Jump to content

  • Log In with Google      Sign In   
  • Create Account

Replacement for Xna?


Old topic!
Guest, the last post of this topic is over 60 days old and at this point you may not reply in this topic. If you wish to continue this conversation start a new topic.

  • You cannot reply to this topic
5 replies to this topic

#1 Zeffrit   Members   -  Reputation: 119

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 30 August 2013 - 11:08 PM

Hello,

 

     I am a somewhat intermediate C# programmer. I've been looking into xna because I want to get into using graphics. I hear xna is really good and easy to learn. However, I also hear Microsoft has abandoned xna, and stopped supporting it. Is it a bad idea to learn xna when it's been dropped by Microsoft? Would there be a better route to take to learn graphics programming? I like working on 2D games. I am not interested in 3D the least bit, so 2D support is the max for me. I'm not sure if it would be best to go down to the base and try learning DirectX it's self, or perhaps there is a better option? Any help would be greatly appreciated.

 

Thanks



Sponsor:

#2 Endurion   Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 3683

Like
1Likes
Like

Posted 30 August 2013 - 11:45 PM

XNA doesn't stop working just because there's no more support for it. It's a mature, working API and will continue working for a while.

 

You could however look into Monogame, which is a open replacement for XNA (even tries to rebuild the API 1:1) and is properly updated.


Fruny: Ftagn! Ia! Ia! std::time_put_byname! Mglui naflftagn std::codecvt eY'ha-nthlei!,char,mbstate_t>

#3 runonthespot   Members   -  Reputation: 169

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 31 August 2013 - 04:24 AM

There's always Unity (noting that the next version out in a month or two includes native 2d tools).

 

Nice thing about Unity is that you can run your game on just about anything.



#4 Bitbridge   Members   -  Reputation: 185

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 31 August 2013 - 05:53 AM

If you want exactly the same as XNA, you should go with MonoGame. You can use your existing code (if you already started learning it) and it even works on different platforms. They're actively working on it and also adding more features.

 

If you want to have more features and "convenience stuff", you could go with Unity, like runonthespot mentioned. However, I'd suggest waiting until the native 2D tools are released, because working with Unity 2D Frameworks isn't that much fun, although I've only used "Orthello 2D". I heard 2D Toolkit is good, but also costs $60 or something like that.

 

Other than that, I don't really know of any more good C# libraries/frameworks that are kinda like XNA.


Edited by Bitbridge, 31 August 2013 - 05:54 AM.


#5 Rorakin   Members   -  Reputation: 618

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 05 September 2013 - 05:20 PM

I would suggest C# in Unity even if you feel like you will never do 3d, there are just too many other good features of Unity.



#6 dilyan_rusev   Members   -  Reputation: 1068

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 08 September 2013 - 03:07 AM

I've seen 'toolkit' mentioned in the SharpDX samples code and web site, but I haven't tested it. I *think* it's not ready yet, but it aims to be XNA-like.

We use XNA + some features of SharpDX (mainly DirectWrite for beautiful, custom-rendered, properly spaced text). Quite frankly, if I had to choose technology now, I'd either use raw SharpDX, or even better, Unity. The amount of stuff you have to write yourself for the most trivial combination of animations is... discouraging.






Old topic!
Guest, the last post of this topic is over 60 days old and at this point you may not reply in this topic. If you wish to continue this conversation start a new topic.



PARTNERS