Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Unreal Engine 3 Running In Flash

Soulskill posted more than 2 years ago | from the putting-a-v-8-in-a-yugo dept.

Graphics 138

Eraesr writes with news that Epic Games has added Unreal Engine 3 support for Adobe Flash Player. This comes alongside news that Flash Player 11 has been released, an update that added Stage3D, "a set of low-level GPU-accelerated APIs enabling advanced 2D and 3D capabilities across multiple screens and devices." "With its new hardware-accelerated Stage 3D APIs, Flash Player 11 allows 1,000 times faster 2D and 3D graphics rendering performance over Flash Player 10. Developers can now animate millions of objects with smooth 60 frames per second rendering and deliver console-quality games on Mac OS, Windows and connected televisions. 'With UE3 and Flash, games built for high-end consoles can now run on the Web or as Facebook apps, reaching an enormous user base,' said Sweeney. 'This totally changes the playing field for game developers who want to widely deploy and monetize their games.'"

cancel ×

138 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

just when you thought... (1)

nozzo (851371) | more than 2 years ago | (#37610254)

Adobe were losing their grip on the online web-based gaming world along comes this news. I'm looking forward to seeing how this pans out. Perhaps a time when games become software-as-a-service and run in the 'cloud'.

Re:just when you thought... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37610438)

Any evidence for the suggestion that adobe were losing their grip?

As someone who's worked very profitably in Flash games for the last three years, everything I've seen suggests the opposite e.g. better games, more money, more attention from adobe, better frameworks, bigger audiences, etc.

Re:just when you thought... (1)

AdamJS (2466928) | more than 2 years ago | (#37611926)

It was quite an obvious assumption by many that Flash would be marginalized due to HTML5 within the next few years. That an unnecessary plugin would be replaced with a standardized, more open platform. This is a pretty cool development though.

Re:just when you thought... (1)

Fujisawa Sensei (207127) | more than 2 years ago | (#37613080)

The success of technology is determined by marketing, not technology.

Also, open and standardized is not a requirement for success. Just look at the current computer market.

Also look at HTML, just because there's a standard, doesn't mean its standardized or all of the rendering engines render it the same.

I think you're thinking of "Onlive" (1)

AC-x (735297) | more than 2 years ago | (#37610936)

Cloud gaming already exists [onlive.co.uk] . 3D Hardware acceleration is client side, so it's the opposite of cloud gaming.

Re:I think you're thinking of "Onlive" (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37611022)

Does GMail run in the "cloud" or local?

All GMail rendering happens locally. Why would a "cloud" gaming service be different.

I love the term cloud. It means fuck all and everything at the same time.

Re:I think you're thinking of "Onlive" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37611748)

Because this cloud gaming service is meant to allow computers with lesser hardware to run top notch games. The 3d rendering is done in the cloud. All your PC has to do is render a video stream and send controller inputs.

Re:I think you're thinking of "Onlive" (1)

0123456 (636235) | more than 2 years ago | (#37612336)

All GMail rendering happens locally. Why would a "cloud" gaming service be different.

DRM, silly. You can't pirate a game that's not running on your computer.

Re:just when you thought... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37611816)

Ugh, Adobe this is way to late, you should have brought this out long before the "flash as a video player" and now everyone has to avoid flash because it's a bad website experience on handhelds, or not even supported.

As for Unreal, I sincerely doubt it's "the Unreal engine" running in flash, but rather a compile target that produces an actionscript virtual machine. Actionscript is way too easy to decompile when you just want to see how something is done.

Nintendo doesn't use flash on the 3DS, DSi or DS
Sony and Nintendo have flash 9 on their consoles
Apple doesn't use flash on ANY of their devices, and it can only be installed to Mac's
Microsoft is likewise phasing out flash(and all plugins) for Windows 8's Metro interface
Android just plain sucks at flash and I wish it didn't, but that's 2/3rds the fault of the lame hardware manufacturers and 1/3rds fault Adobe for letting them ship such pathetic flash engines.

The only reason Google still uses flash at all is that they can't embed ads in youtube videos with html5, and supercookies.

