[SDL] DirectX 7?

Patrick McFarland unknown at panax.com
Thu Sep 26 05:46:00 PDT 2002


Its not faster. And it never will be faster. Well, maybe with Nvidia who really
doesnt put much time into their 2D stuff. 2D is slower done with textures 
because you have to push 4 (or so) textures 30+ times a second. AGP wasnt ment
to handle that. Try using OpenGL mode with ZSNES. Its slow as hell. It was a 
bad idea what Microsoft did, and I dont think anyone realizes that. You 
obviously dont.

Now, if you wanna turn around and use OpenGL to do 2D stuff, but each _sprite_
is a texture, and run things that way, thats something totally different, and
that is not how DirectDraw is now emulated with Direct3D.

On 26-Sep-2002, Neil Griffiths wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> PM> No, thats wrong. 3D accelerator or not, its slower, and often not smart for
> PM> other reasons. DirectX 8 has serious issues (cant run on 486s or Pentiums or
> PM> K6s), DirectDraw is basically shot, and Win95 users cant install it (Microsoft,
> PM> due to not supporting it, added in a check to prevent that from happening
> PM> (money grubbing bastards))
> 
> It renders to textures, that's how it does 2D. I know it's faster,
> I've seen it. I also have DirectX 8 running fine on my laptop, which
> happens to be a Pentium, so what's the deal?
> 
> So you haven't got DirectDraw? Big deal. You do exactly what GL_SDL is
> doing. We can already guess that SDL will render to OpenGL, there is
> no issue at all with doing the same with Direct3D. Look, here's an
> example of how you can do 2D with DirectX 8:
> 
> http://www.flipcode.com/tutorials/tut_dx8adv2d.shtml
> 
> Windows '95 is 7 years old right now, I don't see that as being a
> problem. Have you left your OS running as-is for 7 years then get
> pissed off when the latest software doesn't work on it?
> 
> PM> Because of this, DX8 is not suitable for 2D games. And thusly, its not suitable
> PM> for SDL 2.0 as well. DX7 is, but really, we probably could get away with doing
> PM> something like build multiple drivers (one that does DX7 and one that does DX3,
> PM> so we dont have to kick out NT4 users (Unless Sam puts his foot down and says
> PM> NT4 is dead)) out of one set of code, but have it enable DX7 specific functions
> PM> when building the DX7 portion (this works due to the fact that DX is massivly
> PM> backwards compat)
> 
> And, I guess, OpenGL is also not suitable for 2D games? Sure.
> 
> PM> So, yeah, if you wanna basically screw everyone that has an old machine (but
> PM> one that is perfect for playing 2D games) and everyone that doesnt run 
> PM> Win98/ME or Win2k/XP, yeah, go ahead and use DX8. But I specifically Sam wishes
> PM> to piss off around 2/5ths of the SDL userbase.
> 
> I'd love to see where you get your numbers from. People who play games
> will nearly always have fairly modern hardware. Those who don't won't
> care that SDL will be dropping back to GDI which Sam has already said
> SDL will be doing.
> 
> 2/5ths of the SDL userbase are not going to be using Windows '95. Most
> of the SDL userbase will be made up of Linux users and programmers.
> The majority of the rest will be made up of emulation fans and games
> players. All of these will have reasonably up-to-date hardware and
> software. That's pure logic - and I'd love to see you back up your
> claims.
> 
> Basically, you should take advantage of current technology, not stick
> to the old days because you know how to use DirectDraw. There's a good
> reason for rendering to textures. It's fast on pretty much every piece
> of graphics hardware since 1996.
> 
> Get with the times. And for people not with the times, they have GDI.
> 
> Neil.
> 
> PS It's interesting to see how in your next e-mail you say that
> anything under 640x480 isn't acceptable. How are you planning to do
> that at a reasonable framerate on the 486, one of the reasons you
> suggest we shouldn't use DX8 for? You're inconsistant. And no, pixel
> doubling from 320x240 isn't a great solution. You just have bigger
> pixels, it doesn't look better. It still looks blocky and you have no
> more effective screen area, the main reason for WANTING to use a
> higher resolution.

Read next time, I said this was a problem with X. Pixel doubling is a nice way 
to fake 320x240. Its cheap cpu wise, and looks the same as 320x240. 486s can 
do pixel doubling resonably well with little to no noticable fps loss.And also, 
New Gamers run 3D games. 2D is basically dead. So saying anything about new 
hardware is kinda stupid if you limit yourself to 2D games.

> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> SDL mailing list
> SDL at libsdl.org
> http://www.libsdl.org/mailman/listinfo/sdl

-- 
Patrick "Diablo-D3" McFarland || unknown at panax.com
"Computer games don't affect kids; I mean if Pac-Man affected us as kids, we'd 
all be running around in darkened rooms, munching magic pills and listening to
repetitive electronic music." --Kristian Wilson, Nintendo, Inc, 1989




More information about the SDL mailing list