Riiiiiight.

It's not that they are bad guys, its just that there where perfectly good alternatives that are already there to use. Vulkan is good to go on the Mac if apple allowed. But they won't. For some inexplicable reason they decided to design thier own API which was below par compared to others that where already available. Metal 2 looks a lot better, but we still don't know if it's good enough and how intensive or difficult it would be to port to either.

 

[GreyAreaUK]

There's absolutely nothing preventing Apple to support Vulkan. Only reason not to do is to avoid competition of porting games from iOS to Android using it.

This is purely speculation, but:

I highly doubt that Apple care about Vulkan one way or another. I strongly suspect that this is purely because Apple feel that developing their own libraries is a better fit for them than adopting someone else's.

 

[Cmdr Eagleboy]

Apple are bad guys.



Edit:
I read a while back that the reason Apple haven't updated to a later OpenGL is because they vet it every single time or something like that. It will not go into their OS unless they are 100% happy with it, So, maybe that's one reason why?

Considering how huge Apple profits are, I really don't buy this. I think major reason for developing Metal v1 was because their hardware were very, very limited, and they never wanted to publicly admit that (because it might impact their PR like a lot). All Mac/Linux developers blasted Apple for rolling out Metal because how limited it is. Despite all that, some new ports to Mac uses it.

However of course Metal 2 introduced all kind of shiny things, including compute shaders. That might work for ED. We will see.

I think they are just very arrogant and very greedy. Times of OS X as perfect UNIX platform has long gone. That does not make one bad. Just not my favourite type of person.

This is purely speculation, but:

I highly doubt that Apple care about Vulkan one way or another. I strongly suspect that this is purely because Apple feel that developing their own libraries is a better fit for them than adopting someone else's.

Yeah, also called NIH syndrome.

Bash and GNU was good for Apple...till it wasn't. Now it rots, not updated for long time. Python versions old as ages.

They don't care about desktop or laptops...phones and tablets is all majority their sales. No wonder.

When Apple profits were moderate, they actually cared. Now they don't.

 

[VR StarLightPL]

Apple used OpenGL to begin with as it was out there and largely worked, but now that Apple have two separate-but-linked hardware platforms (and operating systems) then OpenGL is no longer a good fit, so they're doing a Mcrosoft and developing their own graphics libraries to take best advantage of their own hardware.

Microsoft have DirectX for PC and XBox.
Sony have whatever it is that Sony have.
The Open Source community has Vulkan.
But somehow, when Apple do their own thing then somehow they're bad guys.

Riiiiiight.

The sane thing to do in current market situation would be "admitting defeat" and moving to Vulkan because of it's cross-platform nature. This way you open yourself for broader range of software support with lesser effort from the software authors. I don't own an Apple product, I'm only basing my opinion on what I read here months ago in the topic "Horizons for Mac" or something similar. And it seemed that at one point they decided to drop opengl support "because reasons". You were active in that thread too, so you're probably right Apologies if my memory/forum skewed the issue. Still, the argument that doing something bad is good because others are doing it. As for me, DirectX can go burn in hell right now, opengl always seemed like a niche nerd thing for conspiracy theorists who claimed that "micro$oft (dx) and nvidia are conspiring!!1111" etc. Vulkan promises fast development across platforms. Will it deliver? We will see. Doom 2016 is indeed faster on Vulkan than on DX... Anyhow it would be cool for Mac users if Apple didn't try to set Yet Another "Standard" but tried to follow an existing one.

Anyhow, if they move to Vulkan and in general the userbase of Elite moves forward both software and hardware-wise, the engine would perhaps be capable of doing things better, including mixing multiple light sources. Maybe a linux version? Profit

 

[Kerrash]

Assuming that switching graphics APIs would allow a different lighting model to be employed seems like a woefully inadequate oversimplification :S

EDIT:
From prior experience, I believe a key reason for not supporting >1 light sources was due to the potentially huge range of relative luminosity.
e.g. A brown dwarf next to a hot B star would not contribute any meaningful quantity of light.

I am not aware of any API which correctly handles or calculates such a range

 

[VR StarLightPL]

Assuming that switching graphics APIs would allow a different lighting model to be employed seems like a woefully inadequate oversimplification :S

More like a thought shortcut, consisting of cutting off 32bit, old directxs/opengls and using an api which was so far proven faster than directx will most probably open the possibility of making more demanding lighting model ;-)

 

[S3B4ST13N]

Considering how huge Apple profits are, I really don't buy this. I think major reason for developing Metal v1 was because their hardware were very, very limited, and they never wanted to publicly admit that (because it might impact their PR like a lot). All Mac/Linux developers blasted Apple for rolling out Metal because how limited it is. Despite all that, some new ports to Mac uses it.

However of course Metal 2 introduced all kind of shiny things, including compute shaders. That might work for ED. We will see.

