Sorry your browser is not supported!

You are using an outdated browser that does not support modern web technologies, in order to use this site please update to a new browser.

Browsers supported include Chrome, FireFox, Safari, Opera, Internet Explorer 10+ or Microsoft Edge.

DarkBASIC Professional Discussion / Dark Basic Elite - A Question

Author
Message
Mobiius
Valued Member
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 27th Feb 2003
Location: The Cold North
Posted: 18th Apr 2013 18:59
Quote: "If DB Elite would become a reality"

And is significantly more improved than DBPro....

I live for video games! (And beers, and football, and cars!)
See what I live for here: [url]http:\\www.TeamDefiant.co.uk[/url]
Arbrakan
13
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 10th Oct 2010
Location: Geneva
Posted: 18th Apr 2013 22:18
I'm a DBP addict to, I LOVE this language. I fight for it about 10 years now. With it, you can make real good games, I'm working on my engine, and every day I see the power of this language. I hop release some screens of my current engine this year. I need to blow some mind who tell me that DarkBASIC is not a "language".

But if DB Elite came to live, it will be awesome !

Thanks Lee, Thanks TGC for this awesome tools !

Sorry for my limited english.
Clonkex
Forum Vice President
13
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 20th May 2010
Location: Northern Tablelands, NSW, Australia
Posted: 22nd Apr 2013 09:32
I don't think Lee is still thinking of doing this but if he is:

Don't limit it to DirectX 11. I hate games that limit you to newer hardware.

Anyway I don't think this is still happening because Lee is supposed to be spending all his time on FPSC-R

Clonkex

Concept Games
16
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 20th Nov 2007
Location: Tucson, Arizona
Posted: 22nd Apr 2013 13:15
Quote: "I don't think Lee is still thinking of doing this but if he is:

Don't limit it to DirectX 11. I hate games that limit you to newer hardware.

Anyway I don't think this is still happening because Lee is supposed to be spending all his time on FPSC-R

Clonkex"

Honestly - FPSC-R is likely being developed with DBP (correct me if I am wrong.) With that said, updating DBP to DX11 is just killing two birds with one stone!

Maybe that's what's going on? Who knows

Hmm...
Mobiius
Valued Member
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 27th Feb 2003
Location: The Cold North
Posted: 22nd Apr 2013 15:51
FPSC-R IS being developed in DBPro, which means he IS updating DBPro. To what level he'll be updating it to, only he knows. But if it's going to support DirectX > 9 then it won't be backwards compatible unless he cheats like in the DarkSOURCE collection, where he shows how to use DX10 in "classic" DBPro.

I live for video games! (And beers, and football, and cars!)
See what I live for here: [url]http:\\www.TeamDefiant.co.uk[/url]
Clonkex
Forum Vice President
13
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 20th May 2010
Location: Northern Tablelands, NSW, Australia
Posted: 22nd Apr 2013 16:43
Quote: "updating DBP to DX11 is just killing two birds with one stone"


Oh? In what way? I can see how some people would think having a DX11 DBPro is one bird, but what's the other?

If you've been reading Lee's FPSC-R blog, you'll know that the internal version of DBPro has been updated already (compile times are 3-4 times faster) and when the internal version is stable it will be released. However, Lee is not updating to DirectX 10 or 11.

If you read the blog you can find out pretty much exactly what's happening.

Clonkex

Mage
17
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 3rd Feb 2007
Location: Canada
Posted: 22nd Apr 2013 17:03
A new Dark Basic so supremely overdue. Multi-core support, error handling, DX10+ would be real nice. The language is looking antiquated. It's obviously a lot of work, but this made sense even years ago. There should have been a revision 7 years ago. I'd fully support Dark Basic Elite if it was released.

Concept Games
16
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 20th Nov 2007
Location: Tucson, Arizona
Posted: 22nd Apr 2013 21:49
Quote: "Oh? In what way? I can see how some people would think having a DX11 DBPro is one bird, but what's the other?"

If DBP was being upgraded to DX11, FPSC-R would also be DX11. IMO, That's taking care of two things at once - Better FPSC-R and DBP Elite

Hmm...
Mobiius
Valued Member
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 27th Feb 2003
Location: The Cold North
Posted: 22nd Apr 2013 23:00
If DBPro were to be updated to DX11 then it'll alienate it's entire usershare as no current DBPro programs will work with it, and it's a huge undertaking to get code to work with a DX11 framework.

Plus anyone who doesn't have a DX11 capable machine can't use it. (And it's still a large share)

I live for video games! (And beers, and football, and cars!)
See what I live for here: [url]http:\\www.TeamDefiant.co.uk[/url]
Clonkex
Forum Vice President
13
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 20th May 2010
Location: Northern Tablelands, NSW, Australia
Posted: 23rd Apr 2013 04:33
Quote: "Better FPSC-R"


It wouldn't necessarily be better, though, because it wouldn't run on non-DX11 hardware. I'm not completely biased on this either because my gaming PC is a DX11 PC, so I could certainly use FPSC-R if were to become DX11 (Lee is not making a DX11 DBPro...he said specifically in one of his blog posts that he will be sticking with DX9 for backwards compatibility and simplicity), but I don't want a DX11 FPSC-R or DBPro because I remember when I only had DX9 PC (just last year) and I know how frustrating it is when big developers don't support older hardware; I will always support older hardware to the best of my abilities.

