Quote: Original post by pbjgameI don't want to switch to DX because of the distribution problems in the DX9 series

What distribution problems?

Quote:
and because of Microsoft's apparent need to force people to upgrade. (For example, making Windows Media Player 10 to be &#111;nly compatible with systems from XP &#111;n, and now releasing DX10 for Vista and &#111;n &#111;nly.)<!–QUOTE–></td></tr></table></BLOCKQUOTE><!–/QUOTE–><!–ENDQUOTE–><br>So?<br>DX9 doesn't require you to upgrade anything, and it still seems a better deal than GL3.0.<br>

Quote: Original post by Spoonbender

Quote: Original post by pbjgameI don't want to switch to DX because of the distribution problems in the DX9 series

What distribution problems?

Quote:
and because of Microsoft's apparent need to force people to upgrade. (For example, making Windows Media Player 10 to be &#111;nly compatible with systems from XP &#111;n, and now releasing DX10 for Vista and &#111;n &#111;nly.)<!–QUOTE–></td></tr></table></BLOCKQUOTE><!–/QUOTE–><!–ENDQUOTE–><br>So?<br>DX9 doesn't require you to upgrade anything, and it still seems a better deal than GL3.0.<!–QUOTE–></td></tr></table></BLOCKQUOTE><!–/QUOTE–><!–ENDQUOTE–><br><br>I like quoting quotes!<br><br>Anyways, as for distribution problems, d3dx9_xx dlls. It seems all of my friends just never have the version needed to run some certain program. And of course, the 9a, b, c, thing didn't help…even after installing the latest version of nine from the MS DX site, you generally don't get all of the d3dx9_xx dlls. So it's very hard to find a legal way to acquire all of them since no &#111;ne can legally distribute d3dx9 dlls seperate from the installer that doesn't have all of them, though I'm sure there are ways to code around it, and I'm just too much of a n00b to adapt. (Any resources would be greatly appreciated.)<br><br>As for upgrades, I just think it's irritating for gamers to have to put up with all of these (unnecessary) compatibility issues, even just within DX and Windows themselves. But, I'm sad that OpenGL can no longer compete with DX &#111;n graphics performance and such, and I just have a general distaste for monopolies that have a name like Bill Gates.<br><br>Sorry for the poor writing skills, school is killing my brain.

erm, you just include the DX SDK Redist, which comes with the version of the dx sdk install you compile your app again, with your app and either a) have an installer automagically install it if needed or b) put instructions somewhere to tell someone to run it.

Hardly a problem...

Quote: Original post by pbjgame
Anyways, as for distribution problems, d3dx9_xx dlls. It seems all of my friends just never have the version needed to run some certain program. And of course, the 9a, b, c, thing didn't help...even after installing the latest version of nine from the MS DX site, you generally don't get all of the d3dx9_xx dlls. So it's very hard to find a legal way to acquire all of them since no one can legally distribute d3dx9 dlls seperate from the installer that doesn't have all of them, though I'm sure there are ways to code around it, and I'm just too much of a n00b to adapt. (Any resources would be greatly appreciated.)

Quote: Original post by phantom
erm, you just include the DX SDK Redist, which comes with the version of the dx sdk install you compile your app again, with your app and either a) have an installer automagically install it if needed or b) put instructions somewhere to tell someone to run it.

It's probably worth noting that if you're using the DirectX SDK you're probably using Visual Studio, so you should be including the CRT redist package too.

If you're just sending your app to friends, there shouldn't be a problem in just bundling the D3DX DLL with the app, although it's still frowned upon.

The BOF slides have been posted

I'm posting some of my thoughts on the presentations as a service to gamedev users which may not have as much free time as I have now.

Blizzard says:

1. Having stuff in core is better than having extensions. (I'll take this for granted).


2. MapBufferRange. (Ok, I suppose this could deliver, it obviously deserves the 3.0 moniker)


3. One spec to read and learn (LOL intended).
   Fewer extensions to test (LOL intended).
   Fewer permutations to author and test (I'm not frankly sure).
   

Oh, sure, WoW portability is great but every time I see it running I think I came back to Quake2 or at best Quake3.

Book update: Buy stuff. Wow, I'm surely adding all this to my TODO list! (irony intended, but the fact this comes at the GL3 presentation gives me the creeps).