I think they are just very arrogant and very greedy. Times of OS X as perfect UNIX platform has long gone. That does not make one bad. Just not my favourite type of person..

I can agree; Apple have that kind of mentality. I mean, they instruct app makers to include loading screens.. even if those loading screens don't do anything, simply to make it appear as if their hardware is faster than it is.

Yay. I found where I read it. It was a reddit post.
https://www.reddit.com/r/apple/comments/27x5in/why_is_apple_still_using_opengl_41/

The piece in question:

A friend at Apple kind of explained this to me once.
Apple has extremely high standards regarding framework performance as far as reliability. Usually what's "good enough" for Apple is a substantially different standard than most other platforms, and often considered even by their own employees to be outrageous. It's the price they pay for being able to say "it just works".
Make of that what you will, please don't shoot the messenger

 

[GreyAreaUK]

The sane thing to do in current market situation would be "admitting defeat"

What defeat? Their requirements are no longer met by OpenGL, so they're rolling their own and using it themselves. Dogfooding it, as it's called. I freely admit that it would be nice if they cooperated with the Vulkan people, but Apple like to be in complete control of certain aspects of their ecosystem, and developing two separate graphics APIs makes no sense.

 

[Cmdr Eagleboy]

I can agree; Apple have that kind of mentality. I mean, they instruct app makers to include loading screens.. even if those loading screens don't do anything, simply to make it appear as if their hardware is faster than it is.

Yay. I found where I read it. It was a reddit post.
https://www.reddit.com/r/apple/comments/27x5in/why_is_apple_still_using_opengl_41/

The piece in question:

Considering how low effort Metal was and how platform centric it was and how it removed any newer OpenGL versions...

I don't buy it and I don't think 'friend at Apple' really knows what and why upper management decided to do so.

Ok, but that's old enough horse beaten to death already. Every time I hear Metal story though I wish David would have been brave and released Linux port instead of Mac. But what's done done.

What defeat? Their requirements are no longer met by OpenGL, so they're rolling their own and using it themselves. Dogfooding it, as it's called. I freely admit that it would be nice if they cooperated with the Vulkan people, but Apple like to be in complete control of certain aspects of their ecosystem, and developing two separate graphics APIs makes no sense.

They don't have to develop it. They have to *allow* *vendors* to support it. As they do on Windows. Heck, both Nvidia and AMD would be ready to allow OpenGL 4.5 on MacOS if Apple would greenlight it.

That 'not good enough for our walled garden' could work if they would do their own graphics cards for desktops. But soon they won't do their own GPUs for their own phones.

That's a pitch to their policy and you know it.

 

[Cmdr Eagleboy]

Assuming that switching graphics APIs would allow a different lighting model to be employed seems like a woefully inadequate oversimplification :S

EDIT:
From prior experience, I believe a key reason for not supporting >1 light sources was due to the potentially huge range of relative luminosity.
e.g. A brown dwarf next to a hot B star would not contribute any meaningful quantity of light.

I am not aware of any API which correctly handles or calculates such a range

Sorry, we have gone offtopic there. And yes, you remember correctly. It was quite complex decision, and FD certainly plans or wants to address that in future.

It would be nice to hear their updates on that. But again...due of our superhero power of being able to take everything out of context, confirmed, or not, most likely they will tell us only days before beta will roll out who will fix that.

 

[GreyAreaUK]

They don't have to develop it. They have to *allow* *vendors* to support it.

Out of interest, what's preventing them? Last I checked you could still install any software from any vendor on a Mac.

 

[Cmdr Eagleboy]

Out of interest, what's preventing them? Last I checked you could still install any software from any vendor on a Mac.

Graphics drivers are one of exceptions that can't be published as installable on MacOS unless Apple approves them. Also they use API compatibility wrapper for OpenGL and they haven't updated it beyond 4.1.

Just to give idea - Metal 2 will be first thing *allowing* compute shaders on MacOS platform. 7 years after OpenGL and DX11 allowed it on Windows and other OSes.

 

[Kerrash]

... I wish David would have been brave and released Linux port instead of Mac. ...

I would have preferred that too but I believe it was more to do with financial viability rather than courage

 

[Cmdr Eagleboy]

I would have preferred that too but I believe it was more to do with financial viability rather than courage

It is another offtopic - third branch - but have been working on Linux development for last 5 years....I am kinda happy they didn't do that, because Linux market and gaming was non-existant at that point.

At this point with new and improved graphics driver support (both OpenGL and Vulkan, both open source and binary), with improved VR support, with game devices support...yeah, if Linux will stick around and FD will decide to do port, they will end up with way less headaches that they would had if they would have done at release.

I think that's still possible. Anyway, back to making world better place. I really hope Metal 2 port isn't that expensive for FD and makes financial sense to do port for MacOS.