Embrace the new ads featuring 3D! (1)

tlhIngan (30335) | more than 2 years ago | (#37613682)

Adobe were losing their grip on the online web-based gaming world along comes this news. I'm looking forward to seeing how this pans out.

Easy. Ads, probably the largest use of Flash other than playing videos. Except instead of boring video ads, they can do it now all in stunning 3D to drain your battery even faster, to cause Windows to pop in and out of Aero when loading web pages and other fun stuff.

And you know somebody out there will make you have to twirl and spin objects around to find that "click to close ad" link and such.

Hell, if it's a site like IGN, you may be forced to "play" through the ad to get to the content as well.

Only problem is.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37610256)

no one will document how to do it, so its as worthless as fuck.

Hardware requirement? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37610268)

I wonder if the hardware requirement will be the same as running UE3 without flash. Given how flash consuming oodles of processing power, I don't it's going to be anything but lightweight, even with hardware acceleration. If flash stopped sucking with GPU acceleration we should see great rejoicing, but I doubt it would be the case. Runtimes such as flash add their own baggage.

Re:Hardware requirement? (1)

errandum (2014454) | more than 2 years ago | (#37610346)

Did you read the article?

Re:Hardware requirement? (2)

karnal (22275) | more than 2 years ago | (#37610454)

This is slashdot. Do you have to ask?

Re:Hardware requirement? (1)

tenco (773732) | more than 2 years ago | (#37611038)

I did and couldn't find any hardware requirements in it. Which isn't surprising at all, since it's basically the slashdot news.

Re:Hardware requirement? (1)

errandum (2014454) | more than 2 years ago | (#37613552)

"With up to 1,000 times faster rendering performance over Flash Player 10 and AIR 2, developers can animate millions of objects with smooth 60 frames per second rendering and deliver cinematic, console-quality games both in browsers and in apps." and " And a production release with support for Stage 3D for mobile platforms including Android, Apple iOS and BlackBerry Tablet OS is expected in an upcoming release"

So, consuming "oodles of processing power" should be fixed. If it runs on mobile phones, I'd bet it'll run on your PC.

Next, did you watch the videos? It's the iPhone demo. The video quality is far far away from what you can get with the Unreal Engine kit, I saw no shader action at all actually, so the similar hardware requirement point is moot. You won't be able to do the same things, much less compare one to the other.

Re:Hardware requirement? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37610944)

Flash adds baggage to the CPU, not the GPU. If all drawing is done using the GPU, the CPU is free to do other things, like, for example, run an Actionscript VM.

unity (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37610274)

Isn't this kinda the same functionality as unity3d already has? (http://unity3d.com/webplayer/)

Re:unity (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37610470)

Other than Unity3d being neither the Unreal3 engine nor Flash, yes, it's exactly the same.

Re:unity (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37610482)

No, I don't believe Unity exports Unreal 3 to Flash

Re:unity (1)

Canazza (1428553) | more than 2 years ago | (#37610540)

No, but as of the next update it exports itself to Flash.

In other news: (2)

justforgetme (1814588) | more than 2 years ago | (#37610282)

Apparently the end of flash is night. I can remember adobe putting the 3D stage object (no pun here) into Shockwave right before they decided to abandon it.

Evidently adobe themselves subconsciously know that pushing the Flash plugin is pure wrong. :-)

Re:In other news: (1)

justforgetme (1814588) | more than 2 years ago | (#37610286)

nigh not night.... stupid autocomplete!!!

Re:In other news: (2)

IceNinjaNine (2026774) | more than 2 years ago | (#37610650)

nigh not night.... stupid autocomplete!!!

Dood.. you are so lucky. I was all cranked up in "spelling and/or usage" troll mode and you recovered.
You were 1 Newton and 25 ms away from flaming death. ;)

Re:In other news: (2)

mulvane (692631) | more than 2 years ago | (#37611380)

"Dood.." Misspelled dude, and the use of two periods ".." is neither a period for ending a sentence properly or an ellipsis "...". Prepare for flaming death!

Re:In other news: (1)

IceNinjaNine (2026774) | more than 2 years ago | (#37611854)

*Facepalm*

Re:In other news: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37610354)

I loved Macromedia Director/Shockwave, even became quite proficient with the 3d engine. Was not a happy bunny when it died. I never really got on with flash and figured it wasn't long until that died too as it couldn't do half the things that Shockwave could. Guess I was wrong then so I won't predict the end of flash now!

Re:In other news: (1)

justforgetme (1814588) | more than 2 years ago | (#37610390)

Why were you wrong? The Shockwave plugin hasn't been actively developed since 2006 (only maintenance and bugfix) all Director communities are gone/read-only. I think that, when describing a dead plugin, Shockwave pretty much is the definition.

Re:In other news: (1)

Kjella (173770) | more than 2 years ago | (#37610666)

Why were you wrong? (...) I think that, when describing a dead plugin, Shockwave pretty much is the definition.

You fail at reading comprehension:

I never really got on with flash and figured it wasn't long until that died too as it couldn't do half the things that Shockwave could.

He thought flash would die right after shockwave, and it didn't.

Re:In other news: (1)

CAIMLAS (41445) | more than 2 years ago | (#37614406)

Nigh. Fucking nigh. Night is when it's dark.

Not sure how I feel about this. (1)

Lose (1901896) | more than 2 years ago | (#37610288)

In one respect, I can't see this as a streamlined, highly efficient option for developers to write their games against. Some of the screenshots EPIC put of up show a clear lack of shaders, probably because they are either too advanced to keep the game running smoothly in a flash environment, or not supported.

But in another respect, this could mean quite a few future games running the Unreal Engine could very well be run much like any other application in a Linux environment, maybe dropping the requirement for Wine in some places.

Writing a flash based game engine to offer ultimate platform-independence is kind of lazy to me, and I'm not sure how many people will have any kind of good experience playing games using a flash UE3 engine if they run it on laptops, netbooks and phones. But only the future will tell.

Re:Not sure how I feel about this. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37610384)

Look at it this way, if Adobe have truly "invented" anything here, it'll be patented and Linux implementors will have huge headaches. OTOH if as seems likely they're just exposing DirectX to the Flash runtime in some mildly non-idiotic way, it's just another DirectX wrapper hamstrung by a crappy runtime. Add EPIC's crappy runtime on top of that and it's a massive pile of fail. They showed Unreal Tournament, so all this does is allow you to run 5-year-old games in the web, same as we have always been able to do. In fact, Adobe have been rather behind the curve here.

The real question is how does Adobe's 3D interface compare to WebGL under a decent JSVM on the same machine, and why would we want to use Adobe's proprietary crap instead of HTML5 and WebGL?

Re:Not sure how I feel about this. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37610750)

My opinion from standpoint of developer:

  - Regarding "If Adobe truly invented it will be patented and not usable on Linux" it does not matter is it patented or not Flash is available on Linux (and mac-OS and majority of smart-phones ...)

  - Regarding "just exposing Direct X to the Flash run-time" this is ONLY reason we as developers use Flash (there were other ways to deliver video you know) we use one "Direct X like API" and make 3D flash game and it works everywhere including mobile phones, Linux, Windows, Mac-OS ... write once run everywhere

  - Regarding "it's just another Direct X wrapper hamstrung by a crappy run-time" it is ONLY such wrapper available on 99%+ computers and majority of smart-phones able to execute game directly from WEB without ANY installations of any kind (most users LOVE when they do not need to install anything, look how FarmVille and other Facebook games are popular,

  - If there was better "crappy wrapper/run-time" available with at-least 99% coverage it would be better because competition would make them both improve faster, even better if that run-time PRE-INSTALLED on 99%+ computers able to run games directly from browser was open source

  - Regarding "so all this does is allow you to run 5-year-old games in the web" 5 year old DESKTOP game (even 10 year old) is MUCH better (performance/graphic/resource wise) than current WEB games (flash/HTML ones) this is not replacement for PC games this is IMPROVEMENT (1'000-fold performance-wise) for WEB games