Ecosystem presentation:

1. This is wonderful. Basically the route is core->deprecated->ARB extension->removed or EXT. Having extensions for cutting edge features was a great idea but I personally have some doubts in extending GL to have access to deprecated features! It's surely a new standard in quality and back-compatibility!


2. WGL_ARB_Create_Context: ok, I understand this togheter with the deprecation model is good, it would have been a nice addition for GL2.2.

Extensions presentation: geometry shaders, other extensions to make extended GL2 basically equivalent to GL3. I really wasn't expecting it (irony intended).

GPG presentation: Blabla on their power benchmark for DCC. Sure it's useful but I really don't care. I don't even see why someone should care. What's the relationship with the API?

Introduction presentation: Wow, introduction presentations are always the same. Just replace _generate_mipmap with _geometry_shader and _vertex_buffer_object with _vertex_array_object. For the rest, they are always extremely interesting (irony intended).

Martz presentation: Buy stuff. Wow, I'm surely adding all this to my TODO list! (irony intended, but the fact this comes at the GL3 presentation gives me the creeps).

OpenCL presentation: Ok, we know it's going to be fun. It simply states how awesome the group is in developing this stuff. Just don't read.

Overview presentation: "Look how many extensions we put in core!" - yes, exactly.

GLSL presentation: A typical GLSL presentation. Ok, GLSL 1.30 has many things deprecated, which I mostly didn't use. Yes, I see this is going to be useful for implmementors.

Vendor announcements (it is suggested to activate marketing bogonic absorbers before reading):

1. AMD stands behind GL3.0 rollout till the end of 2008. Uhm.


2. Intel is "excited" for a new strong future. Uh-uh.


3. NVIDIA: beta is already there, G80 and other supported. That's sure. Goodbye longs peak. Goodbye good-enough hardware.

gDebugger presentation: looks like a typical gDebugger presentation. Love it or hate it.

Quote: Original post by pbjgame
I like quoting quotes!

[lol]

Quote: Anyways, as for distribution problems, d3dx9_xx dlls.

Oooh, you mean the optional helper libraries that Microsoft supplies free of charge?.
Note the *optional* part. You don't have to use them, and if you don't, your application won't depend on them. I'm not sure I see how the fact that Microsoft makes them available to developers translates into an advantage for OpenGL.

Quote: But, I'm sad that OpenGL can no longer compete with DX on graphics performance and such, and I just have a general distaste for monopolies that have a name like Bill Gates.

I see it the opposite way. DirectX does not have a monopoly. It exists in a market where a competitor exists. (there are two API's for 3d on Windows. DirectX and OpenGL).

OpenGL is the monopoly. On Linux or Mac, there is only *one* 3d API.
In the one market where competition exists (Windows), OpenGL is getting thrashed. What does that tell you? Certainly not that "Microsoft is abusing their monopoly". Quite the reverse. Microsoft has, (for once, if you want an anti-MS slant), made a competitive product, and the real problem is that it doesn't compete in all areas. It doesn't help Linux or Mac users, who are stuck with the fossilized monopoly.

If anything, OpenGL is abusing its monopoly on non-Windows platforms, to sit on their asses and do nothing for the better part of a decade. They can only do that because no alternative exists.

Well, at least the current OpenGL book I got a year ago should still be usable. Not that I plan on using it (SDL FTW)

I feel bad for Linux. I use Linux, and now for all general purposes we don't have a decent API. I think we are better off hoping WINE can rewrite the DirectX API than trusting OpenGL.

So...who wants to form UbuntuGL?

Here is what the OpenGL site should really be.

The wording on the Blizzard slides was intentionally terse (I never like presentations where the presenter is just reading the words on the slides); if you have any questions about the content in that segment I would be happy to try and respond to them.

Quote: Original post by DOS4dinner
Well, at least the current OpenGL book I got a year ago should still be usable. Not that I plan on using it (SDL FTW)

I feel bad for Linux. I use Linux, and now for all general purposes we don't have a decent API. I think we are better off hoping WINE can rewrite the DirectX API than trusting OpenGL.

So...who wants to form UbuntuGL?

Here is what the OpenGL site should really be.

You do understand that WINE's DX library uses GL? WINE doesn't have drivers. WINE is basically an application that opens your Windows EXE as if it was a plain file.

Quote: So...who wants to form UbuntuGL?

How about improving OpenGL?