Quote: "error handling"


Lol what?? What do you think happens if you type POSITION OBJECT 0,0,0,0?

Quote: "no current DBPro programs will work with it"


Most of the plugins would have to be rewritten from the ground up and some of the original writers of some plugins don't even exist on the forums any more. A DX11 DBPro would be a really bad idea.

Clonkex

Andrew_Neale
14
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 3rd Nov 2009
Location: The Normandy SR-2
Posted: 23rd Apr 2013 10:41 Edited at: 23rd Apr 2013 10:45
I have to strongly disagree.

Firstly, it is an incredibly narrow minded view to hold back all progress because some people aren't ready for it. That's a bit like saying "Well, I've invented the car and most people love it but Sam over there still prefers his bike so lets scrap that car idea.". For the most part, gamers and game developers are at the top in terms of modern spec. Already, 49.71% of users on Steam have DirectX 11 support with even more having hardware ready but that haven't updated their OS yet. By the time Dark BASIC Elite was made this percentage would've gone up again and even more so by the time the first proper games were being finished with it.

Aside from that, anyone not prepared to make the move could stick with Dark BASIC as it is. Elite was to be a paid for new product so you could simply opt not to buy it. A lot of us are willing to move with the times and there's no reason not to offer a product that a lot of people want just because a few people don't.

Also, from my own work creating a game engine in C++, supporting both DirectX 9 and DirectX 11 is not that tricky. I managed within about a week to have the start of an engine together where 3d objects with textures and shaders could be loaded and moved around with a startup option for either DirectX version. This was all wrapped in another class so that when coding the rest of the engine you never needed to know or care about the DirectX version. Lee is no doubt a more accomplished programmer than me so I'm sure that would be attainable for him too.

The only point I would agree would be a downer is the loss of plugin support. However, Elite may render some of these plugins redundant and other excellent ones, such as Dark Dynamix, still have the authors frequenting these forums. To a degree, I wouldn't want to be using a plugin which is longer supported anyway. If anything becomes an issue you'd end up having to scrap it and rewrite it yourself or work in some hacks. Add to that the active forum members and the new members who would be drawn in with Elite that are capable of creating new up-to-data plugins, I'm sure this gap would be filled quickly. I've made a number of plugins myself and it was not particularly hard to learn.

[Edit] Typo! [/Edit]


Previously TEH_CODERER.
Clonkex
Forum Vice President
13
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 20th May 2010
Location: Northern Tablelands, NSW, Australia
Posted: 23rd Apr 2013 15:25
Quote: "Firstly, it is an incredibly narrow minded view to hold back all progress because some people aren't ready for it. That's a bit like saying "Well, I've invented the car and most people love it but Sam over there still prefers his bike so lets scrap that car idea."."


It is indeed. But believe me when I say I intend nothing of the sort. Progress is good. What I mean is that we should not be looking only forward. We must look backward also. In other words, we need to support older hardware as well.

Quote: "For the most part, gamers and game developers are at the top in terms of modern spec."


I realise that, and indeed, even I already own a fairly powerful DX11 laptop, so I have no trouble running modern games.

Quote: "Already, 49.71% of users on Steam have DirectX 11 support with even more having hardware ready but that haven't updated their OS yet."


Half of the Steam users don't have DX11 hardware? Wow. The need to support DX9 is greater than I originally believed. Also, consider this: Even if that figure were to rise to, say, 70%, what about non-Steam users? Logically, non-Steam users are far less likely to be heavy gamers than Steam users, right? If you are a heavy gamer you likely own a modern game, all of which require Steam. Well, only a year ago I didn't even know Steam existed (and hated it when I first found it). If I could have stayed away from Steam and still played the cool games, I would have. There are lots of users that are not Steam users, which are therefore likely to own DX9 hardware because they are not heavy gamers. My point is (yes, I did have a point to that convoluted paragraph), I want to support all the millions of people without DX11 hardware. I hated being the minority because no one wanted to help me. I couldn't play modern games because they were all about money and didn't care about who got left out.

Quote: "Also, from my own work creating a game engine in C++, supporting both DirectX 9 and DirectX 11 is not that tricky."


The only reason I hadn't suggested this already is because A) I didn't think of it and B) everyone seemed to be implying a pure DX11 DBPro. I would LOVE to have a DBPro that supported both DX11 AND DX9! That would be brilliant! That way, we can look forward AND backward and include everyone.

Now, quickly back to that ~50% figure...if it were 95%, I would begin to consider creating a DX11-only game, but not before. Just remember, that 5% is a LOT of people, and I don't like to think of creating a game as creating money, so I like to create games that all can play. Also I hate freemium. It's so stupid.

Anyway, it's all a bit pointless to argue over this since it's not happening. If we do in fact still disagree, let's just agree to disagree and leave it at that.

Clonkex

Andrew_Neale
14
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 3rd Nov 2009
Location: The Normandy SR-2
Posted: 23rd Apr 2013 16:01 Edited at: 23rd Apr 2013 16:06
Quote: "Half of the Steam users don't have DX11 hardware? Wow. The need to support DX9 is greater than I originally believed. Also, consider this: Even if that figure were to rise to, say, 70%, what about non-Steam users? Logically, non-Steam users are far less likely to be heavy gamers than Steam users, right?"


