Jump to content
  • Advertisement

Archived

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

MatuX

DD in DX9?

This topic is 6199 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

Advertisement
Do you mean a better interface that uses 3D under the hood, or a true blitting API?

In either case, I think you might be hoping for the wrong thing.

Better interface: D3DXSprite already does this well. It could be improved, but it is pretty functional as is. I personally prefer implementing my own wrapper because you can have more control. Increasingly, I think that''s the way to go. A better DX9 interface could improve things, but it might be worthwhile to learn the "new way"

Blitting: hardware doesn''t work this way any more. The move away from blitting wasn''t some marketing ploy, it was a nod to the way that hardware works now.

Can anyone answer this - Why are people pushing so hard to get it back? If Microsoft did reintroduce a true blitting mechanism, it probably would use current hardware very poorly. If you are asking for a better wrapper, the consensus seems to be that you can put together your own in a matter of hours or days.
Yes, DirectGraphics is very different from DirectDraw, but the hardware is very different now as well. A while ago, the Matrox millenium was a very good 2D card and very good for DirectDraw. Look at the architecture for a card like the Millenium and compare it with anything post geForce. You''ll find that they are fundamentally very different.

Oh well... This seems to come up every couple of days. This is just my opinion. Look at the technology and judge for yourself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yeah, I think the best thing Microsoft should do is to get rid of ID3DXSprite as a black box interface and put the complete source code of it as a complete "2D in DirectGraphic" tutorial with the next SDK.

alexk7@alexk7.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Anonymous Poster
quote:
Original post by alexk7
Yeah, I think the best thing Microsoft should do is to get rid of ID3DXSprite as a black box interface and put the complete source code of it as a complete "2D in DirectGraphic" tutorial with the next SDK.


Microsoft.. put complete source code... with the next SDK.

I don''t care how small ID3DXSprite is, the mere fact that you think MS would give away the source code proves you''re from another reality. Can I be the first to welcome you to our dimension?

(Serious comment: yes, there should be some sort of 2D using direct X info and I''m sure it would be nice if MS would include it in the SDK.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Actually, there is a lot of complete source code in the SDK. Not just the samples - CD3DFont is the most useful piece of overlooked code in the SDK.

Someone asked this question on the DX newsgroup. Philip Taylor pointed them to the "2D in DX8" article on this site and one other (I think it was the gamasutra one).

So, I guess Microsoft approves of the methodology in the article here at gamedev...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I personally think it won''t be ever back, as some guy pointed out, hardware changed, but not only that, now it''s commercially viable to make software which won''t work unless you have hardware acceleration. Real commercial games takes from 1 year to infinite to be finished, so, think about a game which production started 6 months ago and the deadline is in 6 months from here, in 6 months every potential gamer costumer will have a 3D hardware accelerated computer, if he doesn''t have one at this point, I don''t really think he will ever be interested in buying a professional computer game.

So, what I suppose Microsoft thinks is, "Professional game developers can do whatever they want with Direct3D plus it will be much easier, much faster and will bring more quality to the product (remember you even have to create your own ultrafast ASM MMX-enhanced procedure to just blit simple gradual alphablended bits!)".

But, now, nothing is happy and perfect in this world... There''re already lots of useful commercial isometric engines out there (Red Alert 2, AOE, Black Isle''s games, Diablo 2) which in some way succesfully combine DirectDraw with Direct3D. And they don''t want to trash all their beloved engines because they can''t render a pixel-shaded Magic Super Missle(tm) that would look 5 million times better than a non-pixelshaded special effect, and be perfectly fast to don''t care about anything.

So, what do I think MS should do? Just make a way around for people to at least minimally combine DirectDraw with future D3D vesions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
G''day!

quote:

in 6 months every potential gamer costumer will have a 3D hardware accelerated computer, if he doesn''t have one at this point, I don''t really think he will ever be interested in buying a professional computer game.

There is a group of developers that are shifting gears and targetting low-end gamers. Big selling games include things like ''Who wants to be a Millionaire'', which does not require a 3D accelerator. The market is larger than most people think.

That being said, DX7 does DirectDraw just fine, there isn''t any need to expand it whereas there is a lot of room for D3D to get better. It is rumoured that in DX9 more DirectDraw-like functionality will be introduced. Likely it will be added in D3DX rather than a real change to D3D.

Like D3DXSprite and D3DXFont, they will likely be meant more for prototyping or non-speed critical areas of development.



Stay Casual,

Ken
Drunken Hyena

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
quote:

Do you mean a better interface that uses 3D under the hood



What many people don''t realise is that''s what drivers for some modern cards have been doing that with DirectDraw calls for quite a while - i.e. converting them to 3D primitives and sending them through their 3D pipe.

The hardware vendors would rather not maintain two independent pipes - a 2D and a 3D one, and according to them it''s 3D apps which sell new cards - for that reason most of them havent updated the 2D sides of their hardware since 1998!...

AFAIK the feature set for DX9 isn''t fully locked down yet (I''d expect that after the GDC preview where MS get to judge reactions of developers not on the feature review board for the first time). But I too don''t reckon you''ll see a DirectDraw9, but rather more DirectDraw type stuff making its way into D3DX or a new helper API.
In terms of API theres nothing practical you can do in DirectDraw which you can''t do with D3D.

As for releasing the source code to D3DX functions - MS are under a lot of pressure from developers for this. I think it might happen for some of the functions like the sprite stuff, but won''t for some of the more advanced stuff.
Some of the mesh optimisation code for example contains code MS licensed from other sources and aren''t allowed to redistribute in source form. Other code in the same place contains confidential information given to MS by certain hardware vendors about the internal workings of their chips.


I really don''t see the problem - if you need a 2D only app, or a 3D app with easy software rasterisation, use DirectX 7 interfaces. If you want cutting edge 3D, use DX8.x+.

--
Simon O''''Connor
Creative Asylum Ltd
www.creative-asylum.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Advertisement
×

Important Information

By using GameDev.net, you agree to our community Guidelines, Terms of Use, and Privacy Policy.

GameDev.net is your game development community. Create an account for your GameDev Portfolio and participate in the largest developer community in the games industry.

Sign me up!