No, but OS X can game just fine. I could run this game on my MBP with High settings just fine. That doesn't mean that an OS X build is appropriate for market, but my point is that there's no need for belittle OS X users on the forums.Quote:
Originally Posted by Exstal
So hows that mac port going?
Printable View
-
08-26-2014, 01:56 PMLeonBlade
-
08-26-2014, 01:58 PMTsuwuIn cases where Mac ports are available, I can't see that being detrimental to any title.Quote:
Originally Posted by Exstal
Games that are fully cross platform on Steam have that much more potential to do better in terms of machines the software is installed on.
The distribution channel could even be exclusively through steam if people are highly concerned with Apple having it on the App Store.
I just don't get the unproductive platform flaming and fighting against something that would so obviously benefit the game. -
08-26-2014, 01:59 PMWafflesWhat model MBP do you use?Quote:
Originally Posted by LeonBlade
-
08-26-2014, 02:26 PMBrianmjJust wondering what do you mean by "fine"? I have to use standard settings to get 50-60 fps. If I go with high settings my fps drops down to mid 20s. I have a early 2013 MBP 2.4 GHz with nVidia 650 gtm and 8GB of ram. What are your specs?Quote:
Originally Posted by LeonBlade
-
08-26-2014, 02:47 PMLeonBladeThe 2012 MacBook Pro Retina.Quote:
Originally Posted by Waffles
The 2.6 GHz model with 16 GB of RAM.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brianmj
http://support.apple.com/kb/SP653?viewlocale=en_US
My bootcamp had driver issues so I would always get problems with the framerate tanking after being a stable (capped) 30 FPS and uncapped 50-60 like you, so I gave up trying to run it on my machine. A native build would fix these problems, so it's something that I'm looking forward to, but nothing I'm expecting of course. -
08-26-2014, 03:02 PMZaftOne of the reasons for this is that the game is not optimized to work with the Mac OS X. Bad optimization, or no optimization at all, can turn any game into a nightmare to run, no matter what your machine (HI GUILD WARS 2!!!). You should see significant gains when an actual OS X version is released and properly optimized.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brianmj
-
08-26-2014, 03:14 PMTheRogueXNono, MAC is the physical address assigned to your network card!Quote:
Originally Posted by LeonBlade
-
08-26-2014, 03:24 PMLeonBladeLOL! That too! Thank you for reminding me.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheRogueX
-
08-26-2014, 07:27 PMLalaRu
Quite sad see a thread relevant to Mac users being trolled by people who does not even have or care a Mac. If you hate Apple and all its products, that is not reason to put your trash posts on anything that talks of it. I welcome a Mac version, if that comes out.
-
08-26-2014, 09:06 PMIriadysaOn the topic of GL in Mac OSX:Quote:
Originally Posted by Brianmj
Compute shaders are core in 4.3 although, as with anything OpenGL, it could be implemented as a stand alone extension and work on 4.1. The beauty of GL. Not like apple will anyways. Intel drivers for Windows are stuck at GL4.0, but they implement several of the more interesting extensions of 4.3, so it's not that horrible to develop for Intel GPUs today; however, compute shaders are not in there either.
The main problem with Apple and OSX is Apple's driver architecture choice. Long story short, it's apple themselves who partially implement the driver for the OS (in a similar fashion to how DX versioning works with Microsoft), which limits the fast cycles of constant improvement GPU manufacturers can provide with their drivers. The state of GL on windows is, basically, that manufactures do everything. This lead to poor support from some of them (notoriously Intel) but recent explosion on GL usage (most likely due to the efforts of the Khronos group to modernize the API and Valve's Steam backing it up) has lead to bleeding edge support from both leading GPU manufacturers on those platforms that are not locked up.
Mac OSX is locked up. Ahh, Apple.
It was not until recently that Apple simply didn't want to update their GL implementation beyond 3.2, which exposes about the equivalent of something between DX9 and DX10. In fact, while the current release of the OS supports 4.1, it still limits the implementation to part of the complete GL4.1 spec (it's fully GL4.1 complaint, but doesn't implement an alternative called "compatibility profile". It's a long story).
So you guys understand what this all means, we've had DX11-class hardware running inside Macintosh PCs for their whole effective life without ever being able to access the DX11-class features, because the OS did not bother to support it. It's no wonder gaming support on OSX was almost non existent.