CM in Mac OS X - how long to wait and how many more excuses?

[Toad]

Why spend thousands of hours making a brand new graphics engine for a brand new game when:

There are many graphics engines already made and ready for developers. Why make a new one?

The Combat Mission series is a known success and customers - Mac and Windows both - will pay to have their favourite game updated.

If BF.com doesn't have the technical talent to do the updating, why not get a company involved who can? There are many companies out there who do exactly that kind of work.

It doesn't make any sense. I think BF.com has a business opportunity under their noses but they've been distracted by the gleam of whatever this "new" project is.

[Olle Petersson]

Originally posted by tar:

The only thing I found a bit odd was that I've never seen any description of precisely which of the unsupported RAVE calls (in Classic) the CM series relies on.

IIRC this question was up around the time for the release of CMBB, and the following answer is my recollection of that thread (that should be available in the archives of 2002).

The issue is about the resolutions available.

- CMBO can be run in 640x480 and up.

- CMBB and CMAK require 800x600 or higher.

- OSX (early versions) Classic only support 640x480.

Therefore CMBO can be run in Classic at 640x480, and no other game/resolution combination is supported.

Cheers

Olle

[Schrullenhaft]

Double-post... I screwed up.

[ May 04, 2005, 05:39 PM: Message edited by: Schrullenhaft ]

[Schrullenhaft]

Toad - you seem to be under the impression that it would only take a short while to re-code the CMx1 series to allow it to work under OS X. That's an incorrect assumption.

The reason the CMx1 series doesn't work with OS X is that 3D RAVE is not fully supported in OS X and that is the crucial part to CMx1 working within OS X. I'm not sure of the reasons, whether it is a specific set of calls that aren't supported by the Classic RAVE extension or the actual lack of hardware-level access for RAVE calls (they have to be converted into OpenGL by the Classic RAVE extension as far as I'm aware).

CMBO is able to work since it has a 640 x 480 software rendering mode that is compatible with the RAVE support in 0S X. CMBB & CMAK don't have this software rendering mode since they have a minimum required resolution of 800 x 600. I can only guess that it was determined (at the time) that software rendering of 800 x 600 resolutions was too slow and thus the capability for software rendering was dropped (though CMBO couldn't software render at 800 x 600 either, so it may have required somewhat more code to allow for that). Another possible reason is that software rendering down-samples all of the bitmaps in the game (giving it that "blocky" look). In CMBB & CMAK with their higher resolution bitmaps this may have seemed unacceptable performance-wise and aesthetically too. The down-sampling required for software rendering may have been quite extreme in order to get even mild performance out of a fast CPU.

In order to get the CMx1 series to work with OS X, it would require the re-programming of the 3D engine to an API that is supported in OS X - OpenGL. However this isn't a light undertaking. With only one programmer (who previously took somewhere between 1 to 3 years programming the original RAVE 3D engine) that's a lot of effort - and a long time in game terms. From a business perspective, it just wasn't worth re-programming the CMx1 series to be OS X compatible. Instead it is smarter to program the next game in a compatible 3D API that will be supported by OS X and at the same time incorporate all of the changes and improvements that have been desired for so long.

Admittedly that course of action doesn't sit too well with Mac OS X users, some of whom complain bitterly about being "forgotten" and "sold out". Well, BFC is a business and they have to work for their income. It makes better business sense to spend your time where it benefits the most users. In this case re-programming CMx1 into the OpenGL API for the Mac (and potentially PC) markets wouldn't be wise since this is development time that is spent on an older engine that has a lot of limitations. Though no analogy is perfect.... think of it this way. Would it be smarter to attempt to further perfect/fix a steam-powered locomotive or would it be a better idea to put the time in developing a diesel-powered locomotive (more power, more effeciency - at least for the sake of the analogy) ?

