Game Development Community

Torque on the Apple iPhone?

by Martin Schultz · in General Discussion · 01/09/2007 (12:55 pm) · 16 replies

Well, I just followed speechles the presentation of Steve Jobs. Fantastic phone. Really cool. One thing that immediately came to my mind as Steve said it's running OS-X was: Can it run Torque?

If it has the power of desktop applications like he said, wouldn't it be cool to have TGE/TGB running on the iPhone too. Fantastic opportunities that arise on the horizon.

10 million devices that Steve wants to sell? If TGE runs on it, that would mean 10 million new possible customers for our games? Hell that would be cool.

Torque runs on OS-X (Intel and PPC). So it would be interesting to hear what kind of CPU architecture is beeing used by the iPhone to see if a port of Torque would be possible.

Damn cool. I'm excited... :-)

Martin

#1
01/09/2007 (12:58 pm)
I would think that the RAM footprint would be the biggest problem (and usually is with integrated devices). I'm not sure how much RAM it has or that can be accessed. Since it runs OS X, it seems that it would have a nice little amount since it would want to multi-task rather than the single-task operations that most devices use.
#2
01/09/2007 (1:41 pm)
I am sure it's a custom embedded version of the OS not the full thing.

.
#3
01/09/2007 (1:48 pm)
I'm sure it is, too. I believe there was a Darwin port to a embedded devices a while back, too. But I would still be worried about the TGE+asset management footprint. It will be fun to see some more specs.
#4
01/09/2007 (2:44 pm)
I would rather see TGB for Windows CE.

With minimal directX and some graphics support like Nvidia phone GPU uh.

But till MS makes some device that people actually buy.. they need a WinPhone now..

Movie fun
msdn.microsoft.com/embedded/media/tutorials/vs05nativecode_cheering_110k.wvx
#5
01/09/2007 (2:53 pm)
CETGB would be a cool proposition.
#6
01/09/2007 (8:58 pm)
Well it might be more fair to say would be more realistic a project to build a mini TGB for CE.

Because the tools and device interface (directX) is more common IMO.

Porting over TGE MasOS to a 2.2 inch screen would be impractical... at least till the 2.2 holds 800x600 lol..

Or vga glasses etc..

Needs to be custom designed for small hardware.
#7
01/13/2007 (3:38 am)
IPhone will be a closed platform, it means not an easy way to get in for an indie.
#8
01/13/2007 (4:33 am)
Besides if you could put torque on the iPhone you would need to be carrying around a mini-nuclear power plant to keep it powered for more then 5 minutes.

Seems like the iPhone draws enough energy to blackout 3/4 of the state of Georgia.
#9
01/14/2007 (11:45 am)
In answer to the question.

Apple iphone can not run 3rd party applications.

Even if it could youd have a hell oif time running a 3d engine on it.

-Si
#10
01/14/2007 (12:21 pm)
Http://www.itwire.com.au/content/view/8560/1103/

more
#11
01/14/2007 (12:43 pm)
Nvidia just purchased a mobile company and they have a new chipset for... well I think they are
gonna make a competing product.

That zune was a joke (in terms of ipod killer) it's just a cheap outsourced MP3 player. Let's hope Nvidia makes something really slick with a focus on gaming ability.
#12
01/14/2007 (1:25 pm)
Well, it does not need to be TGE for the iPhone, what about a TGB port? 2D would be enough on the phone. And Apple did not say 3rd party is not possible, it's more or less like the iPod games.
#13
01/14/2007 (2:03 pm)
HUm let's just design our own port a TGB Lite device. Get MS to sponsor the OS and Nvidia the GPU :)
#14
01/15/2007 (12:19 pm)
Why is zune a joke? iphone has absolutely nothing new on it except its looks, no 3rd party apps, and their getting sued over the name by Cisco. newsroom.cisco.com/dlls/2007/corp_011007.html?CMP=ILC-001 zune isnt trying to be a phone its a media player. I cant wait till people break that lovely touchscreen and cant make that emergency phone call on your new ipod. :D
#15
01/15/2007 (12:47 pm)
Yeah, they're getting sued, but the legal analysis I've read so far puts Apple on the right side of the issue legally speaking. It turns out that Cisco filed a statement (under penalty of perjury) with the USPTO that they had been continuously using the iPhone trade mark, including a picture of the *back* of a product box with an iPhone sticker stuck to it. Unfortunately, the product in question wasn't released for about 7 months after the statement of use, putting it *after* the legally required 'stasis' period for a trademark. In fact, even when that product was released, it wasn't called the iPhone, except in a couple press releases. The boxes & manuals refer to it as the Internet Telephone. From the publicly available information, Cisco doesn't have a strong claim on the trademark in the first place.

Wish I could dig up the link to the analysis in question again. Originally found it linked in an 'Off Topic' thread at Groklaw.net, but can't seem to find it again.

<#include disclaimer.h>
#16
01/16/2007 (10:54 am)
They will settle for $$$. They should not be fighting each other.. should merge device projects..