The whole discussion is too PC centric. The different console platforms can't left out when you decide which language you want to use for an engine and currently as far as I'm aware no platform (except PC) supports .NET nor has a C# compiler that compiles to native code on consoles.
And I doubt that the non Microsoft console platforms will ever support .NET also Microsoft hold patents on the .NET API (link) which makes it even less likely to see it on Microsofts strongest opponents platform in the console market even if it says "for building web applications". Reading the patent you can see it does patent what the API is doing and this so broadly described (and IMHO not related to web applications only) that it seems very easy for me to infringe this patent by providing any implementation of any API for .NET.
[.net] 3d engine on .Net , worth?
Quote:
The whole discussion is too PC centric. The different console platforms can't left out when you decide which language you want to use for an engine and currently as far as I'm aware no platform (except PC) supports .NET nor has a C# compiler that compiles to native code on consoles.
Well, if by PC you mean x86, then that is not quite correct, there is the Mac version and various PDAs based on other CPUs that support the compact version. Your right, at this stage that is true that there are no console platforms that support .NET, but then again I don't believe there were any C++ compilers for the original playstation initially.
I guess the point is this is only a concern if you intend to develop for consoles - you can still write a 3D engine, in .NET and if written properly target Win32, Linux and Mac platforms. Not everyone can afford or are in a position to even think about getting into a relationship with the Sony's and Nintendos of this world, so its a moot point unless in your design doc it says "Must work on PS2/3 and Gamecube and Xbox".
The original question was:
Quote:
I've been thinking lately in the possibility to build the next generation of my 3d engine over Net Framework, and I've been thinking on the pros and cons.
I'm not worried about performance, but with portability, compatibility, and code reusability.
Now performance is only an issue if you are trying to rewrite Half Life 2 - its perfectly capable of writing a good 3D engine as proved earlier.
Portability is fine if you don't want to target consoles. But is not necassarily going to be the case forever.
Code reusability is excellent, its one of the big plusses of any OOP language.
Quote:
And I doubt that the non Microsoft console platforms will ever support .NET also Microsoft hold patents on the .NET API (link) which makes it even less likely to see it on Microsofts strongest opponents platform in the console market even if it says "for building web applications"
I think this is were we get into the difference between the .NET framework and the C#, VB.NET etc languages. They are not one and the same.
I'm not saying every person should use C# - thats stupid. But the fact is, it IS possible to do what the OP asked. And if the tool is right for the job, use it.
Quote:Original post by foniks munkee
[...]
I guess the point is this is only a concern if you intend to develop for consoles - you can still write a 3D engine, in .NET and if written properly target Win32, Linux and Mac platforms. Not everyone can afford or are in a position to even think about getting into a relationship with the Sony's and Nintendos of this world, so its a moot point unless in your design doc it says "Must work on PS2/3 and Gamecube and Xbox".
Why is my point a moot point? I think it's a very valid point to be mentioned. Also the question asked about portability, nowhere was mentioned to exclude console targets.
Quote:
[...]
I'm not saying every person should use C# - thats stupid. But the fact is, it IS possible to do what the OP asked. And if the tool is right for the job, use it.
I completely aggree here but then regarding the portability point in the original question I still don't see this as a strength of the .NET framework at all.
Quote:
Why is my point a moot point? I think it's a very valid point to be mentioned. Also the question asked about portability, nowhere was mentioned to exclude console targets.
Its not - unless you are not intending to target consoles anyway, thats all i'm saying. I guess I read your statement as "don't use .net cos its not portable to consoles", which is not everyones concern, especially hobyists who usually can't afford the entry costs to develop for PS2, Xbox etc. But I probably misread it.
But it is still "cross platform" if you are porting to Mac and Linux from Windows. Still, I conceed your point.
Quote:
I completely aggree here but then regarding the portability point in the original question I still don't see this as a strength of the .NET framework at all.
Well, your right. At this point in time, its not a strength. But it isn't the crippling weakness that is sometimes made out to be either. It is possible to write for a number of platforms with C#. And I would argue that this is only a weakness if you intend to exploit this feature beyond what it is capable of.
[Edited by - foniks munkee on September 16, 2004 9:08:07 AM]
As long as you're bringing consoles into the discussion, it seems likely that the Phantom will be using an OS capable of running a .NET-compatible OS. Ergo, the answer isn't as simple as "won't run"; at least 2 of the upcoming next gen console platforms likely WILL be capable of running .NET games.
Meanwhile, portability is a nightmare for pretty much all custom hardware, since support for specific features isn't guaranteed - see discussions of BREW held here and elsewhere to see what I mean. This problem applies to C++, C#, and every other language out there, especially when discussing edge-of-the-envelope games.
Meanwhile, portability is a nightmare for pretty much all custom hardware, since support for specific features isn't guaranteed - see discussions of BREW held here and elsewhere to see what I mean. This problem applies to C++, C#, and every other language out there, especially when discussing edge-of-the-envelope games.
well, after reading all posts (thanks all!), I think I finally decided what to do... for now, I'm going to stick in plain c++, the main reason for this is:
Net is a technology designed basically for Windows Longhorn, Microsoft has said that for Longhorn, a new 3D api will be developed and directx development dropped, so, doing a 3d engine with net and directx is a bad strategy. It will be great idea to do an engine in Net when then new longhorn 3d api will be availiable... so, now it's too soon.
V
Not to rain on anybodys parade, but WGF in Longhorn operates as a key feature at the core level. It powers avalon, and actually all presentation of the OS and applications.
Now nobody can tell the future, but in my mind OGL won't be around for long on the Windows platform, and if it is than it won't match the speed of WGF simply because OGL is not built into the OS.
Now nobody can tell the future, but in my mind OGL won't be around for long on the Windows platform, and if it is than it won't match the speed of WGF simply because OGL is not built into the OS.
Quote:Original post by Integra
Now nobody can tell the future, but in my mind OGL won't be around for long on the Windows platform, and if it is than it won't match the speed of WGF simply because OGL is not built into the OS.
Can you justify your conclusion with some facts? I would be very surprised if there will be no native OS drivers for gfx cards anymore. After all, there is no 3D API that is natively build into any OS currently either.
But then again, I don't know about Longhorn's driver and HAL model.
Just about the GPU vs CPU issue; Gamespot's HL2 hardware guide shows all processors below AMD64 3200+ making about even 40 fps with ATI's 800 series and the latest geforce with all bells and whistles running, but then it jumps for the 3200+ and jumps again for the 4200+. I can draw no other conclusion than that it's CPU processing power that limits the framerate from that since the systems were identical in all other respects.
/RC
/RC
This topic is closed to new replies.
Advertisement
Popular Topics
Advertisement