quote:Original post by Pseudo
1.) A pro has the resources to do it themself. An indie, like 99% of the people in these forums would rather spend there limited time doing something else.
Bollocks to that. Look up the term "Middleware." Why would things like Havok or Renderware exist if the pros all had "the resources to do it themself?"
The constraints for the pros are frequently tighter because of publisher deadlines, competing titles, and above anything else the cost of employing people for the extra two months needed to develop something as good as Havok.
It''s a very simple economic theory known as ''specialization'' - it usually applies to countries, but it can apply here as well. It''s better to use something made by 40 people with math and physics PhDs than it is to get your own people to make it themselves.
quote:2.) Pro game developers aren''t the only people using DX. Microsoft has clearly shown that they desire to make this api more accessable to everyone...hence D3DX and managed DX.
Microsoft only want to help out the people that it will benefit them to help out. In general, that''s the people who will develop big titles (particularly for XBox). Indies don''t help Microsoft make money, unless they graduate from being indies and become pros. (I''ll also point out that one of the most recent cases of that happening - Introversion Software''s Uplink - used OpenGL).
D3DX and Managed DX aren''t aimed at indies. They''re aimed at professional developers who want to prototype things quickly. If they can make a good quality prototype quickly, they can talk to publishers more quickly, stand a better chance of getting a deal, and so stand a better chance of making a high-quality game (because they''re not bogged down with the little things). All that built on MS''s technology, which sells consoles and copies of Windows. I know many, many people who run Linux but dual-boot a copy of Windows so they can play games.
quote:
3.) general purpose libraries are just that...general purpose...like skeletal animation (something that is very common to almost every game). Not special purpose like IK and ragdoll physics. (something you can add on to or replace a general purpose animation system with)
Firstly, skeletal animation is not "very common to almost every game." Show me a racing game, or an RTS, or a puzzle game, or a management sim, or a 2D/isometric game, with skeletal animation in.
Secondly, just ''adding on'' IK or ragdoll will not produce a good result. That''s why detailed and precise upfront design requirements are usually a necessity.
quote:
4.) it''s hilarious that out of the 3 topics you''ve posted on in the last 2 years, this is the second time you''ve told someone trying to get help on a specific question that they should drop the illusion of a general purpose library. (his first post on UDP was also to this effect...pointless)
Stop with the personal attacks.
This thread doesn''t sit well with me (particularly because of the flamebait tone of its initial post). I''m going to leave it open for the time being, but only if you people can start being constructive in your arguments, and drop the personal attacks right now. Otherwise I''ll close the thread, and furthermore, start dishing out punishments (because you''ll be ignoring my very specific warning).
Discussion of the shortcomings of Direct3D is fine. Accusing people of being elitist, talking about things in terms of "it sucks" or "it''s half-assed," or "Microsoft are bastards," is not fine.
It seems this whole topic should just have been a "How do I use more than one animation with an AnimationSet?" technical question in the first place.
