DX Version Suggestions
Also, if you develop with Visual Basic, only DirectX 7 has Microsoft''s official support (ie., it is standardised). Otherwise, requiring the user to have the lowest version of DirectX would allow the most users to enjoy your DirectX application without the hastle of upgrading (and as mentioned, NT users are currently limited to DX3 anyway).
Egads...tempers are flaring. Jim, it seems as if you are really only using 2D then probably *you* dont need to force end users to use a later version of DX. However, tossing out 3D for the moment, there *have* been significant changes to other areas of DX, DPlay for instance.
Generally speaking, I end up upgrading DX only when I need a feature that the current version doesnt have, or there have been bug fixes or improvements in features I need. Then I require my users to upgrade too.
As for speed improvements, well...maybe not in 2D, but in 3D it is rather significant. You can measure the differnces with a stopwatch.
I havent had any problems with 7a (that I am aware of).
Omo
Generally speaking, I end up upgrading DX only when I need a feature that the current version doesnt have, or there have been bug fixes or improvements in features I need. Then I require my users to upgrade too.
As for speed improvements, well...maybe not in 2D, but in 3D it is rather significant. You can measure the differnces with a stopwatch.
I havent had any problems with 7a (that I am aware of).
Omo
Author
-------------------------------
You were ranting about using the newest version of DX for development, requiring end users to always upgrade to the newest version of the run-time libraries.
-------------------------------
I was ranting about NOT forcing end-users into installing the latest version of DX. Get it right please.
-------------------------------
I simply said (twice): who wouldn''t upgrade to the latest version of the run-time libraries anyway?
This has everything to do with the post, because if end users used the latest version of the run-time libraries, there would be no inconvenience to them to use apps requiring the latest version.
(end of problem)
Do not try to make me sound like an idiot again. I don''t like it. And by doing so, you only show your own lack of intelligence. Shooting down people''s posts blindly is not a good way to communicate (which is the purpose of this forum!). If you have something to say, and you expect people to listen, say it nicely .
-------------------------------
I''ll be nice about this...
I don''t need to try and make you sound like an idiot, and I have never outright said anything like that. It''s childish for you to say that I have been (and that I''ve done it more than once). If you wish to communicate as well, then don''t just start spouting factless information without something to back it up.
If a program that does NOT use the newest features, as I have said before, then why force the upgrade? You keep dancing around this question, and you''re getting upset in the process.
I am a very intellegent person, and I have made a clear explanation of what I have meant (as others have understood from their posts). It just seems you are ''blindly'' replying without giving any clear or factual information based on what I have said.
From a business point-of-view, forcing this is a problem. Number one, compatable issues - some hardware just simply won''t work right. As others have mentioned, some DX versions just don''t work right for them. Don''t believe me? Do a search - go to gateway, dell, hp, packard bell, etc and so a search on their tech sites for related DX problems. Go to ATI or other hardware manufacturers and do a search. Problems exist. Having the newest version of DX does not help all the time.
As mentioned before, if you are only using simple functions, such as blitting, or directinput device reading, then you simple do not have to use the newest version. DX 3 has many of the functions, and NT users can use them.
This brings up another problem - users of hardware that takes advantage of DX, such as newer video caption devices, will not work with DX 5+ on NT - you MUST use 3. They are smart and understand that. It''s business - you have to do it. Why leave out a large portion of the market?
Next, why force somebody to download the newest version that can span over 10 megs? If you make your game available for download, then that end-users doesn''t have the cd handy to install dx.
Has anybody had to re-installed windows yet because of a messed up install of DX? It sucks - plain and simple. There''s no easy way to fix it.
Next, let''s look at other things, such as d3d. Of course there''s the newest features, but did you think that maybe some of the newest hardware can''t support those features yet, or that your target audience may not have the newest cards? It''ll default to software methods, which may be slow. Why not just step down a bit and go for something that is easier, faster, and more cost efficient to get out?
If you haven''t got the point yet, you probably never will. You need to look at this from a business point of view as well and understand the industry. Look at the smart companies that are doing exactly what I have said - they know what they''re doing, and will continue to do so.
Jim
You were ranting about using the newest version of DX for development, requiring end users to always upgrade to the newest version of the run-time libraries.
