I think you guys would really benefit if you were to take some time out to make a Linux version. Ofcourse the Direct X stuff would have to be OpenGL but it could be done right??

Does anyone else here agree? I know alot of people run Linux servers.. they could probably tell you how much of a more stable environment it is.

Just a few cents from an old friend. :up:

Quote from crumbut :

I think you guys would really benefit if you were to take some time out to make a Linux version. Ofcourse the Direct X stuff would have to be OpenGL but it could be done right??

Does anyone else here agree? I know alot of people run Linux servers.. they could probably tell you how much of a more stable environment it is.

Just a few cents from an old friend. :up:

o do this the game ould need to be re-writen, which would slow both games down and take an age to do, and as good as it would be, it wouldnt be worth it, so -1

Uh oh... RSC invading...

I don't think this will happen, at least not until the game/sim is finished. Maybe when that time comes.

IF there is going to be some version for Linux, it will only be a dedicated server.
I don't believe there are enough linux users out there who would actually play LFS on linux. Linux users are rare, and the ones that also play on those linux machines dont really exist.

Quote from ORION :

Linux users are rare

Because little popular Windows software is written for Linux also, it becomes a vicious circle. With the advent of Vista I'm hoping more people will begin to switch (myself included).

A prerequisite for LFS under linux is properly working FFB. Currently the only supported FFB-standard is iForce, which is mostly dead since '00 I think. So no FFB under Linux at the moment.
(If FFB was working I'd already be playing LFS under linux using wine.)

Vain

Suggested, LFS works fine in cedega with minor shadow bug. Momo works fine too.

I would also be very happy about a Linux version of LFS. But it needn't be a native Linux version, maybe Scavier could give some valuable information to the Cedega crew. FFB is of course the main problem here...
I completely agree that there are just a very few Linux Gamers, but since some consider switching to Linux when Vista is out (including myself), it would be a good idea. Actually, I hate dual-booting my machine for LFS and for a few other games like Pro Evolution Soccer, because I only use WinXP for gaming; all other stuff is done from within my Kanotix/Debian Linux.

Quote from Bob Smith :

Because little popular Windows software is written for Linux also, it becomes a vicious circle. With the advent of Vista I'm hoping more people will begin to switch (myself included).

When Vista comes out, i'll stay with XP.

And -1 for Open GL, DirectX is OK.

Quote from duke_toaster :

When Vista comes out, i'll stay with XP.

And -1 for Open GL, DirectX is OK.

i hate vista and M$ right now, im looking at a new gfx card, and because DX10 is coming out i have to wait because if i buy a card now, even though its fast enough it wont play many more new games, DX9 still has plenty of life in it, there just trying to force people to upgraade to Vista

That's why I hope LFS stays at DX9.

Quote from duke_toaster :

That's why I hope LFS stays at DX9.

iirc is DX8.1! a couple of textures and AA/AF and it looks great, put it to 9 and we can get some snazzy lighting effects as well, although if the this comes in S3 it may be DX10

Quote from Jakg :

iirc is DX8.1! a couple of textures and AA/AF and it looks great, put it to 9 and we can get some snazzy lighting effects as well, although if the this comes in S3 it may be DX10

OK then, up to and including DX9. DX8.1 is OK anyway, I don't see the need for the extra eye candy DX9 provides.

Quote from duke_toaster :

OK then, up to and including DX9. DX8.1 is OK anyway, I don't see the need for the extra eye candy DX9 provides.

Why? I agree LFS is great as it is now, but the extra features in DX9 would make it look great! some games overuse effects like HDR and shiny things, but when correctly used, those effects are great. I don't mind waiting until S3 for a DX9 upgrade, but I hope they do it. Physics simulation is the main feature of any sim, but graphics and soud are important too, IMO. And I'm sure if the dev team decides to switch to DX9 won't make stupid NFSU-like shiny things

Just my two cents.

