• Advertisement
Sign in to follow this  

Mobile Gaming Hardware

This topic is 4649 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

or even Portable Gaming Hardware. i was thinking about this for some weeks now, so i thought i'd pose the question. for the time being, let's not concern ourselves with cost. if i had a mobile phone or portable system would it be wrong for me to have a 2D accelerator AND 3D accelerator card? now most of you would ask: "why do that when you can perform 2D with 3D hardware/API?". i say this because it seems (granted i'm not experienced) that making a 2D game with a 2D API is far less work (or setting up) than doing the same thing with a 3D API. if i can get blending, scaling, rotation, and transparency built-in my 2D card wouldn't that be better and easier for the programmer? 2D card for 2D and 3D card for 3D. right? wrong? tell me. edit: added wording. [Edited by - Alpha_ProgDes on June 1, 2005 11:07:07 PM]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Advertisement
That sounds a lot like what the PSP may have. It most certainly wouldn't need a 3d API for the web browser or anything like that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What's wrong with having a 2D API with 3D hardware? I think you're not clear on what an 'API' is and how it relates to hardware. Console APIs are tailored to the capabilities of the machine, but there's no reason why Sony couldn't provide DDraw on a PS3 for example, it would just hide a lot of the capabilites of the machine, and be a stupid decision on their part. Instead, they'll provide an API that gives you the most access to hardware and you can wrap what you need into something simpler.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
My oppinion is that you really only need 3D hardware these days. If you want an API that uses the 3D hardware to do 2D work, then so be it. Personally though, I'd just use the 3D API when doing 2D stuff.

Its really not *THAT* hard to set up an ortho matrix is it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
well I figure for this particular discussion I'd purposely couple 2D API with 2D accelerator card. only because if it was a matter of having a 2D API utilize 3D hardware then MS would have done that with DirectDraw would they not? in other words the programmer would have been programming with DirectDraw but in actuality been using Direct3D to do things like blending, rotation and scaling. but obviously the 2D API only accesses the 2D functions and the 3D APi accesses the 3D functions. hopefully I'm being clear. and hopefully i'm at leat halfway right.

so like i was saying before would it be easier for a programmer to have a dedicated 2D accelerator to handle 2D specific functions (like i mention above and in my prior post) and a 3D accelerator to handle the 3D specific stuff in the same machine? or is that just blasphemous?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In the end, they would both have to share the frame buffer, and that means that things would get messy, especialy if the 3d has a dump at once geometry caching system, or a plot as you go system.

What you may be able to do though is go with hardware acceleration when accessing texture memory...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote:
been programming with DirectDraw but in actuality been using Direct3D to do things like blending, rotation and scaling. but obviously the 2D API only accesses the 2D functions and the 3D APi accesses the 3D functions


microsoft tried to keep backward compatibility - eg. being able to compile a program written with DirectX5 with DirectX9 SDK - and modifying the directdraw interface to support various 2d ops would have break the API (for example, adding scaling into DDBLTFX would mean another member for the struct, which would have caused troubles).

for handhelds (ds, psp), it is also the backward compatibility that comes into play (as ds is able to play gba games) but another important factor: power consumption. a 2d hardware accelerator drains less power than a 3d doing 2d, hence the separation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote:
Original post by Alpha_ProgDes
well I figure for this particular discussion I'd purposely couple 2D API with 2D accelerator card. only because if it was a matter of having a 2D API utilize 3D hardware then MS would have done that with DirectDraw would they not? ...


Well, actually, thats why DirectDraw is depreciated now and has been replaced by DirectGraphics. The only reason we had DirectDraw in the first place was because 3D acceleration wasn't all that common back then.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

  • Advertisement