 |
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||
Add Forum to Favorites | Send Topic To a Friend | View Forum FAQ | Track this topic Page: 1 2 3 »» |
Last Thread Next Thread |
| 3d engine on .Net , worth? |
|
 |
vicviper Member since: 7/1/2003 From: Spain |
|||
 Posted - 9/6/2004 12:43:55 PM |
||||
I've been thinking lately in the possibility to build the next generation of my 3d engine over Net Framework, and I've been thinking on the pros and cons. I'm not worried about performance, but with portability, compatibility, and code reusability. The obvious advantage is that, like it or not, .Net is the future because Microsoft wants it, so the sooner we migrate, the better. Against it, I see the fact that none of the major 3d engines arround seems to be doing to move to .Net , and it looks to me that 3d engines are going to stay in "plain" C++ or COM at most, for a long time... so moving a 3d engine to .net would be too early. Also, I see managed c++ coding a bit too far from what I usually see in general coding... then there's the portability problems... I see managed c++ much more troublesome when porting the code to unmanaged environments... I would like to know what people think about this |
||||
|
||||
|
karmicthreat Member since: 5/18/2002 |
|||
|
Posted - 9/6/2004 12:50:41 PM |
||||
| Obviously if you want portable code you need to limit yourself to libraries that are common to the platforms you want to support. Dot NET is not a portable library and even with mono support for it in linux I would not count on it being 100% compatable with the current editions of the .NET framework. The current 2.0 version probably breaks alot of stuff. |
||||
|
||||
 |
Shannon Barber Moderator Member since: 6/23/2000 From: Westland, MI, United States |
|||
 Posted - 9/6/2004 12:53:52 PM |
||||
| The only issue on your list that is ugly is portability. Can you define the platforms you want to support? (e.g. I believe .Net on the GBA is not feasible, whereas a Linux/Darwin/BSD/Win32 .Net engine is possible and PS2.Net or XBox.Net are theoretically feasible). Managed C++ is essentially C++.Net, and it has more portability issues than C# does because C# is part of the .Net core and managed C++ is anciliary. If you write a .Net game engine, write it in C#. |
||||
|
||||
|
Rebooted Member since: 4/3/2003 From: York, United Kingdom |
|||
|
Posted - 9/6/2004 12:55:32 PM |
||||
| I was thinking about porting my engine to C# in the future. I think it is a little too early yet though, I'd say you should wait until .NET matures more, as well as Mono. I don't think even Xbox 2 supports .NET, so that might be indicative that the move is not neccessary quite yet. |
||||
|
||||
 |
evolutional Moderator - Alternative Game Libraries Member since: 1/25/2002 From: Leeds, United Kingdom |
|||
 Posted - 9/6/2004 1:50:55 PM |
||||
| Some people have already been coding decent looking engines in C#, check out Purple# for one. |
||||
|
||||
|
vicviper Member since: 7/1/2003 From: Spain |
|||
|
Posted - 9/6/2004 1:51:43 PM |
||||
that's the point... I'm thinking primarily in console platforms. What I'm worried the most is with interface classes... you see, when doing a 3d engine, you can do external interface classes that point to a switchable directx/opengl architecture... but, to some degree, these interface classes are quite plain and can be ported to almost anything. With net, the way classes are coded changes a little (extra directives, namespaces, garbage collection, etc) that breaks reusability a lot. |
||||
|
||||
|
SnprBoB86 Member since: 5/29/2001 |
|||
|
Posted - 9/6/2004 2:09:03 PM |
||||
| If you intend to port it at all, you should design your engine to be API independant. There is a source forge project that wraps OpenGL for .NET Microsoft probably could get .NET to run on XBOX without significant problems. The XBOX uses an X86 processor and a tiny variation of the Win2000 kernel. Chances are, however, they will not port it any time soon. Microsoft has fallen way behind with Longhorn and the core .NET team is probably spread far too thin already. That said, I can definitly see .NET 2.0 support being a major possibility for launch titles on XBOX 2. When that will be, I haven't a clue. Microsoft's latest DX SDK contains a sample for using .NET as a scripting runtime for C++ games. There are many benifits to this approach: Primarily, the run-time is more mature and better supported than something like UnrealScript and it compiles to native code and is far faster than Python, Lua, Lisp, etc. One major stumbling block for XBOX2.NET would be the rumor that XBOX2 will not use an X86 processor. |
