Jump to content

  • Log In with Google      Sign In   
  • Create Account

jammm

Member Since 18 Mar 2013
Offline Last Active Jan 31 2016 10:51 PM

Posts I've Made

In Topic: Starting an DX7 Retained mode program in windows 7 x64 sp1

26 July 2015 - 03:33 PM

Sorry, I forgot I've asked this question before. I want to start a DX7 retained mode program written

in VB6 in Windows 7 x64 sp1 I've checked the back compatibility checkbox for the program.

I've downloaded the vb activex control for DX7 and the retained mode DLL called d3drm.dll

But the function call namely Direct3DRMCreate still unable to step over.

It just fails. BTW, VB6 SP6 does work on windows 7 x64 sp1

DX8 programs do work this way. But DX7 don't.

I wonder did Intel put the silicon into the HD 3000 chip for DX7?

Thanks

Jack

 

Did you try running it in compatibility mode for windows XP?

Some Retained Mode apps will refuse to work even if you have the DLL. It's simply because they dropped the DLL itself since vista, so it's not tested to work 100% on current modern OS's.

Two seconds of Google were enough, Direct3D Retained Mode removed from Windows Vista

Some Direct3D Retained Mode apps still work as long as you have the compatibility mode set along with the dll downloaded seperately. Almost all the Retained Mode samples from the DX7 SDK work for me on windows 8.1 in compatibility mode along with the dll present. I've also ran Lego Rock Raiders (one of the few popular games using Retained Mode), albeit with very, very choppy performance. Still, technically it does run all the way.


In Topic: Internship in final year of undergrad: Autodesk vs Ubisoft?

23 June 2015 - 04:07 PM

If you get into both, you are going to have gone through multiple phases of interviews. And remember you are interviewing them as well. So get your questions ready. Find out the work, find out the tools and ask everything. That will really help you in finding out the best fit for yourself.

I never really thought of that. Thank you! :) I'll ask them what their interns are up to, and what future projects can they work on.

I do know that the local Ubisoft office here is looking for Unity devs for mobile games (according to their linkedin profile), maybe that's not the direction I should go towards as it doesn't involve graphics programming and because I don't know Unity.


In Topic: Internship in final year of undergrad: Autodesk vs Ubisoft?

23 June 2015 - 01:08 PM

Since you said Autodesk and Ubisoft, I'm assuming your city is Montreal. From memory, I believe Autodesk's office in Montreal is part of their gamesware division. I'd double check that, but if so I'd say either would be helpful towards your end goal.

 

Edit: Just reread OP and saw that you're living in India. As a more general suggestion, programming is programming and take whichever one offers you a spot. Both companies have solid reputations.

 

What if I got an offer for both? Even though I haven't applied yet, my friends who had applied for both had gotten accepted relatively easily, since it's just an internship and in India I guess the bar for entry isn't too high here I guess.

 

I understand that it's an internship and all, but in terms of the company itself, the decision seems pretty tough. I will try out the decision grid approach as a start, but I'm still looking for opinions on this from others in order to strengthen my decision.


In Topic: Internship in final year of undergrad: Autodesk vs Ubisoft?

23 June 2015 - 05:57 AM

You need to apply for both.  They both have hundreds of applicants.  Apply for both and wait until you have firm offers before you start weighing up the pros and cons of which one to take.  Don't sell yourself short by applying for only one.

I'll be applying for both, just not now. I'm going to apply in september this year, after my current work at GSoC ends. So I still have time to think about which one I should go for in case I do get into both.


In Topic: Technical papers on real time rendering

24 February 2015 - 06:26 AM

 

 

wouldn't it make more sense if you find one or more interesting papers from those journals and implement them ?

Taking existing/available implementations, adding a couple of references and submit them as your own research is NOT how you get a degree...

It's not really research, just a presentation. As I said, it's just a seminar. Nowhere in the post have I specified that this is research.

 

 

The following advice is if you're genuinely interested in learning here, if your priority is to pass the seminar as simply as possible than I guess you disregard it.

 

The point of these exercises is typically to have you research a topic you're unfamiliar with and show that you're capable of picking up knowledge and understand what's going on on your own (by crawling through refs, etc...). The post 2012 criterium is probably there specifically because most pre 2012 algorithms have simple tutorials or at least sample projects available that you could copy, or which do a large part of the "understanding" for you and give it to you in a simpler and more digestible manner, at the cost of depth and accuracy. 

 

That may not seem like a big thing, but if you're unfamiliar with it, there's quite a difference between crawling papers to understand and implement something, and reading a tutorial and implementing what's presented there. But paper crawling is important if you don't want to wait around for others to explain stuff to you when new papers come out. Just as an example, most tutorials you find will go fairly easy on the math and pretty much always sweep something under the rug that's extremely important to get a detailed understanding of the relevant field, as opposed to just that specific algorithm that's presented in a tutorial.

 

Also it's kind of lame to implement something like the basic SSAO algorithm that Crytek came up with when lots of improvements in that area have been made since.

 

But now, some practical help: This thesis from 2013 is a pretty good overview over some relatively recent advances in SSAO (it compares six specific algorithms).

 

I agree with you, I do intend to learn from implementing these algorithms, but the reason why I'm going for a simple-to-implement algorithm is so that I could first learn how that works, then implement a paper which improves upon that algorithm. Also, I only have a month to prepare for this, so I have to be realistic with my own goals and expectations by the end of the month.

 

Thanks for the thesis link! I'm sure I'll be having a great time going through it, understanding the algorithms and, if possible, implement one of those algorithms as part of my demonstration!

 

 

 

Regarding DOF/Bokeh: you should most definitely check out this presentation from CryTek (from 2013), and possibly also this 2014 presentation about COD: AW. In my opinion, the purely gather-based approaches are more scalable in terms of performance, and can give some really great results. The first presentation also has some good references to earlier papers that you can check out.

Thanks alot for the links! That's some great information right there smile.png

I also found a paper here, which talks about an advancement in DOF/Bokeh, offering better performance than normal non-seperable filtering. It seems to be cited in the Crytek presentation too. The plan is that I'll be learning DOF/Bokeh from your samples, implement them on my engine and try to implement this paper after that. I hope you don't mind me referencing your approach while implementing DOF/Bokeh on my engine.

 

I'll be sure to cite your blog and the paper I found on my report.


PARTNERS