I really don't see the problem of using DX9 features in the future. By the time S3 will be out there will be a lot of people with DX9 cards, probably quite a few will have DX10 cards. But I think the switch from DX9 to DX10 will take a very long time because it requires people to use Vista.
The transfer from DX8 to DX9 took quite some time as well. Anyway, I am pretty sure LFS will not be DX10.
The point is, I can't imagine LFS ever requiring a DX9 card or forcing eyecandy on people. I'm sure it will be scalable and possible for people to choose the level of eyecandy if their PC won't be able to handle it all.
So what's the problem? A big part of S3 will be a graphical update anyway as I understand.
Ofcourse physics are the most important thing, but that doesn't mean Scavier won't have time for anything else.
I for one would be dissapointed if LFS wouldn't advance on the graphics level. Not that it looks bad now though.
If eyecandy is completely irrelevant we might as well remove the skies, remove all the textures, etc.

I get the feeling that everyones forgotten other parts of porting applications; network and file io, available libraries, etc. etc.

Considering the test apps, such as the InSim one Scawen has released, use the WSA events functions, as opposed to the berkeley functions, and a few other things, I'd guess that it would be more work than anyone realises.

Then again, if LFS uses an object orientated ethos where everything is abstracted then it shouldn't be as complicated as everything written inline

Quote from Orion :

IF there is going to be some version for Linux, it will only be a dedicated server.

I have great respect for you Orion, and certainly the evidence points that way, but can you really say that for a fact?

As Scawen has said in the past, his *ix experience was limited. Whether this has changed is another question. I'd love to see it happen, but I'm not sure we'll see a full linux client at anytime in the future.

Quote from duke_toaster :

And -1 for Open GL, DirectX is OK.

Don't dis OpenGL . OpenGL owns Direct3D (not DirectX).

I'm gonna try linux too, again. For office and desktop things it is very nice, specially with OpenOffice.Org etc, being all free.. But no gaming on linux I guess, even with the ut2003 awhile back which had a linux install version, I lost like 30/40fps... So I think I'll need to keep a dual for games.

Quote from george_tsiros :

Don't dis OpenGL . OpenGL owns Direct3D (not DirectX).

OpenGL 2.0 owns DirectX, OpenGL 2.0 is multiplatform.

one thing i am looking at is VMware (and VPC for windows installs) seeing as their both free, the thought of Ubuntu through my desktop seems pointless, but the thought of windows through VM on Ubuntu sounds strangely exciting

wait a minute, i could just use VPC 2004 and try Vista...

I have a better idea, DirectX for linux.

Despite the fact I am a Linux user (I am writing this on a Linux box) I am against a Linux LFS client. Why? Simple: It would detract for the sim. If LFS was to be ported it would take time away from Scawen that would be better spent implementing new features in the current Windows client, such as the improved AI etc.

Another thing that would happen is that the Linux version would run slower than the native Windows port. I have seen this trend for all the games I have tried that have both Linux and Windows clients. Take UT2004 for example. On the SAME machine I get 20-40fps lower on average than in Windows, with the same graphics options.

I am also happy running LFS in Cedega. The shadow bug was solved for me by just disabling shadows altogether, and I do not need FFB, as my wheel does not support it (I have a Saitek R220). I may get a lower FPS, but it is better than it not running at all, and saves Scawen a lot of time.

The final thing that I would disagree with the Linux client idea on is the idea of unlocking. If someone was to, say, update their kernel (which is pretty common, considering kernel updates are released pretty much every few days) would that waste an unlock on that machine? If the way that unlocking works on Windows was used, yes. It is all well and good directly porting the game to Linux, but if it is going to lock itself again after a kernel update, then what is the point in it?

Quote from wheel4hummer :

I have a better idea, DirectX for linux.

Despite this being wrong on so many levels: take a look at WINE and Cedega which actually does this.

Quote from JohnUK89 :

If someone was to, say, update their kernel (which is pretty common, considering kernel updates are released pretty much every few days) would that waste an unlock on that machine?

I think there was an linux client for S1. I think I remember using it , worked like a charm.

Quote from the_angry_angel :

Despite this being wrong on so many levels: take a look at WINE and Cedega which actually does this.

LMAO, yea. Hell no DX Yo!

Quote from Dygear :

I think there was an linux client for S1. I think I remember using it , worked like a charm.

You must've been the only one. Unless there was some secret release that I'm unaware of.

Quote from Dygear :

LMAO, yea. Hell no DX Yo!

It's more to do with submarine patents and the danger to open source software, etc. but partially yes