People won't necessarily upgrade unless there is enough reason to. If everyone just kept on supporting DirectX 9 then there would be a large number of people who wouldn't bother spending the money to upgrade. Producing more content specifically designed for the modern technology will encourage more people to upgrade. This has been the issue with the current generation of consoles which are so heavily out-dated but developers wanting to still support them has held back PC game development by years. Also, the number of PC gamers not using Steam is going to be tiny, aside from casual gamers. Casual gamers fit into a different category though where hitting minimum system specs is almost the main focus. Again, the existing version of DBPro would be available for this.

Quote: "I don't like to think of creating a game as creating money, so I like to create games that all can play."


If you're not looking to make money then surely your focus would be on creating the best experience possible rather than the largest audience possible. This goes back to the console issue again where commercially the largest audience is required rather than providing an optimal experience for those with PCs. Though I can also understand wanting as many people as possible to experience your creation. That is a tough choice between hitting the larger audience with a held-back creation or hitting a smaller audience with a more impressive creation.

Quote: "Anyway, it's all a bit pointless to argue over this since it's not happening. If we do in fact still disagree, let's just agree to disagree and leave it at that."


Indeed. I wasn't wanting to kick off a huge argument or anything. I just wanted to defend DirectX 11 and progress in general as both seemed to be getting a bit of an unfair bashing but there are reasonable arguments to both sides and possible a little misunderstanding. Certainly no hard feeling from my point of view, so I hope you only saw it as a debate rather than an attack!


Previously TEH_CODERER.
Clonkex
Forum Vice President
13
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 20th May 2010
Location: Northern Tablelands, NSW, Australia
Posted: 23rd Apr 2013 16:57
Quote: "People won't necessarily upgrade unless there is enough reason to. If everyone just kept on supporting DirectX 9 then there would be a large number of people who wouldn't bother spending the money to upgrade."


I hadn't thought of it in that light. I do see how supporting older hardware can restrict the advancement of newer hardware.

Quote: "Producing more content specifically designed for the modern technology will encourage more people to upgrade. This has been the issue with the current generation of consoles which are so heavily out-dated but developers wanting to still support them has held back PC game development by years."


Well that's certainly true enough. Although in a way I'm glad of the limitations of current-gen consoles because it puts some (not many, but some) limitations on the PC ports. I only have a laptop, so this means that if I turn down the settings I can just run the latest games playably

Quote: "Casual gamers fit into a different category though where hitting minimum system specs is almost the main focus."


lol with my laptop that's what I have to do

Quote: "If you're not looking to make money then surely your focus would be on creating the best experience possible rather than the largest audience possible."


Ah, but the experience is crap if it's non-existent.

Quote: "That is a tough choice between hitting the larger audience with a held-back creation or hitting a smaller audience with a more impressive creation."


lol what?! Are you saying DX11 provides so many new gameplay features that my creations would be held back by using DX9?? Hahahaha that's silly DX11 provides shinier and, if used correctly, more realistic graphics, but DX9 can produce pretty much any effect that DX11 can (with a bit of effort). Anyway, I find that gameplay is by far the most important thing.

Quote: "Indeed. I wasn't wanting to kick off a huge argument or anything. I just wanted to defend DirectX 11 and progress in general as both seemed to be getting a bit of an unfair bashing but there are reasonable arguments to both sides and possible a little misunderstanding."


I do tend to beat the crap out of DirectX 11 because I'm still convinced DirectX 9.0c is the pinnicale of the DirectX series. I think that's because it's been out for so long that everything supports it (within the realm of Windows, obviously). Plus I also believe anything that can be achieved in DX11 can be achieved in DX9 (even tessellation, by modifying static meshes ).

Quote: "Certainly no hard feeling from my point of view, so I hope you only saw it as a debate rather than an attack!"


I did indeed (that is, I saw it as a debate), but you are lucky to have come out the other side unscathed because I have a nasty habit of getting far too defensive and making more enemies than friends. I'm slowly learning to avoid doing that

I'd like to count you as a friend, if only because you use near-perfect grammar and spelling I can't stand this modern obsession with "But why do I need to spell correctly?"

As a quick aside and something to take this thread even further off-topic: I've often considered changing my avatar to a picture of myself and changing my profile name to my real name (David Hynd) so that people feel like they're talking to a real person instead of some internet entity, but I'm very much a traditionalist (even though I'm only 18) and I strongly dislike change. I also love the fact that I have been called Clonkex on every game and every forum and every sign-up-site since the beginning of time and I want that tradition to continue for years to come.

Clonkex

Chris Tate
DBPro Master
15
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 29th Aug 2008
Location: London, England
Posted: 23rd Apr 2013 17:40 Edited at: 23rd Apr 2013 17:46
I just can't see Dx11 support happening in the DarkBASIC IP anytime soon. It seems too far fetched.

I would think otherwise if the current tool was complete, updated and fully documented; which is not the case in the context of DirectX 9, let alone DX10, let alone DX11. If cube mapping doesn't work properly and anti-alias isn't working properly in DBP DX9, how could I trust DBP DX11 to work smoothly enough to warrant investment of time and money?

It's a tough job; I wish Dark BASIC Elite became a realistic update that fixes faults, implements much more of DX9s features, better shader resources with improvements to the language itself; I would believe this kind of update would take place, I'd find it hard to believe DBPE DX11 would take place.

