[SDL] DirectX 7?
david_moffatt at hotmail.com
Thu Sep 26 16:21:00 PDT 2002
I'm not sure if this has been covered but my main gripe with having to use
3D API's for 2D games is the stupid texture size limit. It makes creating
interfaces painful and older machines are not supported. If you guys can get
around the texture size limit I wouldn't care what API was used.
>From: David Olofson <david.olofson at reologica.se>
>Reply-To: sdl at libsdl.org
>To: sdl at libsdl.org
>Subject: Re: Re: [SDL] DirectX 7?
>Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2002 19:42:35 +0200
>On Thursday 26 September 2002 17:35, Kylotan wrote:
> > Neil Griffiths wrote:
> > > 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.
> > Let's not lose sight of the fact that SDL is used for more than games.
> > And there are many simple games which will run too slowly on GDI. This
> > is why I would prefer to see a DX5 fallback kept in addition to the
> > latest DX47 or whatever version is around at the time for the more
> > up-to-date programs. If 3 back-ends is too much work in terms of
> > maintenance, personally I'd rather see the GDI option dropped than the
> > DX5 one. But I know many others would disagree. :)
>Well, I'm sure no one would complain about you maintaining a DX<whatever>
> > > 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.
> > As word of mouth spreads, SDL should be reaching new audiences. Should
> > it be designed to please the current userbase and stay in its niche, or
> > perhaps to broaden the potential userbase by being more widely
> > applicable? For example, with DirectDraw now effectively gone from
> > DirectX, lots of us on GameDev.net are now promoting SDL as a more
> > usable alternative for simple 2D games, increasing its popularity among
> > Windows programmers and therefore users. So this choice is something to
> > think about.
>Yeah. And I maintain that SDL 2.x needs to cover the kind of stuff that
>causes people to use OpenGL or D3D instead, or there isn't much of a
>future in SDL's 2D API. I don't really think basic blitting with alpha
>support will be enough motivation to use the API for much longer, even if
>the *speed* is on par with native OpenGL and D3D when either of those is
>And where do we go if we don't want to code for *both* OpenGL and D3D?
>There is a need here, and it seems reasonable to me to extend the SDL API
>to fulfill this need - and I'm not talking about turning it into another
>Many typical 3D features don't belong in the SDL API at all, whereas some
>features generally *not* found in OpenGL or D3D do. (Loading/saving
>surfaces, blitting between surfaces, basic drawing primitives and that
>sort of stuff. Maybe even tiling with sub-pixel accurate scrolling
>belongs here. With 2D, I think that's related to subpixel accurate
>//David Olofson - Programmer, Composer, Open Source Advocate
>.- Coming soon from VaporWare Inc...------------------------.
>| The Return of Audiality! Real, working software. Really! |
>| Real time and off-line synthesis, scripting, MIDI, LGPL...|
>`-----------------------------------> (Public Release RSN) -'
>.- M A I A -------------------------------------------------.
>| The Multimedia Application Integration Architecture |
>`----------------------------> http://www.linuxdj.com/maia -'
> --- http://olofson.net --- http://www.reologica.se ---
>SDL mailing list
>SDL at libsdl.org
david_moffatt at hotmail.com
Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com
More information about the SDL