dx9 and ddraw
Author
hello
i haven''t been on this message board since like january, so forgive me if you have recently discussed this. i was wondering if there was any new news on dx9, and ddraw. like when is it coming out, is ddraw coming back? if it is, will it support alpha blending without using d3d? what are some of the improvements on the other components, like dinput? thanks.
I highly doubt ddraw is coming back, and from what I have heard there has been no set release date for dx9.
Eric Wright o0Programmer0o
AcidRain Productions
http://www.acidrainproductions.com
Eric Wright o0Programmer0o
AcidRain Productions
http://www.acidrainproductions.com
G''day!
DDraw is not coming back. They''re planning on doing some work on making 2D easier to do in D3D. It''s possible that it will be included in D3D9, but more likely D3DX (or a similar library) will have routines that will give you the same functionality.
To the best of my knowledge the beta for DX9 hasn''t even been announced. 8.1 is in beta and is expected soon.
Stay Casual,
Ken
Drunken Hyena
DDraw is not coming back. They''re planning on doing some work on making 2D easier to do in D3D. It''s possible that it will be included in D3D9, but more likely D3DX (or a similar library) will have routines that will give you the same functionality.
To the best of my knowledge the beta for DX9 hasn''t even been announced. 8.1 is in beta and is expected soon.
Stay Casual,
Ken
Drunken Hyena
Sorry - minor rant....
If you look at OpenGL implementations, there are 2D functions, but they are extremely slow on almost every piece of hardware. On super fast, super cool SGIs, you were better off using the 3D pipeline effectively than trying to work around it.
Current graphics hardware is essentially SGI for real people. There is a super fast pipeline that is optimized for certain uses. One can certainly make an API that ignores the pipeline, but this would be a horrible waste of good silicon and the good people at ATI and nVidia would cry.
There are several ways to do 2D AND use the pipeline effectively. Take your pick. You can use the D3DXSprite interfaces, you can read the 2D tutorial on this site...
I know there are still 2D cards out there, but they are a dying breed. As much as you think you may want DirectDraw, you really don''t - it would be a really bad use of hardware. What you really want is a quick and handy 2D interface. There are plenty of 2D options out there...
If you look at OpenGL implementations, there are 2D functions, but they are extremely slow on almost every piece of hardware. On super fast, super cool SGIs, you were better off using the 3D pipeline effectively than trying to work around it.
Current graphics hardware is essentially SGI for real people. There is a super fast pipeline that is optimized for certain uses. One can certainly make an API that ignores the pipeline, but this would be a horrible waste of good silicon and the good people at ATI and nVidia would cry.
There are several ways to do 2D AND use the pipeline effectively. Take your pick. You can use the D3DXSprite interfaces, you can read the 2D tutorial on this site...
I know there are still 2D cards out there, but they are a dying breed. As much as you think you may want DirectDraw, you really don''t - it would be a really bad use of hardware. What you really want is a quick and handy 2D interface. There are plenty of 2D options out there...
DDraw is not returning, neither will an easier way to do 2D with 3D. What Microsoft said was happening after DirectX 8 was released was that 2D hardware acceleration was not a part of D3D8 because they could not completely combine 2D acceleration with the rest of D3D. CopyRects was supplied to copy data from one surface in a texture to another but no hardware 2D capability was provided. They said that support for 2D acceleration will return in DirectX 9 as part of the Direct3D library. They may have changed their mind since then, I quite frankly do not know.
I still miss DirectDraw.... Why, oh why, did it have to leave me? 
Ah well, guess I''ll just have to live with simulated 2D the rest of my life... Which isn''t too bad.
------------------------------
Trent (ShiningKnight)
E-mail me
OpenGL Game Programming Tutorials
Ah well, guess I''ll just have to live with simulated 2D the rest of my life... Which isn''t too bad. ------------------------------
Trent (ShiningKnight)
E-mail me
OpenGL Game Programming Tutorials
I still use ddraw, because although 2d cards might be a dying breed. There are still plenty of them in existance, and you will find that many non-hardcore gamers will not have them. Making your game so it will actually run without 3d acceleration is a great plus, especially when it isn''t necessary.
Trying is the first step towards failure.
Trying is the first step towards failure.
My only complaint is the power of two requirement for 3D.
Other than that, DDraw really has no place anymore. Doing 2D with 3D is really quite simple even without a prewritten library.
And it''s incredibly fast.
Ben
Jump Down The Rabbithole
Other than that, DDraw really has no place anymore. Doing 2D with 3D is really quite simple even without a prewritten library.
And it''s incredibly fast.
Ben
Jump Down The Rabbithole
Actualy Direct Draw does have a power of 2 constraint also. However because Direct Draw is so damn fast you don''t realy notice as much of a slow down as you would in 3d. I''ve personaly gotten a 20fps boost by resizing my images to powers of two in Direct Draw.
Author
thanks for the replies. i see your point on not wasting 3d hardware, but dont all 3d cards have 2d acceleration too? just wondering, i dont know. i mean, isnt a hardware blitter required by a 3d engine? i would love to learn how to do 2d in d3d, but i have very limited time to learn anymore, and have not studied any advanced math, and i heard that even the simplest d3d game requires lots of algebra. the whole idea sounds cool though. i would like to eventually get into 3d programming, but not now. what are the minimum mathmatical requirements for 3d programming? is it easier than i am making it out to seem? thanks.
This topic is closed to new replies.
Advertisement
Popular Topics
Advertisement