Too much work for a small team; it would need a heavy price tag and lots of finance to pull of a DX11 engine wrapper in the DarkBASIC model. Documentation, dealing with operating systems, UAC, hardware, plugins.

If they pull it off I will eat my shoe.

Who knows, if the Kick Starter was for Dark Basic Elite, how successful would that have been? Would the funds have blown the roof? Or would there be fewer backers compared to FPSCR due to people leaving DBP to use engines like Unity or XNA?

I think to get DX11 support they'd need to completely forget FPSCR for a few years; get DX11 working first, test it in a Dark Basic Elite release, then build FPSC reloaded; but this route may not have been financially viable.

Andrew_Neale
14
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 3rd Nov 2009
Location: The Normandy SR-2
Posted: 23rd Apr 2013 18:19
Quote: "Are you saying DX11 provides so many new gameplay features that my creations would be held back by using DX9?? Hahahaha that's silly DX11 provides shinier and, if used correctly, more realistic graphics, but DX9 can produce pretty much any effect that DX11 can (with a bit of effort). Anyway, I find that gameplay is by far the most important thing."


From what I've tried myself, DirectX 11 can handle the same things that are possible in DirectX 9 more efficiently, especially when it comes to large numbers of similar objects on screen at once which can affect what is possible gameplay wise. Also, whilst I fully agree that the gameplay is more important than the graphics, the graphics are still very important. Even as a labour of love rather than a purely commercial venture, you're going to want to add all the polish you can. I personally see game development as the highest form of art bringing all of its sub-sections together in one place. DirectX 11 offers more potential for this, as well as more ease and efficiency for the same things that can be a great chore in DirectX9, so I welcome it with open arms.

Quote: "I did indeed (that is, I saw it as a debate), but you are lucky to have come out the other side unscathed because I have a nasty habit of getting far too defensive and making more enemies than friends. I'm slowly learning to avoid doing that"


I have similar problems but I tend to hold back unless the other party is being totally unreasonable.

Quote: "I'd like to count you as a friend, if only because you use near-perfect grammar and spelling I can't stand this modern obsession with "But why do I need to spell correctly?""


You're talking to the right person there. Even my text messages are fully punctuated.

Quote: "I just can't see Dx11 support happening in the DarkBASIC IP anytime soon. It seems too far fetched."


Indeed, I unfortunately don't see it happening either. I have been considering undertaking this task myself, especially as I already have a started DirectX 9/11 engine in place. It would be a lot of effort but it would be quite good fun to do and this thread has made it clear it may have enough people interested to be worthwhile.


Previously TEH_CODERER.
JackDawson
12
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 12th Jul 2011
Location:
Posted: 23rd Apr 2013 18:39 Edited at: 23rd Apr 2013 18:40
Ok after reading all this.. I don't think I see the answer..

Is Lee running a Dark Basic Elite Kickstarter ?

If so where is it ?

If not, I would donate to it if he set it up.
Mobiius
Valued Member
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 27th Feb 2003
Location: The Cold North
Posted: 23rd Apr 2013 18:52
Quote: "Is Lee running a Dark Basic Elite Kickstarter ?"

No he isn't.

I live for video games! (And beers, and football, and cars!)
See what I live for here: [url]http:\\www.TeamDefiant.co.uk[/url]
basjak
14
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 16th Apr 2010
Location: feel like signing up for mars
Posted: 23rd Apr 2013 20:33
DBpro is still making the highest sales for the game creators and I see no reason why they would not go for elite

basjak
14
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 16th Apr 2010
Location: feel like signing up for mars
Posted: 23rd Apr 2013 20:33
DBpro is still making the highest sales for the game creators and I see no reason why they would not go elite

World Class Multimedia
15
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 15th Aug 2008
Location: Florida, USA
Posted: 23rd Apr 2013 22:05
I'd buy it.

I'd especially buy it if (1) all existing plugins work with it and (2) is had a built-in visual form builder to create Windows programs above and beyond games.

Mike

YOU DREAM IT - WE CREATE IT!
www.world-class-multimedia.com
For world-class virtual instruments - www.supersynths.com
Clonkex
Forum Vice President
13
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 20th May 2010
Location: Northern Tablelands, NSW, Australia
Posted: 24th Apr 2013 03:32
Quote: "Is Lee running a Dark Basic Elite Kickstarter ?"


No, Lee is sitting in a small house in South Wales working frantically on FPSC-R. He will not stop working on it until it's finished, so regardless of what the community wants with DBPro, Lee will not be doing anything with it (well, aside from small improvements to help the production of FPSC-R, such as a 3-4 times compile speed increase).

Clonkex

Chris Tate
DBPro Master
15
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 29th Aug 2008
Location: London, England
Posted: 24th Apr 2013 04:15 Edited at: 24th Apr 2013 04:18
Quote: "such as a 3-4 times compile speed increase"


And that would be brilliant; I've gotta compile about 70,000 lines just to fix a fault or add an non-script feature. Can sometimes take about 15 minutes lol. Had to split it up into two .EXE's, 30k odd lines each.