||||
|
||||
|
CpMan Member since: 1/4/2001 From: Gainesville, USA |
|||
|
Posted - 9/6/2004 2:26:59 PM |
||||
Quote: There is no difference in portability issues, at least that I know of. We compile to MSIL just as C# does, and both produce verifiable IL (and thus should be portable, as IL being verifiable basically says that it conforms to the CLI specs). There may be some differences if you attempt to deal with mixed managed and unmanaged code, however compiling with /clr:pure will ensure you don't use any of those things. C# is not part of the .NET core, and is not the "de-facto" defining language for .NET is the sense that the spec writers conform to C#. It's the other way around. C# doesn't actually support all of the .NET infrastructure features, especially in version 2.0 (at least when my internship ended). C# doesn't support all of the access modifiers supported by .NET, nor unbound delegates or type forwarding. This is not to say that C# is any less of a language than C++, or that C++ is any less of a language than C#, in the .NET arena, especially with the v2.0 managed syntax (if you haven't seen it, check it out in the express download, I think it made it into beta 1). If I was writing a language, I'd probably attempt to utilize both languages, using C++ as a way to wrap up some unamanged code if I had some good stuff laying around. C# would probably be my primary language for the engine, though I'm not sure if I take the v2.0 syntax into account. VSEDebug Visual Studio.NET Add-In. Enhances debugging in ways never thought possible. |
||||
|
||||
 |
Etnu GDNet+ Member since: 4/25/2000 From: Sunnyvale, CA, United States |
|||
|
Posted - 9/6/2004 4:48:34 PM |
||||
Quote: Have you looked at C++/CLI? It's a beautiful middle ground, though, of course, you won't really be able to take full advantage of it until VC2k5 comes out of beta. |
||||
|
||||
|
JD Member since: 11/3/1999 From: USA |
|||
|
Posted - 9/6/2004 9:12:31 PM |
||||
| I'm going to stick with c++/opengl until I'm forced to move on. To be honest, these two tools are more than enough for what I'm doing and any future need will come from elsewhere not prog.lang. unless it's a whole different paradigm than OO. I rather not touch d3d again either. However I think C#/.net coding non 3D apps is nifty and I could see myself doing it if I wasn't stuck in 3d/game field. I don't know about c++/.net, looks to me like C#/.net are built for each other. |
||||
|
||||
|
joanusdmentia Member since: 6/27/2002 From: Toowoomba, Australia |
|||
 Posted - 9/6/2004 9:42:45 PM |
||||
Quote: If the XBox2 does use .NET then it not being an x86 processor won't make the slightest bit of difference. .NET code compiles to MSIL which is JIT compiled keeping your code totally oblivious to what the underlying processor is. "Voilą! In view, a humble vaudevillian veteran, cast vicariously as both victim and villain by the vicissitudes of Fate. This visage, no mere veneer of vanity, is a vestige of the vox populi, now vacant, vanished. However, this valorous visitation of a bygone vexation stands vivified, and has vowed to vanquish these venal and virulent vermin vanguarding vice and vouchsafing the violently vicious and voracious violation of volition. The only verdict is vengeance; a vendetta held as a votive, not in vain, for the value and veracity of such shall one day vindicate the vigilant and the virtuous. Verily, this vichyssoise of verbiage veers most verbose, so let me simply add that it's my very good honor to meet you and you may call me V.".....V |
||||
|
||||
|
Etnu GDNet+ Member since: 4/25/2000 From: Sunnyvale, CA, United States |
|||
|
Posted - 9/7/2004 2:00:26 AM |
||||
Quote: I think the problem with C++/CLI (or managed C++) is that, well, you can still use normal C++ functionality, which may or may not be platform dependent. That creates some headaches that aren't really an issue in C#, since the closest thing you can do to doing anything "C++-like" there is unsafe blocks. |