I understand that Mac users are upset that CM hasn't kept up with their OS choices. But the fact of the matter is that re-coding the game is a very large effort that would delay new development in order to please a small share of their market (don't take insult to this, but the Mac is a very small portion compared to the PC side in overall sales). It's bad business sense to think and work in this manner since it can put you out of business. We all want BFC/BTS to write perfect games that address all of our "niggles", but there is a point of diminishing returns. In this case it was a matter of imperfect information and decisions in the past that affect what could be realistically be done in the present. BFC/BTS were left with only supporting Windows/OS 9.x in the successive games in the CMx1 series.

CMx2's development is the only way that OS X users were ever going to be pleased. I'm sure some people would say that they would be willing to wait another year to have OpenGL compatible CMx1 games and delay CMx2 for another two years. However CMx2 is going to be a big improvement for BFC/BTS - sort of like going from a paper filing system to a (organized) computer database (I believe the improvements in the data structures are that big of a difference for BFC/BTS).

[Dawg Bonz]

Schrullenhaft - However CMx2 is going to be a big improvement for BFC/BTS - and per Rune Beta testing Q4 2005.

We are already in May 2005. The new and improved CMx2(s) for OSX will be with us soon. The CM1 trilogy is comfortable, fun. The games are easy to use diversions that have facilitated teaching me how to war game. It is easy to become affectionate with games like this but I expect CMx2 will enrich my war game experience even more. My Mac OS9 CM1 trilogy will fade into fond memories as I move on to newer games from BFC/BTS and a newer Mac than my ‘new’ Quicksilver single G4.

If the reports of support for multiple-core processors in Tiger are true, I am more concerned with how soon the dual-core Power Macs will be ready and when I will have the money for a PowerPC 970MP running at speeds of 3GHz and the 23" display of course.

Dawg… with a wealth of mileage to go in CM1 fun on an ‘old’ Mac.

[Redwolf]

Instead of just wining the Mac folks should get off their behinds and actually code a solution.

The problem here is that the Rave API is not supported in MacOS X.

The Linux people were facing the same problem with the Windoze emulator Wine. Not only did they have to map OS calls. For 3D APIs they were lucky when the game had an OpenGL mode because they is a direct mapping to Linux OpenGL and worked quickly.

Now they wanted to run DirectX only games. So they wrote an implementation of Direct3D on top of OpenGL. It can be a little slow but nothing you couldn't solve by throwing more CPU at it. And for people who like older games that is generally not an issue, modern CPUs overkill older games very well.

There is absolutely no reason why the Mac people cannot write a Rave shared library which is mapping to OpenGL, at least if they are willing to take a speed it. It's entirely the same thing.

And no you don't need to be Apple to do that, this can be done in userlevel with a shared library.

Dawg Bonz, it is a safe guess that CMx2 will not be multithreaded and hence not use dual-processor or dual-core.

[Dawg Bonz]

Thanks Redwolf. I may just need to bump my video card (32MB now) and increase my CPU (single 700MHz now) speed? That would be fine. The old QS 2001 works fine with what I do now. That would give the little old lady more time to get tired of her G5

Dawg

[Dawg Bonz]

Mac OSX questions.

I realize no CMx2 system requirement figures are out but I would assume the Apple 23" and 30" displays will be supported in CMx2?

If I put a 128MB video card (like a Radeon 9800 Pro) in my current 2001 QS - 700MHz (1.25GB ram) could that combination drive CMBO-BB-AK on a 23" Apple display?

Dawg… dreams of a BIG screen, cinematic CMX experience.

[Schrullenhaft]

I'm not completely familiar with which resolutions are supported by the Radeon 9800 under OS 9.x. The Apple 23" Cinema Display supports resolutions of 1920 x 1200, 1280 x 800 and 1024 x 640. These are generally non-standard resolutions and Apple mentions the need for OS 10.2.8 as a minimum. The OS 10.2.8 listing may be related to the supported resolutions and built-in video drivers. It's possible that OS 9.x wouldn't work with this display .

I'm not sure how CM would scale on such displays either. CMx1 tends to max out at 1600 x 1200 (at least it does so on the PC). I guess it comes down to which resolutions will be supported by a Radeon 9800 under OS 9.x.