-------------------------------
I was ranting about NOT forcing end-users into installing the latest version of DX. Get it right please.
-------------------------------
I simply said (twice): who wouldn''t upgrade to the latest version of the run-time libraries anyway?
This has everything to do with the post, because if end users used the latest version of the run-time libraries, there would be no inconvenience to them to use apps requiring the latest version.
(end of problem)
Do not try to make me sound like an idiot again. I don''t like it. And by doing so, you only show your own lack of intelligence. Shooting down people''s posts blindly is not a good way to communicate (which is the purpose of this forum!). If you have something to say, and you expect people to listen, say it nicely .
-------------------------------
I''ll be nice about this...
I don''t need to try and make you sound like an idiot, and I have never outright said anything like that. It''s childish for you to say that I have been (and that I''ve done it more than once). If you wish to communicate as well, then don''t just start spouting factless information without something to back it up.
If a program that does NOT use the newest features, as I have said before, then why force the upgrade? You keep dancing around this question, and you''re getting upset in the process.
I am a very intellegent person, and I have made a clear explanation of what I have meant (as others have understood from their posts). It just seems you are ''blindly'' replying without giving any clear or factual information based on what I have said.
From a business point-of-view, forcing this is a problem. Number one, compatable issues - some hardware just simply won''t work right. As others have mentioned, some DX versions just don''t work right for them. Don''t believe me? Do a search - go to gateway, dell, hp, packard bell, etc and so a search on their tech sites for related DX problems. Go to ATI or other hardware manufacturers and do a search. Problems exist. Having the newest version of DX does not help all the time.
As mentioned before, if you are only using simple functions, such as blitting, or directinput device reading, then you simple do not have to use the newest version. DX 3 has many of the functions, and NT users can use them.
This brings up another problem - users of hardware that takes advantage of DX, such as newer video caption devices, will not work with DX 5+ on NT - you MUST use 3. They are smart and understand that. It''s business - you have to do it. Why leave out a large portion of the market?
Next, why force somebody to download the newest version that can span over 10 megs? If you make your game available for download, then that end-users doesn''t have the cd handy to install dx.
Has anybody had to re-installed windows yet because of a messed up install of DX? It sucks - plain and simple. There''s no easy way to fix it.
Next, let''s look at other things, such as d3d. Of course there''s the newest features, but did you think that maybe some of the newest hardware can''t support those features yet, or that your target audience may not have the newest cards? It''ll default to software methods, which may be slow. Why not just step down a bit and go for something that is easier, faster, and more cost efficient to get out?
If you haven''t got the point yet, you probably never will. You need to look at this from a business point of view as well and understand the industry. Look at the smart companies that are doing exactly what I have said - they know what they''re doing, and will continue to do so.
Jim
Author
I would also like to say that Tenshi has the first best answer that I didn''t think about - VB support.
Jim
Jim
Allrighty. I''m going to try to make this as two sided as I can, as that is what this whole topic is based off of. As I understand it, Jim was simply telling us programmers not to use DX7 if we don''t need to. Hmmm... That does sound reasonable.
The only thing I don''t understand about that request is whether Jim is taking into account that this is something that is talked about in the game development pipeline - actually, it''s a big thing that is talked about in my experience. If you are, Jim, then I think you should reevaluate the entire request. I suppose it would be a bit fairer to everyone to assume that they are intelligent enough to consider the different advantages of versions, and that they do make their final decision based on discussions with the team and the marketing people.
Now to address the bit where you limited your request to those making 2d games. I have made 2d games in the past, and I do see your point very clearly. If you are using DirectDraw, you only really need DX3. I haven''t seen any real changes in the versions of DirectDraw. Now, it is very true that DirectPlay 6.1a is a heckuvalot better than that in 3, but that too runs on NT. DirectInput is fine on NT. DirectSound? Yep. The only thing that is lacking turns out to be Direct3D (pretty much sucks before DX6), DirectMusic, dadida. But, as I mentioned before, this is all considered in the game development pipeline.
