It's not only the latest version. Older versions too should be automatically grabbed if they are missing.
D3DX9_24.dll
So, you are telling me that if we want to update an existing online game to the latest SDK that we have to patch the entire SDK redistributable stuff to our users just so they can get one DLL? That is unacceptable.
What is the plan for an acceptable solution for existing online games that wish to provide upgrades? We should be able to patch the DLL we need or at least something similar in size that will install the DLL we need. Either that or give us a static lib version back. I still do not understand why MS took that option away.
Really, D3DX should either be moved into peer status with the DX runtime (i.e. Dx9.0d) or it should go back to being a static lib. There doesn't seem to be any other solution that works for everyone.
What is the plan for an acceptable solution for existing online games that wish to provide upgrades? We should be able to patch the DLL we need or at least something similar in size that will install the DLL we need. Either that or give us a static lib version back. I still do not understand why MS took that option away.
Really, D3DX should either be moved into peer status with the DX runtime (i.e. Dx9.0d) or it should go back to being a static lib. There doesn't seem to be any other solution that works for everyone.
The way I see it is to make the cursed dll a static lib myself. I've done it before with another dll, so I will have a look at that with this dll.
Quote:Original post by MichaelT
The way I see it is to make the cursed dll a static lib myself. I've done it before with another dll, so I will have a look at that with this dll.
I would be careful of the licensing agreement if you plan on doing this. I don't know it's disallowed, but it wouldn't surprise me if it is.
-------------------
I know a lot of people are not happy about this situation. For the record, I'm one of them. Paul explained the reasons why a change was necessary and if you read it objectively I think most people will understand (if not agree with) the need for a change.
I think it's fairly likely that Microsoft will allow a reduced Redist that just contains the needed D3DX library (packaged in an installer). It will be small enough to be viable for small downloadable games. Is it ideal? Maybe not, but I think it is workable.
Quote:Original post by DrunkenHyenaQuote:Original post by MichaelT
The way I see it is to make the cursed dll a static lib myself. I've done it before with another dll, so I will have a look at that with this dll.
I would be careful of the licensing agreement if you plan on doing this. I don't know it's disallowed, but it wouldn't surprise me if it is.
-------------------
I know a lot of people are not happy about this situation. For the record, I'm one of them. Paul explained the reasons why a change was necessary and if you read it objectively I think most people will understand (if not agree with) the need for a change.
I think it's fairly likely that Microsoft will allow a reduced Redist that just contains the needed D3DX library (packaged in an installer). It will be small enough to be viable for small downloadable games. Is it ideal? Maybe not, but I think it is workable.
I'm much much more annoyed about the DirectPlay8 thing than this. The D3DX DLL solution I can live with, as I know enough people are PO'd about it that they'll come up with some kind of bare-bones distribution method.
Quote:Original post by wazoo69
I'm much much more annoyed about the DirectPlay8 thing than this.
Why? The reality of the matter is DirectPlay was just pretty much pure crap. Nobody used it, it was inflexible, it was bloated, and it hadn't been updated in a very long time. Winsock itself is very easy to use, so it's no big loss to loose an uneffective wrapper of it.
Quote:Original post by DrunkenHyena
I think it's fairly likely that Microsoft will allow a reduced Redist that just contains the needed D3DX library (packaged in an installer). It will be small enough to be viable for small downloadable games. Is it ideal? Maybe not, but I think it is workable.
Chuck Walbourn has said on DXDEV that they're working on a solution for people looking at web distribution. They're staying very quiet about exactly what's coming, which is annoying (as it'll have an impact on which versions of things we choose to use now), but I guess there's not much we can do except cross our fingers and hope. There's some stuff about it involving DSetup and being available from the June release onwards.. check the list archives for exactly what's been said.
In any case, there's nothing that says you have to use D3DX. If it's rendering things unusable for you, you can always do what you would do if it didn't exist - use another library, or implement things yourself.
Quote:Original post by superpig
They're staying very quiet about exactly what's coming, which is annoying (as it'll have an impact on which versions of things we choose to use now), but I guess there's not much we can do except cross our fingers and hope. There's some stuff about it involving DSetup and being available from the June release onwards.. check the list archives for exactly what's been said.
We plan to allow developers to configure the redist to contain only the parts they wish to redist. As was noted previously, we had a limited form of this in April 05 but it still required the main dx cab. The exact files you'll need to redist depends on the assumptions you want to make. If you only care about d3dx on x86, the redist size is 3.7 Mb (as of this moment) and compresses to 1.3 Mb. Installing (from your application's setup) simply requires running "%PATHTOYOURSETUPFILES%\dxsetup.exe /silent" If you want a bit more control or more robust error handling, you can use the DirectSetup APIs as before.
A number of people have requested that we look at online distribution of the dx runtime (either a web-download installer or something via Windows Update). This is on the list of stuff to investigate for future SDK releases.
As always, if you have feedback/comments, email directx@microsoft.com
Paul Bleisch
WGGT Solutions
Quote:Original post by circlesoftQuote:Original post by wazoo69
I'm much much more annoyed about the DirectPlay8 thing than this.
Why? The reality of the matter is DirectPlay was just pretty much pure crap. Nobody used it, it was inflexible, it was bloated, and it hadn't been updated in a very long time. Winsock itself is very easy to use, so it's no big loss to loose an uneffective wrapper of it.
Well I must be the only one who liked it then. :)
It was easy to setup, easy to use and provided good enough UDP communication for me.
I'm working on my own UDP solution, but with dplay8 around it was a good enough networking middleware solution for me.
There was a lot of AAA games that used it, so I wouldn't classify it as total crap, etc.
Just my 2 cents. Carry on.
As for Paul's response, thanks! Using that dxsetup flag should be good enough for my application purposes. That's a good enough size, that I can live with bundling it with my apps.
When I think of a pure-online distribution system though, I think of Steam which I loathe. Having to connect to an online server just to play a single-player game is disgusting.
Anyways, having the choice between the two is awesome. The more choice the better.
This topic is closed to new replies.
Advertisement
Popular Topics
Advertisement
