Jump to content

  • Log In with Google      Sign In   
  • Create Account

Banner advertising on our site currently available from just $5!


1. Learn about the promo. 2. Sign up for GDNet+. 3. Set up your advert!


DirectDraw?? soon to be obsolete??


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
13 replies to this topic

#1 ToFuSoup   Members   -  Reputation: 122

Like
Likes
Like

Posted 12 February 2002 - 03:24 PM

Hi, I''ve been programming games for a long time, but I''ve always used someone else''s directX wrappers. I was just starting to learn directX (Direct Draw actually) myself, and I just read that microsoft is ditching DirectDraw, and having everything done through DirectGraphics/Direct3D? So I was wondering if you think it''s still a good idea to learn directdraw, or should I try to just learn DirectGraphics/Direct3D?? TIA

Sponsor:

#2 aftermath   Banned   -  Reputation: 100

Like
Likes
Like

Posted 12 February 2002 - 03:31 PM

I think you arnt going to get far with DDraw. Face it my friend, if its not 3d -- its nothing. Although if you are aldschool like me, your gona stik wit da'' 13h mode. I miself thoufg, would learn both DDraw and DirectGrafics(D3D), along with everything else. Could this tern into a war about 2D grafics, like gl vs. d3d?

- err, the last signiture sucked bigtime!

#3 a person   Members   -  Reputation: 118

Like
Likes
Like

Posted 12 February 2002 - 03:56 PM

btw, this has been posted before, and lead to a decent discussion, search for it if interrested.

basically to sum it up.

microsoft did not ditch directdraw. you will be able to use it even if ppl install dx1723, simply because dx is backwards compatible. video manufacturers are not adding anymore 2d features to their video cards so there is no need to update the interfaces. ms saw this as an oppurtunity to clean up d3d and make things more competitive by making d3d easier to use. ms redesigned d3d and now is MUCH easier to create 3d apps using dx8.

d3d CANT replace directdraw. it simple is not possible. most per pixel effects cannot by done using d3d.

video players have no reason to use d3d, especially since many cards out there cant handle extremly large textures. directdraw also supplies some acceleration as well to video apps. yuv is done in hardware and other things like video ports help ensure the video card does more work and frees up the cpu.

you should learn both. because no matter what ppl say, 3d games are the rage and is what the mainstream public want. d3d can accelerate tile based games very well and help with alpha blending in those apps. while i ussually perfer the 2d look, video cards are getting to the point with cell shading that a 3d game can almost look as good as some older 2d titles.

some specialized 2d apps though are best left to directdraw. these include video players, visual plugins that do per pixel effects, etc.

i learned both, and it helps.

#4 krez   GDNet+   -  Reputation: 443

Like
Likes
Like

Posted 12 February 2002 - 04:35 PM

quote:
Original post by AfTeRmAtH
I think you arnt going to get far with DDraw. Face it my friend, if its not 3d -- its nothing. Although if you are aldschool like me, your gona stik wit da'' 13h mode


HA HA HA HA HA!

#5 mickey   Members   -  Reputation: 100

Like
Likes
Like

Posted 13 February 2002 - 01:12 AM

i hope not!!! i''ve loved directdraw very much, although at first i wasn''t... hm... if i learned d3d will i love it too? am just scared to learn it though as of now...

#6 Promit   Moderators   -  Reputation: 9280

Like
Likes
Like

Posted 13 February 2002 - 06:57 AM

quote:
Original post by a person
d3d CANT replace directdraw. it simple is not possible. most per pixel effects cannot by done using d3d.




Im pretty sure thats why Vertex/pixel shaders exist. They will do all of that.


-----------------------------
The sad thing about artificial intelligence is that it lacks artifice and therefore intelligence.

#7 aftermath   Banned   -  Reputation: 100

Like
Likes
Like

Posted 13 February 2002 - 12:27 PM

quote:
Original post by krez
[quote]Original post by AfTeRmAtH
I think you arnt going to get far with DDraw. Face it my friend, if its not 3d -- its nothing. Although if you are aldschool like me, your gona stik wit da'' 13h mode


HA HA HA HA HA!
HA HA HA HA HA?



- err, the last signiture sucked bigtime!

