UT99 not start

seth · Yesterday 23:04:08

The "OpenGL render" actually crashes in the openal library shipped by ut99.
Is that the unpatched version?

The "coredump" is back to xkb…

#13 0xf74e6898 in _XSend (dpy=0xa080500, data=0x0, size=0) at /usr/src/debug/lib32-libx11/libX11-1.8.3/src/xcb_io.c:569
#14 0xf74eba54 in _XReply (dpy=0xa080500, rep=0xfff20f4c, extra=2, discard=0) at /usr/src/debug/lib32-libx11/libX11-1.8.3/src/xcb_io.c:679
#15 0xf7538549 in _XkbHandleGetMapReply (xkb=0xcedf6b0, dpy=0xa080500) at xkb/XKBGetMap.c:553
#16 XkbGetUpdatedMap (xkb=0xcedf6b0, which=7, dpy=0xa080500) at xkb/XKBGetMap.c:575
#17 XkbGetUpdatedMap (dpy=0xa080500, which=7, xkb=0xcedf6b0) at xkb/XKBGetMap.c:562
#18 0xf753863c in XkbGetMap (dpy=0xa080500, which=7, deviceSpec=256) at xkb/XKBGetMap.c:594
#19 0xf75386bf in _XkbLoadDpy (dpy=dpy@entry=0xa080500) at xkb/XKBBind.c:521
#20 0xf7538ed7 in XLookupKeysym (event=0xfff21148, col=0) at xkb/XKBBind.c:218
#21 0xf7a1fe86 in X11_TranslateKey () from ./libSDL-1.1.so.0
#22 0xf7a1f738 in ?? () from ./libSDL-1.1.so.0

The nouveau version fails at

#20 0xf7682217 in _dlerror_run (operate=<optimized out>, args=<optimized out>) at dlerror.c:138
#21 0xf76828b8 in dlopen_implementation (dl_caller=<optimized out>, mode=258, file=0xffffa70c "/usr/lib32/dri/nouveau_dri.so") at dlopen.c:71
#22 ___dlopen (file=0xffffa70c "/usr/lib32/dri/nouveau_dri.so", mode=258) at dlopen.c:81
#23 0xf5ee24e7 in loader_open_driver_lib () at ../mesa-22.3.3/src/loader/loader.c:654
#24 0xf5ee2674 in loader_open_driver () at ../mesa-22.3.3/src/loader/loader.c:697
#25 0xf5ec58d1 in driOpenDriver () at ../mesa-22.3.3/src/glx/dri_common.c:87
#26 0xf5eddf45 in dri3_create_screen () at ../mesa-22.3.3/src/glx/dri3_glx.c:880
#27 0xf5ece758 in AllocAndFetchScreenConfigs () at ../mesa-22.3.3/src/glx/glxext.c:839
#28 __glXInitialize () at ../mesa-22.3.3/src/glx/glxext.c:968

Is that the unpatched version?
You could try to disable DRI3,

LIBGL_DRI3_DISABLE=1 ./ut

If you've xf86-video-nouveau installed, get rid of that first.

freeartist · Yesterday 23:17:17

UNpatched

>LIBGL_DRI3_DISABLE=1 ./ut
crash

seth · Yesterday 23:20:00

UNpatched

Stop doing that. The patch most likely exist for a reason and the reason will be several ABI incompatibilities with more recent software stacks.
(Which is why it's crashing on the bundled libraries and possibly even when dlopening the nouveau mesa dri)

This is probably also addressed in the release notes of the patch.

freeartist · Yesterday 23:26:08

>Stop doing that

That question of this topic

>reason will be several ABI incompatibilities with more recent software stacks

Why UNpatched ut working at recent Linux Debian Sid and Fedora 37 at this 340.108 driver?

PS last patch 469c also not working at 340.108

Last edited by freeartist (Yesterday 23:28:16)

seth · Today 07:03:26

Why UNpatched ut working at recent Linux Debian Sid and Fedora 37 at this 340.108 driver?

Because, as mentioned many times before, it's a different software stack. This could be down to compiler options to preserve older ABIs in libc.
The unpatched game crashes in its bundled libraries - that has nothing to do w/ the graphics driver.

PS last patch 469c also not working at 340.108

Not working how?
Do you have a coredump?

freeartist · Today 17:26:31

>The unpatched game crashes in its bundled libraries - that has nothing to do w/ the graphics driver.

i do not undestand where is problem, in arch system or aur 340xx nvidia driver?

>Not working how?
>Do you have a coredump?

they experementing with renders. 469c. Xopengl gives on linux error not coredump, and opengl working very slow - 2fps. But under windows with 342xx driver and Xopengl all working good. I post at their git issues but have no answers.

Last edited by freeartist (Today 17:28:00)

freeartist · Today 17:37:36

wht difference between nvidia-340xx-utils and lib32-nvidia-340xx-utils from aur?

seth · Today 19:50:51

i do not undestand where is problem, in arch system or aur 340xx nvidia driver?

The problem is that you're trying to run 20+ year old binaries and 10+ year old HW on a modern software stack.
The PATCHED version of UT99 apparently runs, it's only incapable of controlling the otuput modeline (picks the wrong one)

In order to tell whether that's a problem w/ the 340xx driver you're supposed to run the PATCHED version of UT on nouveau and elaborate on the results. Whatever they are.

wht difference between nvidia-340xx-utils and lib32-nvidia-340xx-utils from aur?

One is a 32bit and the other a 64bit binary. UT99 is a 23 year old game and as such a 32bit binary, but all modern OS use 64bit.
The x86-64 architecture has a compatibility mode that allows 32bit processes, but those need a complete set of 32bit libraries.
In case of lib32-nvidia-340xx-utils it's the 32bit OpenGL library.

I *highly* recommend to ask for help in your native language.
These are basic informations I fail to convey since 80 posts.

https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewforum.php?id=30 is NOT a russian board. You can ask there in Ukrainian and hope for reply.
If anyone thinks that's an opportunity to veer off-topic and into the political realm, they'll very quickly get banned for that.

freeartist · Today 22:13:04

>I *highly* recommend to ask for help in your native language.

if a specialist of such a high level as you cannot solve the problem, then even more so they(UA, rus arch users here) will not be able to solve it

>The problem is that you're trying to run 20+ year old binaries and 10+ year old HW on a modern software stack

But modern Debian, Fedora and Windows 10 can do that great, only Arch cant'n

>In order to tell whether that's a problem w/ the 340xx driver you're supposed to run the PATCHED version of UT on nouveau and elaborate on the results. Whatever they are.

patched ut99 runs at nouveau but have graphic glitches - text fonts unreadable and black textures at transparency places at lights

Last edited by freeartist (Today 22:16:11)

Arch Linux

#76 Yesterday 23:04:08

Re: UT99 not start

#77 Yesterday 23:17:17

Re: UT99 not start

#78 Yesterday 23:20:00

Re: UT99 not start

#79 Yesterday 23:26:08

Re: UT99 not start

#80 Today 07:03:26

Re: UT99 not start

#81 Today 17:26:31

Re: UT99 not start

#82 Today 17:37:36

Re: UT99 not start

#83 Today 19:50:51

Re: UT99 not start

#84 Today 22:13:04

Re: UT99 not start

Board footer