Archived

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

stefandxm

Direct3DX forum

Recommended Posts

stefandxm    122
I want this, since I *never* used Direct3DX and all the posts about normal DirectX programming passes me by in such a hurry due to all his damn d3dx posts I also dont think Direct3DX has to do with api programming in general more like with general game/3d programming since its utilitys doesnt have to do with the hw api, its strictly math functions and other help stuff.. If you made a Direct3DX forum both d3dx questioners and ordinary directx questioners can have a more fair to get decent replys since atm this pages passes by in lightspeed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stefandxm    122
DirectX has nothing to do with directx .. it''s a standalone library and has nothing to do with directx.

It comes with directxsdk , true, but thats prety much the only thing it has to do with directx to do

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RapidStunna    122
You''re right, it is a standalone library that you don''t need to program D3D games. The problem is that D3D and D3DX overlap all the time. If you''d like an example of this, take loading .x files. You have D3D interfaces such as IDirectXFile, IDirectXFileEnumObject, etc. They are Direct3D, not D3DX interfaces. However, it''s very difficult to load the meshes without D3DX functions such as D3DXLoadMeshFromXof. If you were to seperate the forums into D3D and D3DX, you''d have overlaps all the time.

If you get a chance, do a search on the DirectX forums for a few D3D questions. They are often answered with both D3D and D3DX responses. Not only would it limit the posting abilities, but it would also limit the number of responses to the poster. This would not help the poster and that''s not the purpose of the forums, is it?

My Site

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stefandxm    122
making a utility forum beneath directx wouldnt decrease the amount of answers, but answers on ordinary d3d questions here is already decreased due to many people just go in here and find a normal d3d question in topic and then its all about d3dx wich most d3d programmers never use.. so yes it could be good to separate it some

Its like saying Glut is OpenGL wich is way wrong and they really dont have anything together

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
IndirectX    122
quote:
Original post by stefandxm
Its like saying Glut is OpenGL wich is way wrong and they really dont have anything together


No. Glut is a windowing toolkit that does not overlap with GL. It does things that are not GL-related so that you can have portable programs. D3DX, on the other side, expands the functionality of D3D and can''t be used separately (except for the math routines, which for instance are of great use in GL programs).

If you''re reimplementing D3DX and are offended when someone posts D3DX code, well, it''s your loss. Most people agree that D3DX is good and extremely optimized, and therefore use it in their applications. D3DX comes standard with D3D and I don''t see that changing any time soon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stefandxm    122
iam not offended and it wasnt the reason why i posted this idea.. however..

"if you''re reimplementing D3DX and are offended when someone posts D3DX code, well, it''s your loss. Most people agree that D3DX is good and extremely optimized, and therefore use it in their applications. D3DX comes standard with D3D and I don''t see that changing any time soon."

Most people do reimplement D3DX due its in many way unpractical..

And again, iam not offended by seeing D3DX questions, i just find it annoying to go into a post and see it was about d3dx and have to turn around and go out again.. its annoying.. and since d3dx isnt d3d api .. thats why i asked

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DrunkenHyena    805
So we should create another subgroup for questions about the D3D Common Framework? And another for people who have trouble with the sample apps?

A lot of questions (and discussions) overlap between the 2. It would make more sense (though I doubt the traffic warrants it) to split D3D off into a list separate from DirectInput/Sound/Music/etc.

A lot of people use DI/DS/DM but DON''T use D3D.

There may be people who choose to redevelop the tools in D3DX, but there are also people who choose to develop their own software rendering engines. If they''re doing it for educational reasons, then good for them. If they''re doing it because they think they can do it so much better, they''re wasting their time.

I''d like to see a list of the many ways in which D3DX is impractical.

Stay Casual,

Ken
Drunken Hyena

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stefandxm    122
afaik d3dx is a static linked library with ordinary fpu code .. call that optimized.. good for you..

and i cant say i have been checking out d3dx that much due to i just dont have a chance i can use it in most cases, due its to big.

And yes, splitting up to d3d,ddraw,dsound,dshow would be a good thing

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
IndirectX    122
quote:
Original post by stefandxm
afaik d3dx is a static linked library with ordinary fpu code .. call that optimized.. good for you..



Read this, you''ll be enlightened.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Anonymous Poster   
Guest Anonymous Poster
quote:
Original post by stefandxm
afaik d3dx is a static linked library with ordinary fpu code .. call that optimized.. good for you..

and i cant say i have been checking out d3dx that much due to i just dont have a chance i can use it in most cases, due its to big.



So... this entire thread is based on your impressions of D3DX that you haven''t even verified?

That might be the number one best reason not to separate the two - mixing D3D and D3DX discussions is the best way to educate away misconceptions about D3DX.

1. Yes, D3DX is highly optimized. There are many of those annoying D3DX threads you talk about that explain how and why.

2. People have said that D3DX is way too big. I guess it depends on what you call big. I''m guessing that once you implement your own matching functions with all of the optimizations, you''ll have quite a bit of code as well. Plus, you''ll have to maintain that code, quality test it, and all the things you get for free with D3DX. Personally, I can live with a larger app if it means that I have less code that I have to maintain and that I don''t have to reinvent optimized code for every instruction set, etc. etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DrunkenHyena    805
quote:
Original post by stefandxm
afaik d3dx is a static linked library with ordinary fpu code .. call that optimized.. good for you..



Wow, you actually have no clue. Intel and AMD had their engineers provide optimized versions of the commonly used parts of D3DX (mostly the matrix & vector stuff).

You may want to do some research before criticizing in the future.

quote:

and i cant say i have been checking out d3dx that much due to i just dont have a chance i can use it in most cases, due its to big.



What''s too big? The lib isn''t that big compared to any reasonable product you''d make with it. Sure, it bloats up ''spinning triangle'' tutorials, but I don''t think many people worry about that.

The docs are big and there''s a lot of interfaces & functions. Look at the Math section, check out the Matrix ops. 10 minutes of reading and your code will thank you.

quote:

And yes, splitting up to d3d,ddraw,dsound,dshow would be a good thing


Where would questions go about people mixing DDraw and D3D? DDraw and D3D should stay together.

I just don''t see that DirectShow would get enough traffic (not to mention, where do questions about using it with D3D and/or DDraw go?). Similarly the other topics are low traffic.

Feel free to maintain your bias against D3DX, but it doesn''t seem to actually be based on any facts (despite your assertions that it''s ''way impractical'').

You don''t have to use it, but the majority of people who use D3D also use D3DX. I would recommend setting aside some time to check it out. It''s a very useful library.

Stay Casual,

Ken
Drunken Hyena

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
S1CA    1418
quote:

Wow, you actually have no clue. Intel and AMD had their engineers provide optimized versions of the commonly used parts of D3DX (mostly the matrix & vector stuff).

You may want to do some research before criticizing in the future.



Couldn''t agree more.

If anyone still doesn''t believe D3DX contains optimised code, they might want to search this forum. I proved (via code and symbol names) that it did to someone else who didn''t believe it.

You could also contact developer relations at both AMD and Intel who give presentations at Microsoft events such as Meltdown about their work with MS on the PSGP (Processor Specific Graphics Pipeline) in both D3D and D3DX.


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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jim Adams    440
The Direct3D extensions/extras libraries (D3DX) are extremely useful, and have been a part of DirectX for a few versions now. You don''t have to use them, but I can''t figure out why not, since they provide a great backbone for structuring together highly used components and functions.

This forum is for discussing and DirectX related issues.



Jim Adams
home.att.net/~rpgbook
Author, Programming Role-Playing Games with DirectX

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.