||||
|
||||
|
CpMan Member since: 1/4/2001 From: Gainesville, USA |
|||
|
Posted - 9/7/2004 2:54:08 AM |
||||
| Good point, but you're going to get that with any C++ app anyway. VSEDebug Visual Studio.NET Add-In. Enhances debugging in ways never thought possible. |
||||
|
||||
|
Integra Banned Member since: 6/15/2004 From: Brantford, Canada |
|||
Posted - 9/7/2004 11:01:09 AM |
||||
| I'm surprised that nobody has mentioned the Axiom Engine which is a C# port of the C++ OGRE engine. This shows that really language isn't the big issue you need to think about, but rather design, functionality, math, etc. As if you test both, the C# port of the OGRE engine actually outperforms it's C++ big brother! |
||||
|
||||
|
HippieHunter Member since: 3/20/2003 From: USA |
|||
 Posted - 9/7/2004 11:40:55 PM |
||||
| I think there would be a huge problem with using .net on the Xbox 2 if its using some kind of IBM ppc dirivitive. While the Applications programmer does not care what CPU he runs on the person programming the .net framework sure as hell does. For every platform and every CPU the .net framwork programmer must make every single function work, and since it acts like a compiler that means they have to write an optimized compiler for that CPU/platform. Optimized asm is totaly different on an amd64 vs p4, and its also totaly different between the PS2s Vector units the EE, the Cell processor in the PS3 and the multi-core IBM sitting in the Xbox 2. All of these things come into effect when you have to program an abstraction that isnt slow, and still works the same way on every platform/CPU. P.S. anyone think that Microsoft putting a Mac processor into its console is stupid or something closely related to stupid? |
||||
|
||||
|
joanusdmentia Member since: 6/27/2002 From: Toowoomba, Australia |
|||
 Posted - 9/8/2004 12:22:45 AM |
||||
Quote: Funny, you first say there would be a problem with using .NET with a PPC processor and then immediately say that an apps programmer (that is, someone using .NET on the PPC processor) won't care (which reads to me as won't have a problem). You just contradicted yourself. Quote: Firstly, ".NET framework programmer" should be ".NET framework team". Big difference there. Secondly, they don't have to "make very single function work", in fact they shouldn't have to touch the .NET framework at all. It's the CLR, JIT compiler, etc that would need to have a PPC version developed. And thirdly, what's your point? If microsoft decides to support .NET on the XBox2 then developing the CLT, JIT compiler, etc. for it is their problem, not ours. All we have to do is code using .NET languages. Quote: No. "Voilą! In view, a humble vaudevillian veteran, cast vicariously as both victim and villain by the vicissitudes of Fate. This visage, no mere veneer of vanity, is a vestige of the vox populi, now vacant, vanished. However, this valorous visitation of a bygone vexation stands vivified, and has vowed to vanquish these venal and virulent vermin vanguarding vice and vouchsafing the violently vicious and voracious violation of volition. The only verdict is vengeance; a vendetta held as a votive, not in vain, for the value and veracity of such shall one day vindicate the vigilant and the virtuous. Verily, this vichyssoise of verbiage veers most verbose, so let me simply add that it's my very good honor to meet you and you may call me V.".....V |
||||
|
||||
|
vicviper Member since: 7/1/2003 From: Spain |
|||
|
Posted - 9/8/2004 3:19:56 AM |
||||
hmm... very interesting... A question for those who are already programming in managed C++ : Would it be possible to do a project, library, whatever, in which, by using #define and #ifdef , you could compile the project as managed or unmanaged? I figure it is possible, but, that would imply to do an #ifdef in half of the lines of code? or most of the code would be the same? |
||||
|
||||
|
Integra Banned Member since: 6/15/2004 From: Brantford, Canada |
|||
Posted - 9/8/2004 10:57:51 AM |
||||