As for CMx2, I believe that setup would probably work. Since CMx2 is most likely going to use the OpenGL API, as long as there's 3D support at those particular resolutions CMx2 should display on them. I don't know if there's any intention on limiting the maximum resolution that CMx2 will support. If it is left to the OS and its 3D hardware support then you'll probably be fine. Since Charles is probably aware of these displays he'll probably support them.

[ May 05, 2005, 03:22 PM: Message edited by: Schrullenhaft ]

[Dawg Bonz]

As always, thank you Schrullenhaft.

I suspected CMx1 was a non-starter with the Apple 23" Cinema Display. CMx1 max for my system on the NEC FP912SB (CRT) was 1600 x 1200. My Apple 17" Studio Display (ADC) works fine at 1280x1024 with the 32MB GeForce2MX card.

The recent price drops in Apple Cinema Displays, along with the NEC’s terminal signals, are making me covet a single 23" LCD display.

It would be nice to play the trusty CMx1 with a 23" LCD display if possible but… OSX-CMx2.. Q6-2005… release announcements in Jamaica… or so the rumor bones predict.

Dawg… wondering what the CMx2 at 1920 x 1200 at 120 jezebels ‘experience’ would do to bow-wow?

* Sadly the NEC (a fine looking display) has recently started with a ‘single white line of death’ display after a few minutes of on time. Tried several different machines / card combinations and same thing. Not sure why or what the symptom means other than… $100.00 to ‘diagnosis’ and then labor and parts to repair with a 30-day warranty. I don’t require dual display capability but have gotten accustomed to it.

[Schrullenhaft]

If you're getting a vertical white line on the monitor's display, then it sound like the Horizontal Output Transistor (HOT) is bad. Typcially this is a $10 - $35 part (with a hopefully good or exact match for a replacement part).

The problem of course is the high cost of the labor and the limited (30 day) warranty. Sometimes when a HOT goes out there may be other circuitry that is marginal too that may cause the HOT to fry again. Often a frustrating experience, especially with older, frequently used monitors. Monitor repair seems to best be left for expensive, excellent quality monitors that can justify the cost.

[Dawg Bonz]

Schrullenhaft, Thanks. Your advice is exactly what 2 other local computer wizards hinted at. IOW: fixable but $150.00 down the road and 60 days latter… repeat failure = not worth it. I may just wait and save the $ for the 128MB video card (like a Radeon 9800 Pro for the Mac G4) and ‘struggle’ in a single monitor universe till CMx2 arrives.

Dawg… looking boldly into the Mac OSX – CMx2 Universe and beyond.

[jeffsmith]

When my old "Apple 17 inch CRT" Died

I picked up a used 20 inch VGA monitor for $99

[Redwolf]

I really hope that CMx2 does not just walk a list of random resolution but allows you to set any resolution by hand.

OpenGL does not specify any particular resolutions, you can still drive the video card any way you want, like in 2D. Only the OS might come up with (sometimes wrong) suggestions. It's a pity that CMx1 maxes out at 1600x1200 for no good reason, people could happily use their widescreen LCDs if the video selection mechanism in CMx1 wasn't so underdeveloped.

I would recommend against the Apple displays. The Dell 20" and 24" widescreen displays are much cheaper, in the case of the 20" have the same actual LCD, and are a lot more flexible with inputs (have video input, partly they have dual-pictures etc.). The Apple 23" is clearly overpriced and actually doesn't look as good as the Dell 24".

[Dawg Bonz]

Thanks for the advice Jeff. Now that I have had the LCD monitor I am actually considering going all LCD now when money allows. They really do generate less heat and I have more space for ‘stuff’ on my desk.

Redwolf, I have read other similar comments on the Dell 20" and 24" widescreen displays. Do not have the cash for a new monitor yet but will check out the Dells.

Any resolution by hand & widescreen displays… would be a sweet treat.

Thanks,

Dawg

[jeffsmith]

LCD was the plan

the bank account said CRT

[TufenHuden]

Toad,

You can buy a real PC with AMD64-2800-512-PC400

ram-find GF-46XX or 59XX somewhere for under $300.00

$400.00-Macs are expensive-seems like you got the cash-sorry that BFC doesn't run your OS-me personally I hate smacks(Macs)no real support for them or you can try wine OS for free under Lunix

I think-or XP emulator-that's all I can say.

