Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

DirectX 9

This topic is 5594 days old which is more than the 365 day threshold we allow for new replies. Please post a new topic.

If you intended to correct an error in the post then please contact us.

Recommended Posts

Does anyone know if DirectDraw is being reintroduced back into DX9? And if so, will there be significant changes like that of DX7 D3D to DX8 D3D? Just curious. Thanks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DX9 will continue to not have DD as a seprate item. Its not really that different from DX8 except for one feature additions like Displacement Surfaces. DX10 is apparently going to be a very major reengineering.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dang, that is so not right. DirectDraw is sweet, and I know you can still use the interfaces and such, but not having documentation on it or anything, or updating it is just so wrong. Trying to force everyone into 3D, bleh. Some people prefer the retro style games.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If you ownt to do 2D stuff with DX8 all you do use use D3D with Ortho, its WAY WAY faster then DD ever was becouse your using the 3D Hardware...



-VBLimits
Sorry about the Spelling..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yeah sure you can always do 2D with DX8. And actually (IMO) it''s much nicer than using DirectDraw. It''s faster, supports alpha blending and many other operations. Transformations are also very easy to do (rotation, scaling...etc). So don''t be too sad about DirectDraw not existing in DX8.

Spartacus



Real programmers don''t document, if it was hard to write it should be hard to understand


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
From what I understand (if this is not true, someone say somthing), DirectX 9 will support c#. I guess it doesn''t work as of yet. This will be great for newbies to start it up and mess with it without all the frustration.


I think, therfore I am.
I think?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DirectX 9 will support C#. Actually it does so pretty nicely :-) For most things.


Regards

Thomas Tomiczek
THONA Consulting Ltd.
(Microsoft MVP C#/.NET)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In the dx 8 book I have it says that some graphics cards textures can't go beyond 128x128 pixels. So that’s a problem with just D3D.

[edited by - Manastone on August 18, 2002 11:34:14 AM]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Manastone, that will only be a problem if you go back in time to say... 1995 or something, and buy the cheapest card you can find.
I don''t think any card that''s been sold the last few years gives textures smaller than 1024x1024. And most does 2048x2048.


--
MFC is sorta like the swedish police... It''''s full of crap, and nothing can communicate with anything else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
face it, DD IS OBSOLETE. you can do the same things in D3D and much more. in fact I would say DX8 is EASIER than all that crap you have to do in DX7 to set up the device etc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I''m sorry but saying everyone should use d3d is just plain dumb. The texture size IS a factor (what if you want to run at 1280x1024) as well as using loads of video memory, and it''s lot''s more complicated having to render to a texture then draw triangles. Sure it''s faster, but since a 300MHz PC can do most things you''d want for 2d in software I doubt you''re going to need a great deal of power for 2d stuff. And you assume everyone has a P3 with a GF4 - the majority of users never upgrade meaning probably ~50% of PCs in use are substantially <500MHz. It''s just dumb to use d3d for a 2d game unless you need some of the features (transforms is a good one though you could still use D3DX routines with DD).

What are displacement maps please?



Read about my game, project #1
NEW (13th August): A new screenshot is up, plus diaries for week #3


John 3:16

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
quote:
Original post by d000hg
What are displacement maps please?


like a bumpmap, but it actually displaces the pixel. there is a pic comparison of a textured tire, a bump mapped tire, and a dispacement mapped tire, it was absolutley amazing, maybe someone can dig it up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If you want to code for older systems DX7 is the maximum you can use. My current project is technically simple yet won''t run on my 133 laptop simply because it uses DX 8 which the graphics card doesn''t support even though it''s not doing anything DX 7 couldn''t do. My P200 runs it great but I had to get a 3rd party driver for the Voodoo3 2000. It''s kind of dumb that the only thing stopping a program from running on old systems is lack of support for things the program doesn''t even use.

DDraw still has a place when you want to use non power of two overlays without any frills. There are ways to avoid using odd shaped overlays but it''s kind of annoying to have to.

Ben


IcarusIndie.com [ The Rabbit Hole | The Labyrinth | DevZone | Gang Wars | The Wall | Hosting | Dot Com | GameShot ]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
quote:
Original post by torquel
Dang, that is so not right. DirectDraw is sweet, and I know you can still use the interfaces and such, but not having documentation on it or anything, or updating it is just so wrong. Trying to force everyone into 3D, bleh. Some people prefer the retro style games.

The point is that it''s still there and isn''t going anywhere.

You can still download the SDK with full documentation, so I''m not sure where you''re coming from by saying there is no documentation.

They stopped updating it because there''s nothing else to add. Graphics card makers are not adding new 2D features, so there are no new features to add.

Microsoft isn''t trying to force anyone to do anything. I''m a strong critic of Microsoft, but if you''re going to criticize them, do it for things that they are doing wrong. Because this time, they''re doing it right.