  - Regarding "same as we have always been able to do" well i believe there is some other ActiveX control/browser Plugin running games from browser better than flash, but if it does not have 99% (or at-least 98%) coverage on at-least PC and MAC, and even better if it has Linux coverage as well its not really as useful as this "worse" solution from Adobe that works on almost any computer

  - Regarding "why would we want to use Adobe's proprietary crap instead of HTML5 and WebGL" I actually like WebGL itself BUT JavaScript behind it is not 100% exactly the same on ALL browsers that run on ALL operating systems so it could happen that i make game on my Firefox on Windows and some poor person running Mac-OS with Safari has game not working or working with big visual problems ...

here is Google search showing just some of possible problems with JavaScript and because of that also with HTML5/WebGL
http://www.google.com/webhp?q=difrences%20in%20javascript%20between%20browsers

  - Regarding "Adobe's proprietary crap" i totally agree it is bad and would more like open source alternative but until that alternative
          - works EXACTLY the same on ALL platforms
          - Has 99%+ coverage of all PCs and majority of smart-phones
          - does not need to be installed when running game (as in your game can expect it to already be installed before user arrives to your website)
          - Has similar API's ( not same function names and such, just cover similar uses like 3D graphic, multi-channel sound, 2D graphic, microphone access, camera access, local storage (user controllable off-course), compression, and fast language behind it ( i would say Firefox/Chrome java-script would be good definition of fast, version on DEV channel not slow release version off-course)

Until that alternative has all this properties, that alternative would not really be better than Adobe Flash

Please syntax highlighting/spell checking trolls find some other post to play with, i suggest http://slashdot.org/index2.pl?fhfilter=law or http://slashdot.org/index2.pl?fhfilter=politics

Re:Not sure how I feel about this. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37610444)

Nope. Stage 3D Hardware acceleration not supported under Linux.

Software mode for you.

Re:Not sure how I feel about this. (1)

dokc (1562391) | more than 2 years ago | (#37611902)

"The main difference between the 3D in Flash Player 10 & 11 is that this newer version is capable of rendering complex 3D scenes with advanced engine where-as earlier version was more like a 2.5D (Applying 3D effect on 2D content). These new 3D APIs will work through DirectX 9 on Windows, OpenGL 1.3 on Mac and Linux, OpenGL ES 2.0 on mobile devices."

Re:Not sure how I feel about this. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37610490)

As with all things Flash, I'm sure it'll break down as follows:

Windows -> fast and smooth
Mac -> too pokey to be enjoyable
Linux -> completely unplayable

Re:Not sure how I feel about this. (1)

The MAZZTer (911996) | more than 2 years ago | (#37611286)

At work we have been looking to bring 3D to IE7/8 (don't ask... client requires them) so this could be a possible solution to our problem. The only other options we've had so far are software renderers for Flash which are obviously too slow to do any more than 3DS-quality graphics on a very small scale.

Oh noes! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37610290)

Add another 5 joyful years of Flash in our browsers! And now with security holes that can kill our GPU (or our bill by mining BitCoins and the like 24/365).

Good move Adobe, now we won't be able to get rid of you. F**k.

If you're dumb enough to use bitcoins... (2)

Viol8 (599362) | more than 2 years ago | (#37610310)

... you deserve all you get.

Re:If you're dumb enough to use bitcoins... (1)

blackicye (760472) | more than 2 years ago | (#37610642)

... you deserve all you get.

what other currency do you reckon you're going to be able to mint yourself?

Re:If you're dumb enough to use bitcoins... (2)

mwvdlee (775178) | more than 2 years ago | (#37610720)

Monopoly money?
Chocolate coins?

Being able to mint a currency yourself is exactly why it's worthless.

Re:If you're dumb enough to use bitcoins... (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 2 years ago | (#37610914)

Being able to mint a currency yourself is exactly why it's worthless.

Not if the other Bitcoin users adapt the difficulty of minting currency to limit the flow.

Re:If you're dumb enough to use bitcoins... (1)

mwvdlee (775178) | more than 2 years ago | (#37611540)

The underlying "value" of bitcoins is wasted CPU time.
Atleast chocolate coins have the underlying value of chocolatty goodness.