Clonkex
Forum Vice President
13
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 20th May 2010
Location: Northern Tablelands, NSW, Australia
Posted: 24th Apr 2013 05:32
Quote: "And that would be brilliant; I've gotta compile about 70,000 lines just to fix a fault or add an non-script feature. Can sometimes take about 15 minutes lol. Had to split it up into two .EXE's, 30k odd lines each."


As soon as the internal version of DBPro is stable it will be released as an update, so the entire DBPro community benefits from Lee's exciting escapades with FPSC-R

New signature with link to my line counter for accurate line countings

Clonkex

Adrian
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 11th Nov 2003
Location: My Living Room
Posted: 24th Apr 2013 11:30
If it is only DX9 I don't think I would buy it. DBPro was great when it came out and I've been using it for probably the best part of 10 years now but it does look old.
It still hasn't been fully documented and debugged which is really annoying. I want to make stuff using DBPro but I'm starting to look towards other systems simply because DBPro doesn't seem to be moving forward anymore.

I don't really care about FPCS, I don't need it, and I haven't seen anything that has been written using it that make me think "wow! I must get into this - it's great"
All the games I've seen look like someone's first attempt at a fps game. I'm sure there are a few good ones out there but they can't compete with "proper" games. Maybe that's why it's being "reloaded" but it seems like a bit of a waste of time to me.

I know that's probably down to the people writing the games anyway but really - do we need another version of it?

Bite the bullet - make a version of DBElite that uses DX 11 and include the stuff that should have been included in DB in the first place. We want water, terrain, shaders etc etc - I'm sure everyone's seen the lists that are posted on this very forum.

The mobile app stuff was ok if you want to write tiny games for mobile phones, but I want to do fairly big games that run on my PC.
I want to write them myself not using tools that make every game look the same. If I see one more perfectly square room with a few pasted textures and a "zombie" to shoot I think I will go completely mad.
Alduce
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 26th Oct 2002
Location: Rama spaceship
Posted: 24th Apr 2013 13:56
Just I will pay for it!
Mobiius
Valued Member
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 27th Feb 2003
Location: The Cold North
Posted: 24th Apr 2013 17:19
Quote: "We want water, terrain, shaders etc etc "

DBpro can do this now. Look at my game with it's shaded water, shaded dynamic terrains, shaded dynamic skybox, shaded bloom effect and shaded heat haze effect.

(No, I don't think I overused the work 'Shaded' lol)

I live for video games! (And beers, and football, and cars!)
See what I live for here: [url]http:\\www.TeamDefiant.co.uk[/url]
JackDawson
12
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 12th Jul 2011
Location:
Posted: 25th Apr 2013 00:02
Since this thread doesn't have any news on DB Elite any longer, since as was mentioned, Lee is no longer working on it.. How do I unsubscribe this thread from sending me emails about it ?
Chris Tate
DBPro Master
15
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 29th Aug 2008
Location: London, England
Posted: 25th Apr 2013 02:13
Quote: "New signature with link to my line counter for accurate line countings"


Thanks, I'll give it a go.

gwheycs62egydws
14
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 17th Aug 2009
Location: The World
Posted: 25th Apr 2013 02:28
@JackDawson

if you look at ware you post your message to this board

if you look at the post a message button
just above that and to the right of it you can disable receiving message

to move side ways - is to move forward
Since a Strait line gets thin fast
Mage
17
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 3rd Feb 2007
Location: Canada
Posted: 25th Apr 2013 05:31
Even if Dark Basic Elite was Dx11 with no Dx9 support I'd buy it. It would be interesting though if they surprised everyone having it built on OpenGL. That would be far fetched. I don't think there's much value making games in Dx9 anymore. The move to Dx10 and beyond should have happened years ago.

The DarkBasic community is shrinking slowly. We still get new people but it would be very nice to have a new core product to move things forward, and create a huge influx of people. Then there would be more people writing plugins again. You can't stay on an obsolete platform just because of old unsupported plugins. You'd kill any chance of ever having something better, and slowly fade away.

Sph!nx
15
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 3rd Dec 2008
Location: The Netherlands
Posted: 25th Apr 2013 13:12 Edited at: 25th Apr 2013 13:14
I don't know how approachable mr. Bamber is, but would it be a strange thing to contact him and ask about any status update?

Regards Sph!nx
www.mental-image.net
GreenDixy
15
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 24th Jul 2008
Location: Toronto
Posted: 29th Apr 2013 23:29
@All

Here is some info about dbp, I asked a awhile ago and lee posted the following.

Quote: "

LeeBamber

[b]Posted:
7th Dec 2012 13:06

Well as you know FPSC V1 was written in Dark Basic Pro, and Reloaded will use the same programming language to extend this product. One of my first tasks will be to ensure that the DBP compiler runs as efficiently as possible (so I can get more compiles done per day) and that I have all the modules I need working at their best. Off the top of my head, I will be visiting DarkAI and DarkPHYSICS, looking at some aggressive shader work, Windows 8 desktop compatibility and pretty much all the ingredients that will produce a solid modern Windows product. I will be looking at the latest beta in January with a view to finishing off and releasing that officially with most of the top twenty items on the community list fixed.
"


[b]Link to thread

http://forum.thegamecreators.com/?m=forum_view&t=202021&b=1

======================================
My software never has bugs. It just develops random features.
Chris Tate
DBPro Master
15
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 29th Aug 2008
Location: London, England
Posted: 30th Apr 2013 01:47
Nice one GreenDixy! It helps to know what lies ahead.

