BFC/troops Contacting Apple re RAVE & Dual OS; checking my facts

[kmead]

I wouldn't take to heart the negative posters, most of those forums have some of the most cynical, elitist and unpleasant people I have ever exchanged posts with (this is true of many computer related boards not just Mac). The ones who will help are more likely to just help than post. In addition the posters tend not to know all that much, spouting generalities and pushing acquired buzzword lingo.

I don't hold much hope for any assistance from Apple. I suppose we might try getting the forum members here to sign a petition asking Apple to assist. I don't know how many we really are, and our hosts are not too likely to provide us with any absolute numbers relative to Mac users. Understandably. But for a thousand users (or so assuming @10% of registered forum members are Mac users, yeah right ) Apple is not likely to want to do much.

Thank you for your efforts.

[aka_tom_w]

I am now receive a LOT of replies to the original post I mailed to the apple gamer developers mail list

this reply is typical:

"LOL!

Let's see... In Dec '96 one of our QD3D engineers ported it to use (Conix's)

OpenGL in about a week (This was never a "shipping" product). I believe it

was Jan of '99 that we announced we were purchasing Conix and embracing the

"standard". At WWDC in May of that year (99?) we very plainly stated that

QD3D & RAVE would NOT be in Carbon and we that we had no plans to port ether

to Mac OS X. Since that time a well implemented open source version of QD3D

has been written: <http://www.quesa.org>. I've actively supported that

effort as well as been directly involved in the porting of RAVE applications

to OpenGL. It just isn't that difficult and in almost all cases performs

better that the RAVE versions. (And definitely more cross-platform.) My

guesstimate is that the average RAVE application took about a week (5

working days) to port to OpenGL. Granted this was being done by a

knowledgeable (of RAVE & OpenGL) engineer so that wouldn't include the

OpenGL learning curve.

<http://maccentral.macworld.com/gaming/news/9811/09.conix.shtml>

<http://maccentral.macworld.com/news/9901/06.conix.shtml>

For me OpenGL vs. RAVE was a "no-brainer". But if you want to discuss

QD3D...

--

Enjoy,

George Warner,

Mixed Mode Magic Fragment Scientist

Apple Developer Technical Support (DTS)"

[aka_tom_w]

as you can see there is a lot of negativity

"On Wed, 30 Apr 2003, tcw wrote:

> The situation, bad as it is, has been compounded by Battlefront.com's

> recent announcement that special, expanded (better visuals, lots of new

> scenarios) retail editions of CMBO and CMBB will be Windows only. Why?

> "Known OS X compatibility issues." This will of course further

> negatively skew public perception of the Mac for gaming. The sordid

> tale (and related driver woes) is here:

>

The fact that Rave won't be supported in Mac OS X was clear from the

start.

Die-hard Rave-only developers like Brian Greenstone of Pangea sucessfully

switched to OpenGL, and even released early titles for OS X 10.0 (Cro-Mag

Rally comes to mind).

Which 3D API is the Windows version using?

Direct3D?

If so, then there must be some sort of abstraction layer for the

underlying 3D API. Adding an additional OpenGL backend should be a simple

thing.

The game graphics look dated anyways, since they're using Rave, they can't

add any special support for the features of today's graphics hardware

(vertext and pixel shader, etc.). This should make the OpenGL porting task

even simpler. Lots of other developer have done this.

Apple is not to blame here.

The developers clearly made a lot of mistakes. For one, they didn't get

involved with the ADC to find out which APIs are going to be supported and

which won't. They didn't adopt OS X as a development platform (it's been

out for 2 frickin' years!), and they didn't try to find a suitable

cross-platform solution,otherwise they would have decided to use OpenGL

on Mac & Windows.

So I'm not really feeling sorry for them for lost sales.

Regards,

Andreas"

[aka_tom_w]

this guy says the port to Open GL "should" take a day

"

>The company, now a whole six people, is Battlefront.com

>(www.battlefront.com), which created and marketed via the Internet the

>revolutionary, 3-D, hybrid turn based wargame Combat Mission: Beyond

>Overlord (CMBO), winner of a slew of awards. Battlefront.com, which

>does all its development on Macs and then ports for PCs, then followed

>up with a new, even more successful game based on an enhanced version of

>the same engine, Combat Mission: Barbarossa to Berlin (CMBB)

>(www.battlefront.com/index.htm), relying on Apple's statements about

>there being full RAVE API support in the as then unreleased OS X. There

>was no money or manpower to migrate to Open GL. The shift to Open GL

>was set for the new game engine set for debut about two years from now,

>CMX2. Here's what happened.

Ok here is where you are missing things.

If you have any kind of abstracted 3D api layer like you probably should for

doing cross platform work.

Moving to GL might take you a day.

It took only me a few hours to move my engine from RAVE to GL and carbon.