Re:If you're dumb enough to use bitcoins... (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 2 years ago | (#37611744)

The underlying "value" of bitcoins is wasted CPU time.

CPU time spent verifying the consensus view of the Bitcoin transaction ledger isn't wasted any more than the light in a bank is wasted.

Re:If you're dumb enough to use bitcoins... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37610744)

Any kind you want, really. It will be just as legitimate.

Re:If you're dumb enough to use bitcoins... (1)

AdamJS (2466928) | more than 2 years ago | (#37612454)

1) Use your ATI GPU that was sitting there doing almost nothing while you browsed /. anyways 2) Get value for essentially nothing that more than offsets the power cost 3) Cash out early and often I don't see the problem with Bitcoins as long as you're paying attention and not actually investing any of your time or (non-electrical) energy.

Re:If you're dumb enough to use bitcoins... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37611078)

Concept fail. The idea is that someone else uses your GPU to mine Bitcoin. You don't have to know or care about Bitcoin, let alone actively use it.

Re:Oh noes! (2)

SuperDre (982372) | more than 2 years ago | (#37610388)

and how is this different to new WebGL which also allows direct control of the GPU with exactly the same security holes...

Re:Oh noes! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37610486)

er the fact that flash has complete ubiquity, a decent ide, massive numbers of developers already making a fortune from flash games, growing reputation for fantastic games that focus on gameplay not graphics

and the all important fact that flash doesn't involve taking us back to glory days of "this website is best viewed with [insert your favorite browser here]"

Re:Oh noes! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37610746)

and the all important fact that flash doesn't involve taking us back to glory days of "this website is best viewed with [insert your favorite browser here]"

So what do you call "This website best viewed with [insert your favourite plugin here]" or "This website best viewed with [insert non-Apple phone here]"? Flash now is basically Internet Explorer circa 2000, and we all know how well that turned out (some of us still have the pain of having to support it).

Re:Oh noes! (1)

rjstanford (69735) | more than 2 years ago | (#37610908)

Flash now is basically Internet Explorer circa 2000, and we all know how well that turned out (some of us still have the pain of having to support it).

You mean that part when, despite its flaws, it continued to dominate the market for a decade?

Re:Oh noes! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37611058)

the fact that flash doesn't run on apple is because of a decision that apple took. that's down to the fact that apple want to control and monetize what runs on their stupid little toys. btw it hasn't stopped a flash game sitting at the top of the paid ipad chart for quite a while (see machinarium)

as for [your favorite plugin] flash has such ubiquity and such a large community of developers, and is so open, that it goes beyond favorite. it's the most distributed bit of software in history.

and IE has always allowed flash to work so what's the problem there? ;)

Breaking isolation through driver bugs (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 2 years ago | (#37610932)

and how is this different to new WebGL which also allows direct control of the GPU with exactly the same security holes

If WebGL or the 3D features of Flash can break process isolation through bugs in 3D graphics drivers, why can't the 2D canvas break process isolation through bugs in 2D graphics drivers?

Re:Breaking isolation through driver bugs (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37613284)

How I love programmers, everything's binary to them.

3D drivers are a zillion times more complex than 2D drivers, and a zillion times more likely to have bugs.

Both events can occur in theory; in practice one is vastly more likely than another.

Or, to put another way, when was the last time you saw a Windows box hosed by a GDI program, and when was the last time you saw one hosed by a D3D program? I'm guessing (a) never and (b) last week.

Disclaimer: I found a GDI driver bug once. Non-fatal.

Re:Breaking isolation through driver bugs (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 2 years ago | (#37613512)

I can derive one of two conclusions from your comment. One is "3D drivers are less mature, and we should limit our use of immature technologies to where it is necessary", and the other is "3D drivers are more complex, and we should shy away from complexity in general".

The first I can understand for the short term. For a while (I don't know whether it's still happening), Mozilla was whitelisting video drivers for use with WebGL. As for the second: Web browsers are also a zillion time more complex than plain UTF-8 text file viewers or Gopher browsers, and a zillion times more likely to have bugs, yet we still use web browsers. So how else would you prefer to deploy an application that uses three-dimensional graphics to users without 1. the same CPU and operating system that the developer has and 2. installation privileges on the local machine?