Quote: It is actually quite the opposite. The x86 architecture is tired and other architectures are just flying right by. The PowerPC would be 10 times better for gaming than an x86 processor. Intel milked the x86 line for too long giving people insignificant upgrades in speed. That is why AMD and PowerPC are starting to eat away big portions of Intel's sales, which in term loses Intel strategic business partners. |
||||
|
||||
|
Eelco Member since: 3/31/2003 From: Enschede, Netherlands |
|||
|
Posted - 9/8/2004 11:17:38 AM |
||||
Quote: i would go even further. i think a decent programming language should have standarized .project files being a part of the language itself. then you can easily distribute your project and it will compile regardless of IDE or whatever, and it alllows you to set stuff like CG/no CG, case sensitivity, RAII, syntax preferences or other customizations to the language. and any standard compliant compiler would know what to do with it. |
||||
|
||||
|
GodBeastX Member since: 2/13/2004 |
|||
|
Posted - 9/8/2004 5:14:40 PM |
||||
| I almost threw up while reading this thread. How are "portability" and "use .NET" in the same sentence? C# is an abomination in my book. The IT world is making my game dev hobbies more annoying every day... If you want to port you gotta have a common denominator. C/C++ are as common as they come. ANSI C libs are pretty much your limitation unless someone has a library ported for you already. Anything else you're gonna be kicking yourself in the head. And why would they put .NET on the X-Box? Are people hiring Visual Basic coders now to write state of the art gaming engines? |
||||
|
||||
|
CpMan Member since: 1/4/2001 From: Gainesville, USA |
|||
|
Posted - 9/8/2004 10:41:46 PM |
||||
Quote: You have unfounded biases there. .NET is DESIGNED to be a portable system. Check the mono project out. You could even port .NET to unix if you wanted. In many ways, it's MORE portable than C/C++. And it's not a single language that is portable, it's the platform. In other words, all the languages that are supported. Why is C# an abomination? It's an amazing language. VSEDebug Visual Studio.NET Add-In. Enhances debugging in ways never thought possible. |
||||
|
||||
|
Integra Banned Member since: 6/15/2004 From: Brantford, Canada |
|||
Posted - 9/9/2004 12:34:33 AM |
||||
Quote: Must be a pretty error-prone and misleading book... unless of course you are a distinguished engineer? or someone that actually has worked with the language before debunking it at least? Quote: Can you please tell us the story again about how certain language delegates came to your house and forced you to use a certain programming language again? That's always a great story to listen to! |
||||
|
||||
|
GodBeastX Member since: 2/13/2004 |
|||
|
Posted - 9/9/2004 11:10:54 AM |
||||
| *Takes a deep breath* You know Oprah, it all started when I got hired as a software developer. Just playing. I know I'm being a bit hardcore on this, but most of that I guess comes from the company I work at. My bosses like to take routes like that, for example, using Java to do the user interface for part of our software. This year alot of our goal has been optimization which I have been pushing for the previous years. So I guess my anger is just undirected, but come on guys, you gotta admit, having extra layers on your code doesn't bother you at all? I'm a hard core cycle counter/assembly optimizing guy, so you might at least understand where I'm coming from. |
||||
|
||||
|
Integra Banned Member since: 6/15/2004 From: Brantford, Canada |
|||
Posted - 9/9/2004 11:47:59 AM |
||||
Quote: Maybe you can explain these "extra layers" that C# supposedly has? Quote: I used to think that way too, until I saw collegues getting canned over it. I remember the "C++ is trash, it's slow, why would I use a high level language like that instead of ASM or C?" from people. Any die-hard fan of a language is obviously a crack-pot engineer, as any real engineer will tell you that the language is just a tool and that you should pick the right one for the job at hand. |
||||
|
||||
|
jonnii Member since: 2/5/2002 From: United Kingdom |
|||
|
Posted - 9/9/2004 1:02:23 PM |
||||
| yes, and that code maintainability and flexibility is sometimes more important than execution speed. |
||||
|
||||
|
Page: 1 2 3 »» All times are ET (US) |
Last Thread Next Thread |
|