Green Gandalf
VIP Member
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 3rd Jan 2005
Playing: Malevolence:Sword of Ahkranox, Skyrim, Civ6.
Posted: 30th Apr 2013 21:05
Quote: "I've gotta compile about 70,000 lines just to fix a fault or add an non-script feature."


Why? Can't you test individual components, functions, etc, in a much smaller test program first? [I realise you still have to check it all fits together at some point of course.]
Chris Tate
DBPro Master
15
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 29th Aug 2008
Location: London, England
Posted: 30th Apr 2013 22:18
As you pointed out, when compiling as a complete program things get ugly. I did at first split it up into projects per feature aspect; networking, physics etc; but I found out a long time ago that splitting things up like that does very little once you get to the point where you need to spend most of the time testing everything in conjunction with each other. I am able to catch more of those strange plugin/shader conflicts when all the features are running side by side.

The finished product will have far less code than this because a lot of program logic can be handled outside of DBP in .NET, MySQL and LUA scripting. I'll probably end up with 30,000 - 35,000 in the long run.

Compile time isn't so bad for me personally because I can do the other tasks while it compiles. There are other issues with DBPRO that bother me more than its compile time. And quite frankly I think a lot of compile attempts could be reduced if we had more smart IDE features to spot potential errors.

gwheycs62egydws
14
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 17th Aug 2009
Location: The World
Posted: 30th Apr 2013 22:30
is it typical for project to have that many lines of code ?

how much time dose it take to compile such ?

using .NET, MySQL and LUA scripting dose it help the program
to run faster ?

I know LUA is faster when it comes to logic but what about
other aspects of the program , dose it give back time
thus helping with speed ?

in my travels around the forum .. some one way back made a opengl
addition for dbp which lends credence for such

I tried to contact them but it seems nun of there e-mail are active

supposedly this means it could be possible to either dump
or reduce the need for directx

I've seen a few program written for such and they have good speed

just things to think about

to move side ways - is to move forward
Since a Strait line gets thin fast
gwheycs62egydws
14
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 17th Aug 2009
Location: The World
Posted: 30th Apr 2013 22:37
@Mage

one thing that would help passing the word around the net about
DBP and in the media

the other is getting games made and sold out in the market
showing people what can be dun

I've talked with a few people in my city and they have never herd of it

so if more people knew about it then that would help keep it going

for a person like me this has been the best program I have found
for starting with and staying with for making games

with all the free and pay addition it gives me the best chance of
creating what I have wanted to make

to move side ways - is to move forward
Since a Strait line gets thin fast
Kevin Picone
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 27th Aug 2002
Location: Australia
Posted: 1st May 2013 01:00
If DBP projects are getting to 700K lines mark, then you'd be better off either hassling one of the IDE makers to implement something, or rolling a simple syntax checker yourself. you'd imagine someone's already done this before though.

Chris Tate
DBPro Master
15
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 29th Aug 2008
Location: London, England
Posted: 1st May 2013 03:15
Something along those lines is being done; I rearly have to compile in because most of the complicated logic isn't hard coded; at least that is the case now.

Resourceful, when you keep on working on the same project for years, the lines do add up. About half of the code is either UDTs or generated stuff. Ironically, most of the programming I've done over the past few years is being made redundant by scripting, interpretation and advancing technology.

LUA, .NET and MySQL are not being used to speed up the program, but are being used to make things a lot easier to develop. It's about using the tool that's good for the given job; with LUA (and XML) it is easy to create configurations. You can even call DBPRO commands with it (Barnskis solution); and no need to recompile to change logic. With .NET you can debug your work, and MySQL can handle storage and distribution of information more easily via PHP than is possible with DarkBASIC alone.

Mage
17
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 3rd Feb 2007
Location: Canada
Posted: 1st May 2013 09:23
Quote: "As you pointed out, when compiling as a complete program things get ugly. I did at first split it up into projects per feature aspect; networking, physics etc; but I found out a long time ago that splitting things up like that does very little once you get to the point where you need to spend most of the time testing everything in conjunction with each other. I am able to catch more of those strange plugin/shader conflicts when all the features are running side by side."

I've got about 30,000 lines of code and even then it takes a couple mins to compile (annoying). Also the IDE is starting to slow down.

Quote: "Resourceful, when you keep on working on the same project for years, the lines do add up. About half of the code is either UDTs or generated stuff. Ironically, most of the programming I've done over the past few years is being made redundant by scripting, interpretation and advancing technology. "

Pretty much.

Quote: "the other is getting games made and sold out in the market
showing people what can be dun "

Yeah still working on that. lol.

gwheycs62egydws
14
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 17th Aug 2009
Location: The World
Posted: 2nd May 2013 01:30
so if some of the code is a .NET, MySQL and LUA scripting with xml
the ide is just looking at making shire that part is correctly put together any thing out side of that is not looked at thus saving time when compiling

with all thing wanted in a game or a like
even with the addition there is less need on how much coding is needed

with using the .NET, MySQL and LUA scripting with xml
as long as the basic engine is built correctly the out side stuff
can be changed as needed thus saving time recompiling

from all that I have seen of people code over time
building a good engine is what we strive for but
if the engine we use to build what I want is not
up to problems it messes up the hole process well delays it ;oP

thanks for the feed back that helps me better to understand

to move side ways - is to move forward
Since a Strait line gets thin fast
Pincho Paxton
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 8th Dec 2002
Location:
Posted: 27th May 2013 14:35
Is DB Elite still getting made?