[jeffsmith]

You have a virus fest on your PC

and you hate Macs ?

Glad it was only one

and you were able to deal with it

[ May 08, 2005, 12:29 PM: Message edited by: jeffsmith ]

[Capt.Clicky]

In searching for news on CM Mac development I keep reading allusions to CMx2 requiring a G5 as opposed to a 4. Is this true? Golly, I'll have to start thinking about upgrading my not-so-ancient 1Ghz eMac just to buy CMx2 :eek:

[To keep the irony down I'll make sure to buy it from a reseller so as not to give Apple the extra business directly ].

[Pzman]

I sure hope you don't need a G5, because I wont be getting one anytime soon. I'm already running 10.4 so I hope that will be enough with my 1.2GHZ G4.

[Schrullenhaft]

No specs have been released as to what the hardware requirements are on the PC or Mac. The only thing that Steve has said so far is that if you're running a P3 1GHz, then you're very borderline/under the potential specs for the game. On the Mac side I'd assume that a fast G4 should be plenty to run CMx2, though that is only a guess.

You have to remember that BFC/BTS wouldn't want to set a hardware requirement for their games to a level that a large chunk of the potential audience couldn't play it. While G5's will certainly be more plentiful by the end of this year or beginning of 2006, it's probably fair to say that there will still be plenty of G4's out there.

Again, as far as I'm aware, no hardware specs have been defined for CMx2. We don't know the range of options or hardware that the game will require, either as a "preferred" configuration or as a "minimum" configuration. Obviously newer & faster hardware would probably be a safe recommendation (for those who are purchasing), but the minimum requirements haven't been defined yet.

[TufenHuden]

Capt.Clicky,

Don't like Smacks because:

1)Allot Games isn't supported for the smack.

2)Wired controls-pushing buttons on keyboard

to open drives.

The Things I do like about smacks.

1)Mac-OS are stable but like no support

for games or Higher-end smacks and off course

CM can't play on it.

2)They are powerful fast Smacks but can't do

much with games.

3)No virus's-nobody attacking smacks like

Windows is because of Gates-but it if Jobs

was like Gates smacks would be attack with

Virus's as well-any OS-Smacks or Windows

can be hacked-as well.

BTW only got one Virus and my PC still running

snort!!!!!

[Redwolf]

Originally posted by TufenHuden:

1)Mac-OS are stable but like no support

for games or Higher-end smacks and off course

CM can't play on it.

Well, you can get a NVidia GeForce 6800 Ultra for the G5s, and not at a too horrible price.

That is as good as it gets on a PC without doing either SLI or going bad drivers land (ATI has a card minimally faster for some games).

And the Mac version of that card supports dual-link DVI which is very hard to get for PCs and is required for LCD displays with resolutions like the 30" Apple cinema display.

[Pzman]

Originally posted by TufenHuden:

Capt.Clicky,

Don't like Smacks because:

1)Allot Games isn't supported for the smack.

2)Wired controls-pushing buttons on keyboard

to open drives.

The Things I do like about smacks.

1)Mac-OS are stable but like no support

for games or Higher-end smacks and off course

CM can't play on it.

2)They are powerful fast Smacks but can't do

much with games.

3)No virus's-nobody attacking smacks like

Windows is because of Gates-but it if Jobs

was like Gates smacks would be attack with

Virus's as well-any OS-Smacks or Windows

can be hacked-as well.

BTW only got one Virus and my PC still running

snort!!!!!

As for not liking Macs I can answer many of those

1}Only the really good games make it over, saves you a lot of cash

2}Not sure what you mean by that... not even a clue

1}No support for games well that can be a fair argument till you look at the other no.1

2}See no.1

3}And you think people don't try to make Mac viruses haha.

[jeffsmith]

Originally posted by Pzman:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by TufenHuden:

2)Wired controls-pushing buttons on keyboard

to open drives.

snort!!!!!

2}Not sure what you mean by that... not even a clue

</font>