They need to make a job of it and make it an OS (2)

jamax (228376) | more than 2 years ago | (#37610292)

FlashOS
it seems it's almost done anyway..

Re:They need to make a job of it and make it an OS (1)

PortHaven (242123) | more than 2 years ago | (#37611548)

Intriguing concept...especially if tied to a Cloud.

Crap, Amazon to buy Adobe. We already sell all those books on how to use Adobe's complicated tools. Why not sell the software and turn Flash into an OS.

I think you might be onto something there.

Re:They need to make a job of it and make it an OS (1)

macromorgan (2020426) | more than 2 years ago | (#37613424)

FlashOS it seems it's almost done anyway..

I have a TiVo Premiere... trust me, FlashOS sucks.

Awesome (1)

LeperPuppet (1591409) | more than 2 years ago | (#37610328)

Now I can enjoy having my system exploited while watching 3D games.

Rumors of Flash's demise are greatly exaggerated (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37610348)

Despite what all the haters/Steve Jobs-wannabes are saying, Flash is playing a major role in online gaming - social gaming, online casinos, etc. We're talking big business here.

With the support for 3D acceleration and UE3 being available on the platform, I think it's safe to say that Flash will continue to play a major role in online gaming for quite some time.

That said, I definitely see a big potential and momentum in HTML5/WebGL, but it will not replace Flash in quite some time. Even though you can argue that HTML5/WebGL is roughly comparable in features to Flash, there will be a few more years until the toolsets and frameworks on top of it has matured. Here, I would be surprised if Adobe didn't play a role as well - gradually supporting HTML5 more and more in their products.

Re:Rumors of Flash's demise are greatly exaggerate (1)

slart42 (694765) | more than 2 years ago | (#37610408)

That said, I definitely see a big potential and momentum in HTML5/WebGL, but it will not replace Flash in quite some time. Even though you can argue that HTML5/WebGL is roughly comparable in features to Flash, there will be a few more years until the toolsets and frameworks on top of it has matured. Here, I would be surprised if Adobe didn't play a role as well - gradually supporting HTML5 more and more in their products.

WebGL looks promising, but is not nearly as far as flash in terms of performance and compatibility right now. Right now Flash's offering looks very promising indeed, but also gets me worried about keeping a significant part of the web experience under proprietary control. I have more hopes for Google Native Client then for WebGL to become a serious competitor for the time being. NaCl is fast, open source, and ultimately, with the prospect of PNaCl which runs LLVM byte code, more open then any of the other solutions, as it basically allows developers to use any tools they like to create software, as long as there is an LLVM frontend for the language of your choice. Yes, you can also use an LLVM backend to cross compile other languages into JavaScript or Flash, but it seems much more sensible to use the lowest common denominator to build your platform on, instead of cross compiling into high-level-languages.

Native Client? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37610402)

This immediately reminded me of Google's Native Client and made me wonder why anyone would want to clunker around with Adobe's proprietary technology. Present-day availability aside, could anyone more knowledgable about the technical caveats elaborate on the pros and cons of either option?

Re:Native Client? (2)

slart42 (694765) | more than 2 years ago | (#37610500)

On the technical side, NaCl code is generally more performant then ActionScript, as it does not have to go through high-level language constructs, plus the Stage 3D API does not offer all the functionality of OpenGL ES 2.0 offered in NaCL (more limited shader complexity).

NaCl is also open source, which makes it a standard I'd much rather like to see on the web then Flash (especially with Adobe needing to find ways to actually monetize this, as third-party game engines will not actually generate sales for Adobe's authoring tools).

The thing right now is that neither WebGL nor NaCl can beat the current availability of Flash (98% browser penetration on desktops is hard to beat). I'm hoping to see that change, but Adobe is in a strong position right now.

Re:Native Client? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37610554)

Indeed. this is a very bitter pill for all the apple/html5 turds that hang around this website.