Ok, so now I''m going to do my best to justify claims for DX7. Now, I know Jim''s not going to like it, but I''ll have to use his own arguments against him. First of all, at one point Jim said that DX7 may have some new features to use, but the hardware may not support those features. In my experience, I''ve never seen the case where one couldn''t work around a problem they know is there. Probably the best thing about DX is that it tells you what''s going on, and you can do things such as query devices and such. By doing this, you get information on what the device can and cannot do, as well as finding out whether you''d have do do it in software or hardware. It may be too much to ask, but do you think it would kill to check those flags and adjust accordingly? I''ve not worked on a project that didn''t have such adjustment capabilities. Actually, I suppose if I get back to the original post, Jim''s only concerned about 2d stuff. More about that....
Jim, you''re right in the fact that there have been no real improvements on DX''s part in 2d stuff, with the exception of overlays and minor bug fixes. They pretty much finished that a few years ago. I think you already know this. Anyway, how can anyone combat an argument like that, when you first of all ask people not to use an API that has made leaps in areas other than 2d functions, and then you limit the discussion of why people would do such a thing by that factor?
I''m going to go ahead and post this, as I''m starting to repeat myself. I look forward to future posts.
Andy Luedke
Technical Director
AndyLuedke@hotmail.com
The only thing I don''t understand about that request is whether Jim is taking into account that this is something that is talked about in the game development pipeline - actually, it''s a big thing that is talked about in my experience. If you are, Jim, then I think you should reevaluate the entire request. I suppose it would be a bit fairer to everyone to assume that they are intelligent enough to consider the different advantages of versions, and that they do make their final decision based on discussions with the team and the marketing people.
Now to address the bit where you limited your request to those making 2d games. I have made 2d games in the past, and I do see your point very clearly. If you are using DirectDraw, you only really need DX3. I haven''t seen any real changes in the versions of DirectDraw. Now, it is very true that DirectPlay 6.1a is a heckuvalot better than that in 3, but that too runs on NT. DirectInput is fine on NT. DirectSound? Yep. The only thing that is lacking turns out to be Direct3D (pretty much sucks before DX6), DirectMusic, dadida. But, as I mentioned before, this is all considered in the game development pipeline.
Ok, so now I''m going to do my best to justify claims for DX7. Now, I know Jim''s not going to like it, but I''ll have to use his own arguments against him. First of all, at one point Jim said that DX7 may have some new features to use, but the hardware may not support those features. In my experience, I''ve never seen the case where one couldn''t work around a problem they know is there. Probably the best thing about DX is that it tells you what''s going on, and you can do things such as query devices and such. By doing this, you get information on what the device can and cannot do, as well as finding out whether you''d have do do it in software or hardware. It may be too much to ask, but do you think it would kill to check those flags and adjust accordingly? I''ve not worked on a project that didn''t have such adjustment capabilities. Actually, I suppose if I get back to the original post, Jim''s only concerned about 2d stuff. More about that....
Jim, you''re right in the fact that there have been no real improvements on DX''s part in 2d stuff, with the exception of overlays and minor bug fixes. They pretty much finished that a few years ago. I think you already know this. Anyway, how can anyone combat an argument like that, when you first of all ask people not to use an API that has made leaps in areas other than 2d functions, and then you limit the discussion of why people would do such a thing by that factor?
I''m going to go ahead and post this, as I''m starting to repeat myself. I look forward to future posts.
Andy Luedke
Technical Director
AndyLuedke@hotmail.com
Jim,
Just so you know, the links you provided in your second post here are curious. The first doesn''t work, the second has a name on it - John Adams. Is that you?
Andy Luedke
Just so you know, the links you provided in your second post here are curious. The first doesn''t work, the second has a name on it - John Adams. Is that you?
Andy Luedke
Jim Adams: I decided to re-read this whole post and its replies; found some interesting stuff...anyway you did say more than a few things which were not true. If I wanted to go through the whole post and belabor all of your mistakes, I could. But, IMHO, it''s not very nice to do that. You''ll notice in all my replies that I didn''t quote from your post and replies and belittle the stuff I didn''t understand...
Whatever I may have learned from this post, you definitely taught me one thing -- never reply to an angry post.
- null_pointer
Whatever I may have learned from this post, you definitely taught me one thing -- never reply to an angry post.
- null_pointer
This topic is closed to new replies.
Advertisement
Popular Topics
Advertisement
