u cant compare pixelshaders to software its like comparing a dragster to a 4wd.
the reason directdraw has been stopped is cause with todays cards u can do 2d using a api like d3d or opengl far quicker than u can do 2d with directdraw
http://uk.geocities.com/sloppyturds/gotterdammerung.html
DirectDraw?? soon to be obsolete??
Of course, anyone ever play a good game of 3d-Tetris? 2d graphics are simply another way to display a fake world, and they tend to be less confusing than 3d. Just my opinion.
zedzeek, directdraw was not stopped, merely not upgraded because there was no need to. the only ppl that think directdraw is completely dead are the ignorent. video card producers are not adding 2d features, so why upgrade the api when the old one is fine, and still usable with no problems. but you are right, with random direct per pixel access of video memory vs very linear combining of texture. i cant see how anyone could even imagine pixel shaders replacing direct access.
all you 3d morons, i propose a challenge. mimic a translation table effect (as seen in avs, giess, cthuga, gfader, etc) using only pixel shaders and d3d. dont forget the effect is done with feedback which means the last frame starts the next frame (no clears required or needed). when you can do this, then maybe you can say directdraw is dead.
Edited by - a person on February 16, 2002 1:49:58 AM
all you 3d morons, i propose a challenge. mimic a translation table effect (as seen in avs, giess, cthuga, gfader, etc) using only pixel shaders and d3d. dont forget the effect is done with feedback which means the last frame starts the next frame (no clears required or needed). when you can do this, then maybe you can say directdraw is dead.
Edited by - a person on February 16, 2002 1:49:58 AM
a person - I asked this as a response to a similar post, but perhaps you didn''t see it...
It''s been a very long time since I''ve used DirectDraw, so perhaps I don''t understand the whole picture, but it strikes me that the kinds of effects you are talking about would have been done by locking the DD surface and affecting the pixels.
How is this different than locking a DX8 surface (texture) and affecting the pixels? Performance-wise, you are doing the same thing (right??), so how are they different?
If that''s the case, I would assume that you would break even (between DX7 and DX8) on per-pixel effects that require locking and experience huge speedups in DX8 for effects that do not require locking. What am I missing?
As for your challenge, can you explain the effect in more detail? The way it''s described, I think it might be easy, but I''m not sure that I totally understand what you''re looking for...
It''s been a very long time since I''ve used DirectDraw, so perhaps I don''t understand the whole picture, but it strikes me that the kinds of effects you are talking about would have been done by locking the DD surface and affecting the pixels.
How is this different than locking a DX8 surface (texture) and affecting the pixels? Performance-wise, you are doing the same thing (right??), so how are they different?
If that''s the case, I would assume that you would break even (between DX7 and DX8) on per-pixel effects that require locking and experience huge speedups in DX8 for effects that do not require locking. What am I missing?
As for your challenge, can you explain the effect in more detail? The way it''s described, I think it might be easy, but I''m not sure that I totally understand what you''re looking for...
This topic is closed to new replies.
Advertisement
Popular Topics
Advertisement