Looks like they're hopes and dreams have finally been flushed down the pan!

odious hypocrites aside, this is great news for the growing flash gaming community- you deserve it!

Re:Native Client? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37610574)

NaCL is no good because it is tied to x86. The web is about openness and platform-independence, and NaCl is a step backwards. In this respect it is worse than Java and worse than Flash; it is more like slightly improved ActiveX.

Re:Native Client? (4, Informative)

slart42 (694765) | more than 2 years ago | (#37610606)

NaCL is no good because it is tied to x86. The web is about openness and platform-independence, and NaCl is a step backwards. In this respect it is worse than Java and worse than Flash; it is more like slightly improved ActiveX.

NaCl is not tied to x86, even in it's current form. Currently, NaCl comes with compilers for x86, AMD64 and ARM. However, this should only be seen as an intermediate step, as the long term plans for NaCl is PNaCl ("Portable NaCl"), which uses LLVM bit code instead of architecture specific machine code. I think this makes much more sense then either WebGL or JavaScript in terms of openness of the web, as it will essentially allow developers to create web apps in any language of their choosing, instead of forcing JavaScript as "the one language of the web" onto everyone.

Re:Native Client? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37612474)

Probably the most informative post I've seen on slashdot in a month - and I read every day.

Damn the noise level is so high any more its almost impossible to find these rare gems.

Re:Native Client? (1)

mwvdlee (775178) | more than 2 years ago | (#37610764)

Does NaCl run on anything besides Chrome or Google infrastructure?
I can only see it being a serious threat to Flash if it runs on atleast IE, Firefox and Safari as well.

Meanwhile, WebGL has... TREES! (2)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 2 years ago | (#37610432)

Re:Meanwhile, WebGL has... TREES! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37610648)

Whole forests of 404s!

Re:Meanwhile, WebGL has... (1)

tenco (773732) | more than 2 years ago | (#37611072)

... a blacklist of gpu's?

Re:Meanwhile, WebGL has... (1)

sgt scrub (869860) | more than 2 years ago | (#37612460)

it is to protect you from catastrophic errors with driver access. as in "access web site == system locks"

Re:Meanwhile, WebGL has... TREES! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37612134)

Just in case your post is an attempt to bash WebGL (or HTML5 in general)... ...there is a lot more interesting WebGL stuff out there than what you linked to.

See for example these games:
(3D) http://www.playtankworld.com/ [playtankworld.com]
(3D) http://www.redshootinghood.info/ [redshootinghood.info]
(3D) http://chuclone.com/ [chuclone.com]
(2D) http://operasoftware.github.com/Emberwind/ [github.com]

Also, see some of the videos at http://www.html5-games.org/ (Sort by Highest Scoring).

Re:Meanwhile, WebGL has... TREES! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37612900)

i couldn't get any of the games to work unfortunately - so it was great to have some videos to look at, and some of them are quite impressive really.

of course from the interactivity point of view, those particular examples are missing something - and you may well be in for an uphil struggle on this one. in fact it would probably be no exaggeration to say that you have more chance of winning the kentucky derby riding an arthritic cow, than for html5 to get anywhere. but keep trying though, and keep busy!

Flash.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37610448)

Flash your tits!

Nice, but... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37610492)

All I see is a video. When do we get to try it?

Re:Nice, but... (1)

atisss (1661313) | more than 2 years ago | (#37610514)

It won't be supported on Linux :p

As if a 3d engine didn't need enough cycles... (1)

Torp (199297) | more than 2 years ago | (#37610522)

I bet that playing on a laptop, you'll get better battery life playing a native version of an Unreal engine 3 game than when playing the flash version of the same game :)

Re:As if a 3d engine didn't need enough cycles... (1)

Lumpy (12016) | more than 2 years ago | (#37610674)

and a better framerate, and better physics, and better gameplay......

Re:As if a 3d engine didn't need enough cycles... (1)

ifrag (984323) | more than 2 years ago | (#37612888)

And the right mouse button! Gotta have weapon alt-fire!

Loading times (2)

airfoobar (1853132) | more than 2 years ago | (#37610556)

I don't even want to speculate.