--

Email: chrisd@plaidworld.com

iChat / AIM: crackbunny@mac.com

Buy Art : http://www.starbounce.com

Listen to Music: http://www.trance-o-matic.com

Play Games: Plaid World Studios http://www.plaidworld.com

Learn game programming at http://www.idevgames.com

Day job: Software Engineer for http://www.riskwise.com, Part of LexisNexis"

[aka_tom_w]

I would guess this could be nominated for the most elitest...... :eek:

"Dude,

I am very sorry to hear your woes however I think you will find that writing

a RAVE API wrapper to wrap to OpenGL will take less code then the length of

your rant. I am sure there are plenty of people on this list and other who

would be willing to support you in every way possible.

This is not the time for accusations but the time to get 'the red book' out!

good luck.

--

be seeing you

dazza@home

_______________________________________________

mac-games-dev mailing list | mac-games-dev@lists.apple.com

Help/Unsubscribe/Archives: http://www.lists.apple.com/mailman/listinfo/mac-games-dev

Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.

"

[Gyrene]

My Apple rep is at the Mothership for a week (i.e. Cupertino) and I haven't been able to finnagle the stuff from him yet.

Gyrene

[aka_tom_w]

more of the same

"

On Wednesday, April 30, 2003, at 07:00 AM, tcw wrote:

> The first is for Apple to properly implement the same

> RAVE API that OS 9.2.2. had.

RAVE is dead. Has been for a long time. Apple made this extremely

clear.

> So there you have it, another sterling example of how Apple manages

> to make the great leap backwards in a boneheaded move some of us deem

> worse than scrapping the clone licenses.

Although there may be a very small number of developers that wish Apple

was keeping RAVE alive, I think it's safe to say that the majority of

developers understand that it's a dead-end API, isn't worth putting any

resources into and are fully supportive of Apple's decision to adopt

OpenGL as the only supported 3D API.

Your community's lack of understanding of that doesn't make Apple's

decision "boneheaded." They made the correct move. The failure of the

developer to adopt a supported API is not Apple's fault either.

RAVE was introduced in a time when no clear API winner existed in the

market. That has changed completely. The winners are OpenGL and

DirectX (on the PC).

> We of the CMBB gaming

> community in particular and the Mac gaming community at large earnestly

> solicit your help in protecting a tiny Mac game developer (so few

> left!)

> from Apple's dumb moves, in restoring our beloved game to the

> functionality it should've had if Apple had only done what it said it

> would,

Apple never said it would support RAVE forever, and I don't recall them

saying they'd support it in OS X. When the decision was made to adopt

OpenGL, it was made very clear that OpenGL would be the supported API

going forward.

In short, you're wasting your time and energy lobbying Apple for RAVE

support in OS X. It's not going to happen, period.

It shouldn't take a decent programmer long to write a

RAVE-compatibility layer for OpenGL. That's the path you should be

pursuing, rather than calling Apple stupid and asking for things which

are not going to occur.

Wade

"

[John Kettler]

Am not sure whether the Mac user replies were to what I said or what someone else said, but it is clear that sacred cattle have not only been gored, but sacrificed and eaten. Worse, we offered the elite Mac users some!

I never claimed to be an expert on the programming aspects (in fact have zero RAVE and Open GL expertise), but I did post my understanding here, and no one, not even Charles, who is the chief programmer, contradicted my main points. This tells me that either BFC's understanding of Apple's RAVE position at the time the CMBB design was frozen was at least partially incorrect, or that there is another dynamic at work. It is clear that some have rushed to defend Apple, without really understanding the full import of my words, for my letter wasn't just about RAVE. Rather, it dealt with a concatenation of problems, of which the RAVE issues and disappearance of OS 9.2.2 from the formerly dual OS product line were primary, and the various driver matters secondary, though important. It needs to be emphasized that BFC in the pre CMBB release days had, at most, three? people, all of whom were very busy.

If there is indeed a fast, cheap, quick path to Open GL, then I'd love to see BFC pursue it, but all I'm trying to do is keep CMBB and successors viable on the Mac as our options dwindle with each limiting decision by Apple and by each failure of the driver manufacturers to properly support their cards.

If the customer really is king, then why can't Apple make some sort of arrangement to support a segment of the Mac gaming community, build the Mac gaming base, and support its own sales by providing some sort of path by which the CMBO/CMBB community can run its beloved games on the new, fast G4 Macs?

Would Apple rather that people not buy its new computers, or does it somehow delight in PC buys?

Why not make, say, the dual 1.25 GHz tower more reasonable in price, why not reenable OS 9 via special reinstallable software commands in at least some of the PowerBooks and certainly the new 17" iMac? Apple could sell 17" PowerBooks to several people here if CMBB but ran properly on those fabulous rigs.

