You can use the gamma ramps but that''s supported on so few video cards and it won''t be handled in software for you. So you have two options: switch your program to 8 bit, where fades are too easy to do; or do it manually by changing every pixel. I''ve also heard something else about using Direct3D to draw an alpha-blended black rectangle over the whole screen, since it''s supported in hardware.

None of the solutions are all that great unfortunately.

-Goku

Just to give you some ideas - this is the sort of thing that runs at 100+ fps on a GF2 MX with DX8 (D3D)...

For instance, a GF2 MX runs about $80, which is roughly in the same ballpark as a good programming book. An alpha blended background runs at about 160+ fps using a smallish texture. Right around 100 fps with a 1024x1024 texture. Actual results will depend on the size of your texture and your implementation.

The point is, if there is any way in the world for you to buy this bottom of the line card, you shouldn''t be spending alot of time ( = money) figuring out how to do this in DirectDraw unless you think you think you can do better than 100 fps...

Best Buy here in the states was offering Ti 200s at ~$100. I bet the performance would be even better...

(stepping off the soapbox...)

quote:Original post by Ivko
Keep in mind I can''t use D3D because this project is largely to learn how to use directdraw.

Just my opinion, but...

You are choosing not to learn a new API because you want to learn the old version of the API??? If you were supporting legacy code, that might make sense, but otherwise this seems like a extremely faulty logic.

Yes yes yes, you can still use the old interfaces, but this is for legacy support. The whole methodology is outdated by the current hardware. Given you are not constrained by old code or old hardware, I''d very much recommend you devote your energy to the current state of the art...

This seems to be the opinion of the DX team as well...

Why don''t you try something like this. It works perfectly, in fact that here is fading in r,g,b and normal, you may not need the r,g,b fading but i practcally copied and pased it from my working code and was too lasy to throw away the stuf you may not need
You can change the step of fading if you want here it is with 2.
It''s blazing fast, using DDraw. For sure any normal card nowadays supports such a feature, so don''t bother inmplementing things ppl have already done good, just use them wisely.

HRESULT CHistogram::ChangeGamma(IDirectDrawSurface7* pdds, char col, bool bLight)
{

hr = g_pddsPrimary->QueryInterface(IID_IDirectDrawGammaControl, (LPVOID*)&m_pGammaControl);
if(!m_pGammaControl)
{
switch(hr)
{
case E_NOINTERFACE :
TRACE("E_NOINTERFACE \n");
break;
case E_POINTER:
TRACE("E_POINTER\n");
break;
}
return false;
}

if(bLight)
{
m_lGammaRamp += 2;
if(m_lGammaRamp > 256)
m_lGammaRamp = 256;
}
else
{
m_lGammaRamp -= 2;
if(m_lGammaRamp < 0)
m_lGammaRamp = 0;
}


DDGAMMARAMP ddGamRam = {sizeof(ddGamRam)};

if( FAILED( hr = m_pGammaControl->GetGammaRamp( 0, &ddGamRam)))
return E_FAIL;

m_wGamma = 0;

for(int i = 0; i < 256; ++i)
{
switch(col)
{
case ''r'':
ddGamRam.red = m_wGamma;
ddGamRam.green = 0;<br> ddGamRam.blue = 0;<br> break;<br><br> case ''g'':<br> ddGamRam.red = 0;<br> ddGamRam.green = m_wGamma;<br> ddGamRam.blue = 0;<br> break;<br><br> case ''b'':<br> ddGamRam.red = 0;<br> ddGamRam.green = 0;<br> ddGamRam.blue = m_wGamma;<br> break;<br><br> case ''0'':<br> ddGamRam.red = m_wGamma;<br> ddGamRam.green = m_wGamma;<br> ddGamRam.blue = m_wGamma;<br> break;<br> }<br> <br><br> m_wGamma += (WORD) m_lGammaRamp;<br> }<br><br> if(FAILED(hr = m_pGammaControl->SetGammaRamp(0, &ddGamRam)))<br> {<br> TRACE("FAIELD TO SET GammaRamp\n");<br> SAFERELEASE(m_pGammaControl);<br> return E_FAIL;<br> }<br> <br> SAFERELEASE(m_pGammaControl);<br> return S_OK;<br><br>} </i> <br><br>Rusenec

It''s a quick on funk so you may need to throw or change some things basically it wokrs fine. (replace the one returning "false" with E_FAIL, hehe, may be too lazy i am

Rusenec