Zwarteziel
13
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 22nd Jan 2011
Location: Netherlands
Posted: 27th May 2013 14:48
Quote: "
Is DB Elite still getting made?
"


If I'm not mistaken, DB Elite was never formally announced and is not being made nor planned.
Mobiius
Valued Member
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 27th Feb 2003
Location: The Cold North
Posted: 27th May 2013 15:24
What Zero said.

I live for video games! (And beers, and football, and cars!)
See what I live for here: [url]http:\\www.TeamDefiant.co.uk[/url]
James H
17
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 21st Apr 2007
Location: St Helens
Posted: 27th May 2013 19:14 Edited at: 28th May 2013 00:58
hi, although this topic isn`t an issue as such I thought I`d point something out regarding backward compatability - the nature of both x10 and x11 is to remove the fixed function pipeline but in both cases they can emulate it by default. This pretty much means that any dbp x10 or x11 build will be limited to not use x9, I don`t think lee would have a choice in the matter. SM5.0 still uses pretty much the same components of dx as SM4.0 with additions from what Ive read so far, so it would make sense to me if lee was to wait for a while and write it for x11, besides, how many users here are advanced enough to utilise the features on offer in x10/11? I`m willing to bet not many, most probably don`t have x9 nailed yet as its the shader side of coding that holds the most difference for average DBP user. DBP is basic level so I would think if he is gonna rewrite it it would be better to make x9 good and solid(its in reasonably good shape now) and put off an x11 release to such a time when x9 machine setups are no longer common place, after all it all depends on what the target audience is for DBP as thats where TGC will continue to make good sales figures as their flagship product has a specific niche audience.
Here is some info regarding x10 and x11 from a hoard of info I`ve collected that may help folk come to some understanding, sorry I`m unable to cite the source for this as I do a lot of copy/paste of relevant info from lots of sources but only hold onto info that makes some sort of sense to me;


DirectX 10 Pipeline
The DirectX 10 Pipeline offers the programmer three programmable shaders; Vertex Shader, Geometry Shader and the Pixel Shader, which are all compiled using shader model 4. There are also a couple of non-programmable stages; Input Assembler, Rasterizer, Output Merger and Stream Output Stage. Although these stages are not programmable, it is still possible to configure them by setting different render states through the DirectX API.

Input Assembler Stage
As a draw call is made, the first stop for a mesh is the Input Assembler Stage. The objective of this stage is to assemble geometric primitives from vertex and index data that is stored in the video memory, depending on the primitive topology set from the DirectX API.
In DirectX 10, there are five basic types of primitives; Point list, line list, line strip, triangle list and triangle strip. All basic primitive types, except point list, can also be stored with adjacency data providing information about neighboring primitives. The difference between a strip and a list is the way the vertices will be bound together. When the primitives have been assembled, the vertices are fed into the Vertex shader.

Vertex Shader
The Vertex shader is the first programmable shader in the pipeline and is invoked once for every vertex point in the mesh. A triangle consists of three vertex points, and each of these points describes where two polygon edges meet. Apart from positional data a vertex point usually contains other information pertaining to that point, such as normal data and texture coordinates.
From here it is possible to add various effects, such as transformation or lighting, to each vertex point and then send it further down the pipeline.

Geometry Shader
The Geometry shader is optional and is invoked once for every primitive inputted to the pipeline, which can be either a point, line or a triangle, and each vertex point on the primitive can then be accessed in the shader.
The unique ability of the Geometry shader is that it gives the programmer the possibility to create or destroy geometry in a mesh.
Output from this shader differs from the Vertex shader as it outputs primitives through a stream, which does not have to be the same as the input primitive. This stream can be either a Point stream, Line stream or a Triangle stream and will output the primitives as a strip. In order to format the output as a list the RestartStrip function has to called after each complete primitive, e.g. three vertex points if the output is a triangle list, has been appended to the stream.

Stream-Output Stage
The Stream-Output stage allows the programmer to stream vertices to a buffer from a Geometry shader, giving the programmer the possibility to perform calculations on the GPU without drawing to the back buffer. Streaming can also be done from a Vertex shader if the Geometry shader is disabled.

Rasterizer Stage
The Rasterizer Stage is responsible for transforming the vertices from homogenous clip space to 2D-coordinates residing in the view port. The x and y-coordinates of the vertex point describe the position in the view port in units of pixels, while the z-coordinate normally remains untouched as it is used for depth testing. When this transformation is done all the vertex attributes has to be interpolated linearly for each pixel to get their correct values.
It is possible to configure the Rasterizer Stage by setting a Rasterizer state. Here one can decide if triangles should be back or front face culled, the winding order of the triangles and if the triangles should be drawn in solid or wireframe mode.

Pixel Shader
The Pixel shader operates on per pixel level and is responsible for calculating the color of a pixel.