Frankly, I don't see how defections to PCs benefit Apple, Mac gaming, or the CMBO/CMBB community. It's equally true that the withdrawal of some players from this board and their refusal to buy any BFC product until the new engine comes out a few years hence doesn't help BFC either. To my mind, the present situation is costing everyone something and seems wholly unnecessary.

Regards,

John Kettler

[Guest PondScum]

Originally posted by John Kettler:

To my mind, the present situation is costing everyone something and seems wholly unnecessary.

Apple is a business. Businesses exist to make money. Apple will indeed lose something if they don't make any effort to support CMBB gamers - the marginal profits on a small number of new Macs. However, they risk losing MORE money if they tried to solve the problem - namely, the cost of the manpower required to e.g. backport RAVE, test it, market it, and support it, minus the marginal profits that brings in. Even if you could persuade them that the sums add up to a net profit for them, you're arguing against their new strategic direction (OpenGL and OS X).

So, yes, from the standpoint of what COULD be possible, the current situation is costing everyone something and is wholly unnecessary. But looked at from Apple's business perspective, the current situation is logical, and maximizes their profit.

[tar]

I suspect that on the specific issue of RAVE vs OpenGL Apple is on the right track. I don't really expect much from them.

On the more general topic of gaming support, though, I think Apple doesn't take that market segment seriously. That is perhaps a fairly short-sighted strategy. I find that my most computer-game addicted son (7 years old) keeps asking for a Windows PC because that is where all the games are. I have, so far, been resisting.

The problem for Apple, though, is that the PC really is the platform of choice for computer gamers. I mean, honestly, we Mac users did not choose the platform because of its gaming appeal. Now, the major gaming market is, presumably, consumers under 25 years of age. This is the next generation of computer users. Apple seems to understand the importance of the educational market in trying to reach out to computer users at an impressionable age, but doesn't seem to do the same on the gaming front.

Now some of this is just the economic reality of platform market share -- although it is really frustrating when I see a great big Fry's ad annoucing a new game release "for all platforms" and of course need to look at the fine print to see that this means Playstation, Nintendo, XBox and Windows BUT NOT Macintosh. (Case in point Harry Potter games for my kids. They do eventually make it to the Mac, but only months after their Windows-using friends get them.)

Anyway, I guess the bottom line issue for Apple is this: If kids get used to using Windows machines from the start -- playing games, for example, why would they suddenly want to switch to using Macintoshes when they get older? I suspect that is a very difficult market to penetrate, so letting this OS preference get established early is a Bad Idea.

[ May 02, 2003, 07:24 PM: Message edited by: tar ]

[John Kettler]

tar,

I'm starting to think Apple is schizoid, in that it has long dominated the critical educational market

on the one hand and ships all of its computers with games on the other, yet doesn't care about gaming from a marketing perspective. Am I the only one who finds this strange?

Regards,

John Kettler

[aka_tom_w]

Steve Jobs is now totally preoccupied with the Apple Music store and his new online music says service anyway.

($.99 per song available through iTunes 4)

I am not sure where the truth is here but since I posted that letter to the mac game developers list server mail list I have been SWAMPED by responses. I have not replied to any but I have posted the most "representative" samples of their thoughts here in this thread.

For me the BIG issue is CMAK

I am WAY more enthusiastic about the African front and the Med than CMBB (can't understand what anyone (either side) is saying during the battle) BUT it won't run in OSX and there is no work around for the RAVE problem so by the time this game comes out the MAC verision of it will ONLY work on a MAC that will boot into OS 9 and that will mean the latest macs won't run it, and in fact you will need a Mac that is AT LEAST a year OLD (Dual boot) to play the latest game from BTS. :confused:

BUT if the Mac market is only equal to or LESS than 10% and if MOST of those folks already have at least a 1 year old computers ANYWAY, then the impact of this issue is probably limited to less than (I would GUESS :confused: :eek: ) 100 customers.

oh well

-tom w

[ May 02, 2003, 11:35 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

[mchlstrt]

I found a site that develops a 68k emulator Basilisk II to run older Mac programs (like games) in OSX. I don't suppose that's really much help, however, as the problem now is the sys 9 emulation (and the Video Drivers). Interesting, though.

strt

[John Kettler]

Bumping this one to keep hope afloat!

Regards,

John Kettler

[Redwolf]

Well, how much Apple is hurting its gaming market depends of course on the number of games which still support Rave but not OpenGL.

Can anyone name any more games relased in 2002/2003 which do?

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by redwolf:

Well, how much Apple is hurting its gaming market depends of course on the number of games which still support Rave but not OpenGL.

Can anyone name any more games relased in 2002/2003 which do?

mostly none

BUT the educational market for kids games and software like Kids pics is still mostly stuck in OS 9 and some are RAVE.

NOT Bugdom and the other BIG games but smaller largely unknown kids educations software and some older kids games are OS 9 only and some are RAVE only. I don't have any specific examples off the top of my head.

