Is seems really strange to me that there are still many beginners who learn D3D9. There are even questions about FVF and FF pipeline on this forum...
Besides the HLSL, D3D9 is completely different than D3D10+. How the API looks, the feature set. The programming model itself is very different. Perhaps a matter of taste, but I find D3D10 easier to work with.
I can't really find any good reason to learn D3D9 nowdays.
Because Windows XP still runs on 39% of PCs.
Edit: Also i think some find it easier not to have to deal with shaders at first. They do tend to complicate things a bit.
Edit: Also i think some find it easier not to have to deal with shaders at first. They do tend to complicate things a bit.
In my opinion, learning fixed function is not really learning graphics. With FF, all you do is configure a state machine, plug in some matrices and that's it. You don't need to know math, you don't need to know lighting - and you will not really learn them.
My first experience with graphics development was implementing a software FF pipeline. I used a really crappy book with a lot of math errors, so I had to develop most of the math by myself. And implement clipper, rasterizer, depth unit, blending. After that, switching to shaders is a piece of cake.
Not that I expect people to write their own pipeline nowdays, but FF is a relic of the past. It's a nasty, useless shortcut.
I agree, it should be dead at this point. I also make a face whenever I see someone asking about FVF codes or other legacy fixed-function features. If anyone is looking to learn graphics then they would be much better served with a shader-based approach using a modern API.
Of course it may make sense to use D3D9 if you're writing an app that needs to target Windows XP, due to Microsoft's unfortunate decision of tying D3D features to OS features. But using it to learn is a bad idea, IMO.
Is seems really strange to me that there are still many beginners who learn D3D9. ...
I can't really find any good reason to learn D3D9 nowdays.
Don't tell me dude. I'd drop D3D9 any day of the week if I could. Why those beginners are shooting themselves in the foot is something I cannot understand. Dealing with all the 10yo cruft is just painful IMHO!
Also i think some find it easier not to have to deal with shaders at first. They do tend to complicate things a bit.
And instead they learn that crappy dead-end stuff about lights and materials and a myriad of device states that are only relevant for "F"VF... shudder.
Not so long ago I developed a driver system that abstracted 3 API's - DX9, DX11, OpenGL. From my experience by writing the same stuff in three different ways (no fixed pipline, shaders on Cg), DirectX 9 was the easiest do set up and render in terms of code written and complexity.
In DirectX 11 you want to render? Nope, you have to create a SwapChain. Oh, you want to render some colours? Sorry, you need to connect by view your SwapChain Buffer. You need a depth buffer? Then create it! Why is it a texture? Don't ask - and yes, you need another view.
DirectX 9 in comparison is so much easier to learn from the outside, because you need very little to see "something" on screen at the beginning.
DirectX 9 in comparison is so much easier to learn from the outside, because you need very little to see "something" on screen at the beginning
Maybe, I guess it's a matter of taste.
That doesn't change the fact that D3D9 is becoming obsolete, and there's little point for newbies to go anywhere near it.