#8 krez   GDNet+   -  Reputation: 443

Like
Likes
Like

Posted 13 February 2002 - 12:52 PM

quote:
Original post by AfTeRmAtH
I think you arnt going to get far with DDraw. Face it my friend, if its not 3d -- its nothing. Although if you are aldschool like me, your gona stik wit da'' 13h mode...
***
me: HA HA HA HA HA!
***
you: HA HA HA HA HA?


yes, i said, "HA HA HA HA HA!"
do i really have to explain? that always ruins the joke...
i''ll just give a hint: are you doing 3D in "da'' 13h mode"? or do you just program nothing?
again, HA HA HA HA HA!
i really shouldn''t be so disrespectful as to make fun of an "aldschooler" like yourself.... heh heh...

--- krez (krezisback@aol.com)

#9 aftermath   Banned   -  Reputation: 100

Like
Likes
Like

Posted 14 February 2002 - 10:46 AM

yeh.. OK. Maby your right. I do sound kind of self-centerd there . Just ignore plese.

- err, the last signiture sucked bigtime!

#10 a person   Members   -  Reputation: 118

Like
Likes
Like

Posted 14 February 2002 - 05:14 PM

promit, you dont understand what vertex/pixel shaders are for. i like to see you perform some of the oldchool perpixel effects. try the simple translation map with feedback effect. a simple lookup table which translate the pixels in the backbuffer becomes an utter nightmare to do in 3d hardware. using renders to texture, copying to system ram, aplly the translation, sending to vidram again, then blitting to the screen AND the offscreen render surface to do it again does not sound too fun nor fast. btw you could not even use pixel shaders for that and vertex shaders? heh, nope. there are many others, like TRUE radial blurs (none of that recursive crap). true you can do some nift things with pixel shaders, but they are not designed to replace direct access. last i checked you cant get fully random texture access using pixel shaders.

i see the 3d hardware marketing gurus got you pretty good with their naming convention.

#11 zedzeek   Members   -  Reputation: 528

Like
Likes
Like

Posted 14 February 2002 - 05:36 PM

u cant compare pixelshaders to software its like comparing a dragster to a 4wd.

the reason directdraw has been stopped is cause with todays cards u can do 2d using a api like d3d or opengl far quicker than u can do 2d with directdraw

http://uk.geocities.com/sloppyturds/gotterdammerung.html

#12 DeltaI   Members   -  Reputation: 122

Like
Likes
Like

Posted 15 February 2002 - 05:40 PM

Of course, anyone ever play a good game of 3d-Tetris? 2d graphics are simply another way to display a fake world, and they tend to be less confusing than 3d. Just my opinion.

#13 a person   Members   -  Reputation: 118

Like
Likes
Like

Posted 15 February 2002 - 06:47 PM

zedzeek, directdraw was not stopped, merely not upgraded because there was no need to. the only ppl that think directdraw is completely dead are the ignorent. video card producers are not adding 2d features, so why upgrade the api when the old one is fine, and still usable with no problems. but you are right, with random direct per pixel access of video memory vs very linear combining of texture. i cant see how anyone could even imagine pixel shaders replacing direct access.

all you 3d morons, i propose a challenge. mimic a translation table effect (as seen in avs, giess, cthuga, gfader, etc) using only pixel shaders and d3d. dont forget the effect is done with feedback which means the last frame starts the next frame (no clears required or needed). when you can do this, then maybe you can say directdraw is dead.

Edited by - a person on February 16, 2002 1:49:58 AM

#14 CrazedGenius   Members   -  Reputation: 156

Like
Likes
Like

Posted 17 February 2002 - 05:43 AM

a person - I asked this as a response to a similar post, but perhaps you didn''t see it...

It''s been a very long time since I''ve used DirectDraw, so perhaps I don''t understand the whole picture, but it strikes me that the kinds of effects you are talking about would have been done by locking the DD surface and affecting the pixels.

How is this different than locking a DX8 surface (texture) and affecting the pixels? Performance-wise, you are doing the same thing (right??), so how are they different?

If that''s the case, I would assume that you would break even (between DX7 and DX8) on per-pixel effects that require locking and experience huge speedups in DX8 for effects that do not require locking. What am I missing?

As for your challenge, can you explain the effect in more detail? The way it''s described, I think it might be easy, but I''m not sure that I totally understand what you''re looking for...




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