From the replies I have in my e-mail in box from the the guys on the Mac Gamer developers mailing list it would seem we ought not to expect ANYTHING from Apple because they really couldn't care less about this issue.

-tom w

[John Kettler]

According to my Mac buying friend's source, an Apple rep, there is some sort of known to Apple but unacknowledged hack for the OS X only iMac at http://maccentral.com or www.macfixit.com I took a look, but I didn't find anything even close to what I was looking for. A Google search under "OS 9 hack for OS X" did turn up some interesting articles in which business writers argued that if Apple didn't make the OS X only machines OS 9 bootable, then hackers would and quickly. One even went so far as to suggest that Apple should make OS 9 open source. A Mac power user argued that OS X

should operate under OS 9 and had scathing things to say about Classic and the statistics showing its crummy performance. Anyone here a Mac hacker? Good point on the OS 9 w/ RAVE legacy matter!

Regards,

John Kettler

[mcbeth]

Okay, a series of questions (long time lurker)

1. Did BTS set up CMxx to fire up Classic just because of RAVE, or are there more reasons?

2. Why did they never even check to find out why RAVE was broken in Classic?

3. Why are we all ignoring the suggestion to do a RAVE -> OpenGL wrapper and instead whining?

4. Would BTS be willing to give us a list of RAVE calls made in the code so some enterprising young coders take a short-cut on the wrapper?

[Redwolf]

Originally posted by mcbeth:

3. Why are we all ignoring the suggestion to do a RAVE -> OpenGL wrapper and instead whining?

While this is certainly something that can be done with a team of enthusiasts it seems that there is a lack of interest.

People who are experienced enough with 3D APIs and do the 3D hacking in their free time do not use MacOS 9.x.

Mac users who are experienced programmers are likely to have older boxes around for MacOS 9 or are able to boot a newer ones into 9.x.

Who would be there with the ability and the pain to make this a priority for his free time?

[ May 05, 2003, 04:51 PM: Message edited by: redwolf ]

[John Kettler]

mcbeth and redwolf,

As noted before, I am not a programmer, certainly not a 3-D programmer, so I can't write a wrapper, whatever that is. What I can do is to air the various issues and try to generate some support for our cause, educate people, and maybe get some of our more technical people working on a hack or some such. I believe several solutions may work, and we need only one in order to be figuratively and literally back in the game. There is a small amount of good news in that the brand new speed boosted iBooks still retain dual OS.

Regards,

John Kettler

[ May 06, 2003, 04:32 PM: Message edited by: John Kettler ]

[demoss]

A Mac power user argued that OS X

should operate under OS 9 and had scathing things to say about Classic and the statistics showing its crummy performance. Anyone here a Mac hacker?

I'm not a Mac hacker, though I've dabbled in the past... but I do know enough about the Mac and systems in general to know that if somebody actually said that, I'd take everything else they said with a HUGE grain of salt, because it's just plain stupid. You would truly have the worst of both worlds if you even tried to run Mac OS X on top of Mac OS 9. Running a preemptive multitasking system on top of a cooperative one loses all the benefits and then some.

[John Kettler]

demoss,

As I recall, that particular item was originally written by an AMUG (some sort of Mac User's Group)

guy in the early days of OS X and was left up by the site operators as a kind of taunt against the AMUG guy as OS X continued to unfold through its various versions. His point was that people were facing serious problems with lack of appropriate

software, coupled with huge replacement expenses if the software even had an OS X version.

Regards,

John Kettler

[Redwolf]

John, in no way did I want to say "sit down and start coding instead of whining".

I just wanted to point out that while there exist very powerful volunteer software projects and while a RAVE->OpenGl wrapper is only moderately difficult in comparision to existing projects there is few hope that somebody actually sits down and does it.

[tar]

2. Why did they never even check to find out why RAVE was broken in Classic?

...

4. Would BTS be willing to give us a list of RAVE calls made in the code so some enterprising young coders take a short-cut on the wrapper?

It would seem that finding out why or what is broken or failing in the RAVE API would be a necessary prerequisite to trying to get Apple (or anyone else) to fix the problem.

Unfortunately, Charles (Battlefront) noted earlier in this thread

As to what's failing in the Classic RAVE API under OS X, well, I wish I knew the answer to that.

Is there any way that some list of the RAVE calls or features needed by CMxx could be assembled?

I did notice that in the latest 10.2.6 release of OS X, Apple included some fixes specifically to support Unreal Tournament. (OK, I know it has a much bigger fan base, but it at least shows that Apple may be willing to do some things if asked...)

[aka_tom_w]

ok

thanks for the 10.2.6 notification

who will be the first to try CMBB in OSX in classic in 10.2.6?

there new video drivers and it might help the folks with the 866 TiBooks and the psychadelic display problem when booting into OS 9?

thanks

-tom w