Output Merger Stage
The Output Merger stage is the last stage before a pixel is drawn to the back buffer. Here two tests can be done to determine whether a pixel should be drawn or not, a depth test and a stencil test which can be configured by setting a Depth Stencil State through the DirectX API. The tests are done using two buffers, a depth buffer and a stencil buffer, which has to be at least the same size as the back buffer.
The depth buffer stores the depth information of each pixel drawn to back buffer. The pixels in the depth buffer contains a floating point value ranging from 0.0 to 1.0, which allows the depth test to compare the current pixel's depth with the corresponding pixel's depth on the depth buffer to determine if the pixel should be drawn or not.
The stencil buffer stores a value for each pixel drawn to the back buffer, making it possible to flag pixels. This allows the stencil test to check against this buffer and determine if the pixel should be drawn to the back buffer or not.


DirectX 11 Pipeline Additions
As of the introduction of DirectX 11, two new programmable shaders were added; the Hull Shader and the Domain shader, which are compiled using shader model 5. Along with these two shaders, a fixed function tessellator was also added.
With the new shaders working with different types of patches; quads, triangles or isolines, each patch having 1 to 32 control points, 32 new primitive topologies have been added called control point patchlist, one for each number of control points.

Hull Shader
The Hull Shader consists of two functions. One main Hull shader which performs calculations on each control point separately and one patch constant function that performs calculations on the entire patch. Before the Hull shader can be called, a few attributes needs to be set:
[domain] – Specifies which type of patch the Hull shader will be working with.
[partitioning] – Indicates how the tessellator will interpret the tessellation factors.
[outputtopology] – For the tessellator to be able to create the right barycentric coordinates, it needs to be aware of which kind of primitives we want to deal with in the domain shader later on, which this attribute will tell us.
[outputcontrolpoints] – Describes the number of control points that will be output from the Hull shader.
[patchconstantfunc] – Specifies the name of the patch constant function.

Fixed function tessellator
The fixed function tessellator generates barycentric coordinates depending on a specified subdivision level, which needs to be set and passed on by the patch constant function. The tessellator splits the subdivision description into two parts, inside tessellation factor and outside tessellation factor. With a uniform tessellation factor the tessellator produces a number of vertex points equal to the factor along the border and a number of vertex points consistent with subdivision level (factor – 2) to 1 residing inside the original triangle. How the tessellator iterates over the subdivision levels depends on the partitioning attribute, e.g. setting the attribute to fractional odd the tessellator will only create new points for odd subdivision levels.

Domain Shader
The Domain shader can be seen as a post-tessellation Vertex shader and is invoked for every barycentric coordinate that is generated by the Tessellator. It is responsible for creating new vertex points using the barycentric coordinates, the primitive control points from the main Hull shader, and the patch data received from the patch constant function. How to calculate the new vertex points using this data is described in the next chapter. When tessellation is active the Geometry shader, which is located after the Domain shader, cannot use adjacency data in the mesh as it is invalidated by the recalculation of all vertex points.

Edited to make more readable (@GG - I was hoping to use snippets to hide info so that you don`t have 1 long post, didn`t realise using snippets would stretch it all the way across screen, my apologies)
Edit2: earlier I stated
Quote: "can emulate it by default"
by this I mean that in the event dbp user wishes to do something that uses dx? but is something that previous dx9 dbp wouldn`t require a shader for then lee would write the default behaviour to emulate it. This appears to be the case in the dbpx10 mod TGC provide. I should imagine this is also the case for other changes to direct x components.
Green Gandalf
VIP Member
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 3rd Jan 2005
Playing: Malevolence:Sword of Ahkranox, Skyrim, Civ6.
Posted: 27th May 2013 19:55
@James H

Could you format the text in those snippets in a more readable way please?
DL187
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 14th Nov 2004
Location:
Posted: 28th May 2013 03:37 Edited at: 28th May 2013 03:38
I am not sure how I didn't see this sooner but I am glad it's being discussed. Tell me if and when it's ready and I'll be ready to purchase it.

I would really like to see an enhanced collision system. Preferably when working with box collisions 'sliding collisions'.
wattywatts
14
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 25th May 2009
Location: Michigan
Posted: 28th May 2013 04:48 Edited at: 28th May 2013 04:50
Quote: "an enhanced collision system"

Word. I'd like this to happen with the current dbpro. And a fast real time shadow shader. And my biggest gripe ever, the ability to mix pre rendered lightmaps with normal mapping.

http://mattsmith.carbonmade.com/
GreenDixy
15
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 24th Jul 2008
Location: Toronto
Posted: 28th May 2013 06:59
Quote: "Quote: "

LeeBamber

Posted: 7th Dec 2012 13:06

Well as you know FPSC V1 was written in Dark Basic Pro, and Reloaded will use the same programming language to extend this product. One of my first tasks will be to ensure that the DBP compiler runs as efficiently as possible (so I can get more compiles done per day) and that I have all the modules I need working at their best. Off the top of my head, I will be visiting DarkAI and DarkPHYSICS, looking at some aggressive shader work, Windows 8 desktop compatibility and pretty much all the ingredients that will produce a solid modern Windows product. I will be looking at the latest beta in January with a view to finishing off and releasing that officially with most of the top twenty items on the community list fixed.
"



This is posted up a few lines, It was something I asked awhile ago and this was the response I got.

======================================
My software never has bugs. It just develops random features.

Login to post a reply

Server time is: 2024-05-02 12:49:50
Your offset time is: 2024-05-02 12:49:50