Spring RTS Engine

hi all

i'm new to spring and i have a problem running it on win vista.

everytime i get the same error message:

GL_ARB_texture_env_combine not found

i guess it's a problem with the graphics card but i dont know.
i have a ati 9600, and the win vista beta 2

is there even a way to play spring in win vista?

thanks for your help

iGi

ps: to the devs: great work !!

Vista is a beta and whatever we change now may break vista b3 support when b3 arrives or final.

Vista meddles in the way OpenGL is setup by emulating it using directx.

For now try using XP and Vista in a dual boot setup, and if you have further problems contact microsoft, as thats a graphics problem and it's a beta version of their software, they'll want to know of any problems.

I do know that radeon 9200se works on spring so your card shouldnt be the problem.

Mostly like (sounds like) buggy incomplete drivers for ati & vista.

Not as if ati are pushed to release perfect drivers for an os thats not released yet & subject to change

ATI + Vista = No OpenGL = No Spring (at least it seems so currently)

thanks for the information, guys

Tobi wrote:ATI + Vista = No OpenGL = No Spring (at least it seems so currently)

wait... so the reason you use OGL over DirectX is compatibility, and in a couple of years Vista will make it pointless, as Vista has no OGL... so will you turn to DirectX?

no opengl for ati & vista. Cause ati not motivated to fix thier drivers for an OS thats not released yet.
I believe nvidia drivers for vista beta x work for spring

Directx = microsoft baby only on windows (wine doesnt count)
Opengl & OpenAL = multi platform / multi os work on mac / windows / linux (u get the idea)

Spring + Vista = Problem

Let me fix that for you:

Vista = Problem

Dragon45 wrote:

Vista = Blackmail

I fixed it for you. Its just plain wrong to force gamers to get vista in order to get Direct X 10.

Stick with XP then!

I reccomend http://www.osnews.com for good info on vista and stuff like this :)

Leave the OS bitching them haha.

Eh? I'm loving the Vista beta(2).
PC can't handle it? That's your own fault. Don't whine about it :)

Drone_Fragger wrote:

Dragon45 wrote:

Vista = Blackmail

I fixed it for you. Its just plain wrong to force gamers to get vista in order to get Direct X 10.

It's not like games are going to stop running DX9 any time soon. DX10 is mostly just a preformance booster as far as I can tell. Basicly it just changes the way graphics use the comp's internals, using more RAM and spending less time rechecking safe functions through the CPU. XP couldn't run it if it needed to, it's not set up that way.

Vassago wrote:Eh? I'm loving the Vista beta(2).
PC can't handle it? That's your own fault. Don't whine about it :)

You should read threads before you post in them vassago, you've done this so many times in the last 48 hours.

The general conclusion was that it was the fault of MS Vista not his computer

AF wrote:You should read threads before you post in them vassago, you've done this so many times in the last 48 hours.
The general conclusion was that it was the fault of MS Vista not his computer

I did. They're saying it's blackmail to force people to buy something in order to have something. That's how it is with ANYTHING. Want to watch a DVD? GASP! You need to buy a DVD PLAYER! Oh noes! Blackmail!.....
WinXP cannot handle DX10 - it's not structurally capable. So you have to upgrade. And if you PC cannot handle Vista, I was simply stating --too damn bad--, upgrade.

Disclaimer :- About to ramble about vista

Vista ? why should an os require that much resources. Or better yet why does each new os version from windows, always require more resources.

As for directx 10, they cant be bothered to backport to XP, since they need a reason for peep to upgrade(buy new machine) to it. If u want an example Halo2 is only been released on Vista & its been out for how long on Xbox ?

Wasnt Xp supposed to be the new redesign of windows ? Whats vista again and how many promised features been cutted ?

Plus vista will most likey have WGA or similar system installed. And
considering microsoft makes so much money why does it cost so much to buy off the shelf, while manufactures for pc's get a nice discount on pre-installing it.

Atm if u building a machine u got to weight whether its worth buildin a nice machine & buying windows (if u want it) and gettin a pre-built one.
Hell i would consider buying windows off the shelf if the price was cut (for games mainly).

I think i stick to my Linux, windows died on me about a month ago from a crash (although was in game, but still shouldnt crash entire machine & result in a dead OS). And the whole deal with embedded parts of IE into kernel & ignoring security peep sayin it was a bad idea. And now in Vista its beening removed from kernel.

Have yet to have a hard crash on linux. Just ssh into machine if frozen & kill whatever process is runnin a muck.

Note :- This rambling was brought to u by -> hollowsoul

Try not to make such overly ambigous statements vassago, perhaps counting to ten would help?

To except an incomplete game to run on a beta OS with beta graphic drivers and probably beta sound drivers as well is probably a fault of the original poster. Not the OS.

To except the Spring developers to do something about it (their options are writing an OpenGL driver for ATI cards or porting the entire thing to DirectX) will only get him disappointed. Well, if the developers were really nice they could buy him a nVIDIA card, but I don't see that happening.

Plus vista will most likey have WGA or similar system installed.

Wow, shocking, people are getting advantages for actually buying their products as opposed to stealing them, we must stop this!

Vista ? why should an os require that much resources. Or better yet why does each new os version from windows, always require more resources.

Because it has more features that requires those resources. This isn't complicated, it's common sense. If you want to make the claim that Vista is a "small upgrade" then you're just plain wrong.

I think i stick to my Linux

Great, start an OS war as opposed to only "is Vista good or not", that'll make this topic all the greater. Or not.

so... you are saying vista absolutely must have an extra 39.5 Gigabytes, so we can have 39.5 gigs of new stuff? That means it has almost 80 times more features than XP, correct?

Drone_Fragger wrote:so... you are saying vista needs an extra 39.5 Gigabytes, so we can have 39.5 gigs of new stuff? That means it has almost 80 times more features than XP, correct?

Vista doesn't require 39.5 GBs.

And if it did, then yes, all that space would have to be used on something. If you like what its used for or not is another matter.