Stay Casual,

Ken
Drunken Hyena

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DrunkenHyena is right. Video card manufacturers did stop supporting 2D long before MS dropped DD. In fact, some of the manufacturers were starting to get a little ticked off at some of the extra steps required to allow specific features, such as frame buffer access, etc.

As with all things, you need to keep up with the technology, and sticking to straight 2D really isn''t the ''thing''. 3D graphics has taken the lead, and using D3D is perfectly plausible now, as most current video hardware supports 3D is some form or another.

Jim Adams
*** 500 error x 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Texture size isn''t a factor, really.

My game has a full 2D UI (its a 3D game but with a 2D GUI layer that can actually display sprites too) and I never worry about texture size limitations (even though I sometimes display 2D layers that are fullscreen 1600x1200!) because if it runs up against texture size limitations it just uses two (or however many are needed) textures and splits the image across them before rendering. There are some issues with this, such as it pretty much eliminates you from doing hardware-assisted rotation when this split occurs (the two textured quads won''t ever quite match up right unless they are rotated only on 90 degree angles), but you can''t do hardware assisted rotation in DDraw anyway so its not really a good argument against using DX8 in this way.

I would have liked if Microsoft would have created a layer such as the one I programmed and put it in Direct3D to save me the trouble, but they didn''t.. With a little bit of design and coding though it wasn''t too difficult to work around this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I''m just having trouble figuring out how all you guys know so much about DX9 without violating the NDA. Does that lil checkbox I had to check off even mean anything?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nobody has really said anything except that it won''t have DD, will support C# and will have features like displacement mapping.

None of this is secret. Microsoft has made this information public already, and once they make it public (from an official source) the NDA no longer applies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2D support was also talked about at Meltdown 2001 and GDC ''02 (both nonNDA sessions).

There is actually far more "public" information than people are mentioning in this thread and others.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
When I say there is no documentation, I mean in the .chm file. I cannot find anything on DirectDraw in it. I can understand if they stop supporting it ok, but at least I would like to see the documentation still there? Maybe it is there and I just dont see it, I dont know. All I see is Direct Graphics. As for 3D being the way to go, I totally agree, but when you are one person developing a game, creating a 3D game thats even decent takes an immense ammount of time. 2D is very nice for creating clean nice, classical games. Perhapes many of you just forgot your roots as children or something and no longer appreciate 2D? heh. (flame time right?)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hello2k1 - the comments are right. Once MS publishes information the NDA is not prohibiting you to say so :-)

Now, going back through all the info I got over official sources I can tell you quite a bit about:

SQL Server 2003
VS.NET .next (hm, ok, correct the name here IS under NDA, right folks?
Exchange Server 2003

and a lot of other technologies. Some of the infos I could tell you are not exactly "common knowledge", but I still could tell you about them without violating the NDA, because at one point in it''s history MS has said something about it.

One example? On the last teched (the ppt files are public or have been publi for some time) MS posted some sample code3 of how stored procedures in the SQL Server 2003 might look like when written in C#.

Now, that puts a lot of info into your hands :-)

Still it is pretty delicate to say real things - I mean, besides the DirectX 9.0 beta (which is highly public in that people KNOW about it) ms constantly has some nice internal tests going on, and then you really have to be carefull and keep your mouth shut :-)


Regards

Thomas Tomiczek
THONA Consulting Ltd.
(Microsoft MVP C#/.NET)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
quote:
Original post by torquel
2D is very nice for creating clean nice, classical games. Perhapes many of you just forgot your roots as children or something and no longer appreciate 2D? heh. (flame time right?)



Don''t confuse 2D as a format/genre/design with "blitting" as a drawing mechanism.

I''m finishing up a project that is 90% 2D on an enormous (~13ftx6ft) 3200x1200 video wall. It''s almost entirely 2D, but written entirely in D3D. Texture operations and pixel shaders give me a very high degree over global changes in color and design. Quick changes to constants and/or textures can drastically change the overall look and feel. I''ve done a lot with DirectDraw types of blitting, but the "3D way" is much more flexible.

2D as a style is great, but there is no reason that the implementation of that style needs to be confined to blits. Even if there was such as thing as DD8 or DD9, I''d still recommend the 3D way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Unfortunately, I can''t share much info/screenshots because it''s not a game as much as a very large browsing tool for our internal information. You know how James Bond and similar movies all have those graphically rich wall sized displays showing eye candy of maps and info? It''s essentially like that, but it''s a lot more real and not quite as cool.

The screen is physically ~13ftx6ft and is fed by a single dual output 4600 at 3200x1200. I''m using a lot of texture and blending tricks as much for flexibility as performance. The effects are fairly modular so that I can alter effects by swapping out fairly small and easy pieces (textures and/or shaders and/or constants). The short answer is that the same app done with DirectDraw would have been much harder, even though the app is heavily 2D. There have been points about texture size limits. Limits exist, especially on older cards, but I''m drawing an enormous screen with a handful of very small textures. The trick is to use small textures in big ways.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites