Jump to content
  • Advertisement

directx8.0a

Member
  • Content Count

    10
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

111 Neutral

About directx8.0a

  • Rank
    Member

Personal Information

  • Interests
    Art

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. directx8.0a

    easy 3d precision model software

    hi, i was wondering if anyone knows any particular program or version of that program that offers easy to use precise 3d modeling, particularly one that has some sort of line or pencil tool where you can manually draw your figures or objects. so far, i have not been able to find any that have a line tool to manually create objects and they've been too difficult and complex for me to use. i wanted to mention that my intention is to use a software to create smaller 3d objects so that in the future or for more advanced things, i can then modify them as such, however, so far, i have not been able to get to the lowest starting point per say. i would like to have the models be exported in .x files in part with the directx SDK so that they can be used in development for directx applications. i understand there are converters, however, i've been seeing mixed experiences on whether the converters are reliable or not, which ones are more reliable, and / or any other implications of model deformation. the following programs that i've used up to this point are below - -blender, i tried a few of the newer ones and version 2.79, and i found the program as a whole awkward to use, confusing, complex, even for simple things, i do not like the user interface, it's very disorganized and overwhelming, besides the guide which i got stuck many times where i eventually gave up. it's simply not for me as i'm looking for something more specific, and i don't think having a line tool would matter. -meshx 2.4 3d model software- creates and can import or export directx .x files. i used it and i liked the ui, however, i do not understand it and / or it's too complex for me. i did not find a line tool. -deled 3d editor - ui is ok, but i also cannot make sense out of it and no line tool of course, it does export to .x files though. i was able to export it with or without saving the texture part and it seemed to load fine in the directx 8.0a sdk and meshx 2.4. -3d object converter 4.10 gold edition, i think that's what it was called, i don't think it's for creating 3d models, i think it's only for modifying already created objects. i would say it's neither good or bad, although i couldn't do anything useful in it per say or make sense out of it for anything pertaining so it's basically serving no real purpose so far for me. -3d crafter - i like the ui a little bit more than blender, but still not good or for me. the only option i thought of was using a basic 3d paint tool, i did test one, i forgot the name but i literally uninstalled it in a few seconds because i hated the design and ui and it wasn't straighforward or easy to use in the way i'd expect. i did also test several other programs not specifically listed here and did not find them pertaining, straightforward or easy.
  2. i mainly made this thread to see if people can give me some specific limitations and / or advantages of using the fixed function pipeline with for example a directx 8.0a coded game vs pixel shader 1.3 and vertex shader 1.1. i really need some kind of picture or sample of someone using fixed function pipeline and how nice you can design elements in a game, particularly that of a MMORPG game. the only picture i've found is ogre's sample which i believe mentioned using the fixed function pipeline, being able to make relatively nice looking water, which would not have been possible in directx8 ( without fixed function pipeline of course, since directx8 does support ffp ). the only other reference i have is i think severance blade of darkness using fixed function pipeline for the reflective realistic water they had in the game, although i'm not sure the exact info, somewhere i read that the game only used directx 7.0 to render the water or graphics? also the picture i'm talking about is this one below for ogre- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OGRE#/media/File:OGRE_screenshot_01.png so i was looking to find out more samples of pictures that have realistic lighting, water, shadows, etc, where only fixed function pipeline was used, and unfortunately, google hasn't given me anything other than the ones i mentioned.
  3. thanks for the info, although, i should have maybe put a link to my other to thread which explains why i have this particular project / goals in mind. the thread is below, my intention was to see how far one can possibly go with older software capabilities, fixed function pipeline being one of them and allow the developed app to work all they way from windows 95 till windows 10. i wanted to create something partly nostalgic but also unique and sort of one of a kind in a way such as more realistic looking water which would have not looked at realistic or nice back then. and so directx 8.0b or opengl 2.0 came to my mind since these worked on windows 95 if one was using a newer gpu such as the geforce 6800, and then i was told about the fixed function pipeline, and although i still like to do the programmable shader thing in either or, the fixed function pipeline thing may be more "compatible" and offer less "bugs". note, when i say working on windows 95, it does need mean people should use it, it just means it CAN work on windows 95 if someone wanted to do something nostalgic or unique, but the majority of users would play the game on systems like windows 7 or 10. with that being said, if i did went ahead and used the fixed function pipeline, would it "better" to use directx 8.0a + 8.0b libraries for this very specific project or opengl 2.0 + glut and openal, and of course, the question of cross platform is unclear, however, from my research on visual studio 6.0, it doesn't appear to be a good IDE, so it's possible, hypothetically if this project was ever made into something bigger, a more likely development setup could be a C++ ide + opengl 2.0, openal+glut/freeglut, or directx 8.0a + 8.0b or just 8.0a or even 7.0a + c++ ide.
  4. i was wondering if developing a game using the fixed function pipeline in the older supported opengl / directx api's such as opengl 2.1 or directx 8.0a would allow being forwards compatible with newer graphics cards / operating systems? for example, if i had a windows 10 system that used something like the gtx 1660 ti graphics card, would my game still work properly on the windows 10 system? the reason why i would rather use the fixed function pipeline is because from what i was told elsewhere in my thread and others, that it may be more compatible and less likely that i would encounter drawing problems / non working pixel / vertex shaders, and so i can still do what i wan't such as making realistic water, lighting, shadows, etc. i can go as old as opengl 1.4 or directx 8.0a, although i prefer opengl 2.1 or directx 8.0a + 8.0b libraries for this custom project. i feel like the question(s) for all this are very straightforward but i haven't really gotten a straightforward response anywhere to see if this project i have in mind or methodology can be done or not.
  5. directx8.0a

    opengl 2.0 vs directx 8.0b

    thanks for the info, i'm not sure if i mentioned this or not but i do want to make it clear that when i say develop for windows 95, it doesn't mean that it only works for windows 95. it just means that it can work on windows 95, but obviously for 99 percent of the people or more, they can and would run the game on operating systems such as windows 7 or windows 10. the part about it working on windows 95 was simply a unique aspect i had of testing the limits on certain software, however, the questions of opengl 2.0 compatibility remains unclear. i did do some google searching and i'm pretty sure people have got things working up to windows 10 with opengl 2.0 or even 1.4/1.5, and if they didn't work directly, there was some kind of update or file you would need as a small inconvenience to get them running for forwards compatibility. so far i have written down fixed function pipeline, mingW, and software rasterizer as relevant to the programming aspect, as well as using windows 2000 as a possible candidate for the development platform.
  6. directx8.0a

    opengl 2.0 vs directx 8.0b

    thanks for the reply, although some of the things you mentioned are obvious and i already pointed out such as another source that placed directx 9.0 as similar to opengl 2.1, and so there are some questions unanswered. i did a quick google search on wikipedia on opengl, i didn't actually compare the 2.1 vs 2.0 there from before but it seems that 2.1 isn't much different from 2.0 from what is given in the site. when you say though that the code for gl2 won't be portable to other systems, why or how so? i would have though newer versions of opengl are backwards compatible all the way till opengl 2.0 or older? i also should mention that i may want to code / develop on windows 95 itself, although, my intention or incentive for that as a complete newbie is that logically speaking, if i were to develop on windows 95 since i would like the game to work on it, then it would ensure running it given what the operating system is built from and what it's capabilities are so you do not have to worry about making certain mistakes. although, realistically or hypothetically, windows 2000 would be a better choice. but this would be a team project of course, where i wouldn't be doing the coding myself, i'd have coders in the team, where i would simply be designing / supporting other elements like artwork, story, etc. this is why it wouldn't be necessary to code on windows 95 since you can do everything on the more stable windows 2000 system which i presume you would not run into any problems, with the assumption you make everything necessary to be compatible to work properly on windows 95 such as ANSI C, which i was also gonna see what limitations are there in that vs the full unicode support that 9x systems do not properly support. am i right or wrong that you can't develop unicode applications on w9x but that you can get unicode apps from other systems to work on 9x partially? i never understood these things. also with the whole visual studio 6.0 aspect, i've only been told that there is some directx 8 visual basic type of file that may not register on windows vista or newer till windows 10, but all that needs to be done is registering it via administrator mode, however, i also understand that there are many other implications or obstacles, and hopefully i can gradually get more answers or solutions to that.
  7. i was wondering if anyone has experience or technical information for opengl 2.0 and directx 8.0b. what i specifically wanted to know or ask is trying to see which version of opengl roughly is equivalent to directx 8.0b or what version of directx is equivalent, again, ( roughly ) to opengl 2.0. now i know the two programming api's are a bit different such as opengl not supporting sound in which it would require something like opengl, but they do both have support for pixel and vertex shader and opengl being cross platform so i can hypothetically have a larger audience / support. so i researched GLSL, and the closest type of comparison i got was opengl 2.1 being similar to that of directx 9.0's shader and vertex model, but i was not able to find such information for opengl 2.0 that uses GLSL version 