But will it run Crysis? (1)

ThirdPrize (938147) | more than 2 years ago | (#37610772)

Just wondered?

Ps. I know that's CryENGINE and not UE3.

Crippled on Linux again? (1)

Alex Belits (437) | more than 2 years ago | (#37610820)

Judging by the speed of this [nissan-stagejuk3d.com] , Adobe is back to its policy of crippling Linux versions of their products. It wasn't long ago that they broken video playback, and then years later fixed it, and now they are pulling the same shit with 3D.

Re:Crippled on Linux again? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37611398)

More accurately they only bother optimising the windows build, the OSX one kind of sucks too.

At least Linux finally has hardware accelerated flash video ... except on my perfectly ordinary Debian / nvidia system it leads to the video overlay bleeding onto other windows etcetera, so I have to turn it off, hooray!

Re:Crippled on Linux again? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37612482)

Running win7, core i7 920 2.6Ghz, 12Gb ram, 1gb radeon hd 5700 850Mhz... and that runs horridly slowly on this machine. I mean unusably slowly, ~3-7fps I think.

Re:Crippled on Linux again? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37612566)

Running on win7, intel i7 920 2.67Ghz, 12Gb RAM, radeon hd 5700 850Mhz and it runs horrifically. A few frames a second, the in game timer got to 16 seconds after leaving it for about 2 minutes.

Re:Crippled on Linux again? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37614432)

you posted just about the same comment twice- seems you're having problems running javascript too (u asshole)

hahaha... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37610842)

crashplayer doesn't even play more than 2 videos in a row without consuming all ram..

and now i am supposed to play FPS games with it?

that is just comical... porting UE3 to html would have made more sense...

across multiple screens and devices.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37610950)

The reason why this piece of bloatware (Flash) is never enabled in my browser.. Unoptimized garbage..

Skip validation, go zoom zoom (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37610996)

Flash Player 11 allows 1,000 times faster 2D and 3D graphics rendering performance over Flash Player 10.

Q: How does one achieve such an increase overnight?
A: Skip input validation.

So if WebGL is unsafe, is this too? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37611390)

I've heard many criticisms of WebGL about it being insecure because it (indirectly) exposes hardware acceleration APIs. I'm wondering if this goes for Flash's accelerated 3D API as well.

What about Linux (1)

Murdoch5 (1563847) | more than 2 years ago | (#37611424)

Good for Mac and Windows but what about the rest of us?

Re:What about Linux (1)

PortHaven (242123) | more than 2 years ago | (#37611618)

2% I guess will have to make do. There is a ton of software the "rest of us" can't run.

It's akin to asking "what about me" when you pull up to a gas station with a Nissan Leaf and wonder why you can't just fill up your batteries.

Cause you're in the minority. You get your advantages, and your disadvantages. Such is life.

NOT IMPRESSED!!! (1)

krnpimpsta (906084) | more than 2 years ago | (#37611738)

Not impressed. Won't be impressed until they squeeze the Unreal 4 Engine into an animated .GIF.

Oh The Irony (1)

lloy0076 (624338) | more than 2 years ago | (#37612262)

I'm watching the YouTube videos in, well, HTML5 and not Flash!

DSL

Just in time. (1)

sgt scrub (869860) | more than 2 years ago | (#37612314)

Flash Player 11 allows 1,000 times faster 2D and 3D graphics rendering performance over Flash Player 10

So they have finally caught up with WebGL?

Re:Just in time. (1)

sgt scrub (869860) | more than 2 years ago | (#37612592)

Oh wait, my bad. Unlike WebGL, Flash 11 works on Windows, kind of works on OSX, and the users that could have been their user base are told to go fuck themselves. Nevermind.

Re:Just in time. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37613344)

someone mod this babbling nutcase down.

Yo dawg I heard you like flash... (1)

Briareos (21163) | more than 2 years ago | (#37612326)

So first they put Flash UI support into the Unreal Engine [scaleform.com] two years ago and now they're putting the Unreal Engine into Flash?

Can't wait for a flash game in UE3 in a flash game in UE3 in a flash game in... (yay for infinite recursion...)

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?