1.10.59. other than the technicalities of these matters, it would also be important for me to know if opengl 2.0 is good to use / stable and also how much different opengl 2.1 is from 2.0. i understand that directx includes things such as directsound where opengl would require a third party source like openal for sound, however, these aren't much of a problem for me as so much the type of pixel shader / vertex shader support, efficiency, and capabilities. now you might ask, why use opengl 2.0 or directx 8.0b, the reason for that is that i would like to program a 3D game under windows 95 as a unique nostalgic project of my mine, and these two api's are the newest supported under windows 95. the geforce 6 series, particularly the geforce 6800 gt supports opengl 2.0 under windows 95 with it's forceware 81.98 driver and slightly older ones too. i'd being the directx 8.0a sdk + 8.0b libraries with visual studio 6.0 or opengl 2.0 + openal, glut, etc + visual studio 6.0. i looked at these models of opengl 2.1 vs directx 9 and 10 and the opengl 2.1 looked pretty nice, below is the image url -
  8. hi, i was wondering if anyone is familiar with the patching process with return to castle wolfenstein for pc. i have several questions, but first, i would like to know how necessary it is to be installing later patches for the game, i guess it's either a question of if it aint broke, then don't fix it. i am aware and have read some of the patch information such as fixing certain things like animations, etc, but part of me thinks it's better to keep the game more original or as original as i could have it to avoid possible incompatibilities unless of course the patches really can make them game function and look better and wouldn't cause problems, i already read up on a manual modification of resolution offered in the below thread - https://www.overclock.net/forum/78-pc-gaming/1429126-return-castle-wolfenstein-resolution-fix.html i have always had this idea of using gtk radiant and creating maps with rtcw on windows 95, though this brings up the question of whether it makes any functional difference creating the maps / using gtk radiant on another operating system such as windows 98 or windows 2000, or if it should be ok, so as long as the gtk radiant version is the same, for example using gtk 1.4 on windows 2000 to create rtcw maps and then being able to load them on windows 95, i plan on using gtk radiant 1.4 to create maps, the filename is "GtkRadiantSetup-1.4.0-raven.exe", i have tested the program on windows 95 in that it installed without any errors and launched up, however, i didn't test it anymore past that, i did not have any games to test, only the program itself, for some weird reason, i couldn't get the older 1.2.11 to work on the last build i had, but another system before that, it did. back to RTCW, does anyone know if installing a later patch somehow breaks the game if playing it on windows 95 or causes it not function fully / properly? because i understand the game can work better in many ways, at least through testings on newer systems for the majority of them, however, with the older OS's like windows 95 and 98, there has been little to no information online on specific configurations / operations of gtk radiant and / or RTCW, regardless of what patch is being used, i do not think i found anything more than from what i've already tested on my own so far. one question i have is what order should i be installing the rtcw patches, i read somewhere that 1.33 full version can be installed if you are using any version lower than 1.32, and another site mentioned 1.41 can be installed if you already have 1.33 installed. the latest one i found was 1.42c, however, it mentions that it features much more HD content, which i am not sure what exactly that means, does that mean that they structurally redesigned the game or is it simply bug fixes / implementations to make the game run better on the same operating systems it always supported, so that windows 95 would still be supported? because there are a lot of HD mods out there but sometimes these can break the game if im not mistaken? the site below is the one with patch 1.42c - http://www.wsgf.org/dr/return-castle-wolfenstein
  • 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!