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.

Dark GDK / Dark Game SDK and .NET

Author
Message
APEXnow
Retired Moderator
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 15th Apr 2003
Location: On a park bench
Posted: 13th Apr 2006 20:11
Ok, this is the situation so far..

I had attempted to meet a specific milestone towards the end of this week where by Mike would be able to see a series of running demos, but because of the shear number of functions available in the SDK, this is taking longer than I had expected. There's also an issue of security and protection of the SDK. I will not discuss this aspect openly, but this will require time, testing, and approval of TGC before this comes even close to release. I'm making this post to assure people that I'm working on the DGSDK.NET at full pace, but it will be a little while longer, so with your patients, support, and general eagerness to see this thing come to frution, you will not be disappointed.

Again, thanks for any comments and questions guys, I'll do my best not to disappoint

Paul.


Home of the Cartography Shop - DarkBASIC Professional map importer
Zeal
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 10th Oct 2002
Location: Colorado Springs, CO
Posted: 14th Apr 2006 16:16
God speed sir!

All you need is zeal
Lost in Thought
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 4th Feb 2004
Location: U.S.A. : Douglas, Georgia
Posted: 14th Apr 2006 16:28
I told you to cut back on the brandy. Looking forward to this.

CattleRustler
Retired Moderator
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 8th Aug 2003
Location: case modding at overclock.net
Posted: 14th Apr 2006 16:45


CattleRustler
Retired Moderator
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 8th Aug 2003
Location: case modding at overclock.net
Posted: 18th Apr 2006 15:59
btw, I noticed this thread has 824 views at the moment. If you are reading this thread and are interested in using a .NET version of the dgsdk then please post here and tell everyone. I am pretty sure TGC is using this thread as a guage of the "interest level" in a .net sdk. Lets not give them any reason to pull the plug!

post here if you want a dgsdk.net (and have not posted already)

thanks - CR

lotekk
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 18th Apr 2006
Location:
Posted: 18th Apr 2006 22:42
I caught up this VC# Express from MS, just to realize that there's nearly no gameengine out there to start playing with. So be the first that has a fullfeatured .NET engine running and earn ALL the money.
Dangerous Dan
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 29th Jul 2004
Location: Oklahoma City, OK
Posted: 18th Apr 2006 23:31
Ok CattleRustler... I've been lurking for months on this subject with much interest. I've been afraid to get my hopes up, but it looks like this is actualy happening. And for the record, YEEEEHAAAAAAA!!!!!

This is going to be awesome!
enablerbr
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 22nd Jun 2003
Location: United Kingdom
Posted: 19th Apr 2006 02:03
lotekk have you not been looking around the internet much. this net version won't have physics or ai. haddd has physics and has the starting blocks of ai. there are couple of other starting engines that look promising.

as for this gdk i just want it working with documention.
CattleRustler
Retired Moderator
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 8th Aug 2003
Location: case modding at overclock.net
Posted: 19th Apr 2006 02:40
DDan

lotekk, yeah like enablebr said, theres quite a few really nice .NET engines out there (i've experimented with a few so far). This version allows you to use what know already about DBP/DGSDK and mix it with the awesomeness of OOP in .NET - this will be one more in a growing group of .net game making solutions.

theDK
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 20th Jan 2004
Location:
Posted: 19th Apr 2006 02:46
haddd is a great .NET engine but it isn't documented enough ... all you get besides the engine is commented source code ... Tutorials shouldn't be in the form of commented source code.

Most other engines aren't stable enough ... there is ogre.net but its only a graphics engine.

One area that DGSDK.net will dominate for sure is its ease of use compared to other .NET engines ... maybe I'm wrong but thats how I feel.
CattleRustler
Retired Moderator
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 8th Aug 2003
Location: case modding at overclock.net
Posted: 19th Apr 2006 04:33
yep, agreed, especially if you already know dbp. then the sdk is a no-brainer, but until now it was only c++

APEXnow
Retired Moderator
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 15th Apr 2003
Location: On a park bench
Posted: 19th Apr 2006 05:04
Typically, the design so far is that anybody who is already familiar with both DBP and DGSDK, will feel right at home with the .NET version as I've basically made all the functions so far, identical. Given the minor differences in terms of dealing with types such as RGB values etc. Also, and this has proven to be a bit difficult so far, is dealing with the functions that expose DX surfaces and DX context objects. So far, I've not found a workable solution to this problem although this is not a major issue as all the major functionality is there and working.

Paul.


Home of the Cartography Shop - DarkBASIC Professional map importer
enablerbr
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 22nd Jun 2003
Location: United Kingdom
Posted: 19th Apr 2006 05:38
APEXnow well i have praise for you doing this task. now you'll have to start again for DX10 (joke).
APEXnow
Retired Moderator
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 15th Apr 2003
Location: On a park bench
Posted: 19th Apr 2006 10:47 Edited at: 19th Apr 2006 11:51
O.O!

[EDIT] Any changes or DX updates would be totally dependent on what TGC do when they update the DGSDK libraries. I'm merely providing .NET support for the SDK.

Paul.


Home of the Cartography Shop - DarkBASIC Professional map importer
Gen
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 6th Jul 2004
Location: Oklahoma, USA
Posted: 19th Apr 2006 23:52
Quote: "btw, I noticed this thread has 824 views at the moment. If you are reading this thread and are interested in using a .NET version of the dgsdk then please post here and tell everyone. I am pretty sure TGC is using this thread as a guage of the "interest level" in a .net sdk. Lets not give them any reason to pull the plug!"


Agreed, Now I wish I could fast forward time just to get my hands on this sooner. There is lots I see I can do with this

Windows XP Pro Service Pack 2, Pentium 4 2.4 GHz, 768 MB PC3200 Ram, ATI Radeon X700 Pro 256 MB
Dark Basic Professional 5.9 Dark IDE nearly complete!
CattleRustler
Retired Moderator
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 8th Aug 2003
Location: case modding at overclock.net
Posted: 20th Apr 2006 01:03
thats the spirit people

Lost in Thought
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 4th Feb 2004
Location: U.S.A. : Douglas, Georgia
Posted: 20th Apr 2006 04:48
I will most likely get DGSDK once APEX finishes this. If not it will be soon after, but not until then. I am dying to see the speed difference between my culling code on the SDK vs DBP.

Charles
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 11th Jul 2004
Location: Phoenix, AZ USA
Posted: 20th Apr 2006 11:10
I've been waiting for compatibility with Visual Studio 2005 since I got the new compiler last week. I can't wait to see what I can do with it.
gameboy
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 13th Jul 2004
Location:
Posted: 20th Apr 2006 15:38
I don't think the decision to use an automated tool like SWIG is a good one. Although porting by hand may yield more efficient results in the short term, in the long term, it will

be quite a chore keeping up with changes to the SDK. Then there will be the problem of the .NET SDK lagging behind the DarkGame C++ SDK (much as the C++ SDK lags behind new releases of DB Pro).

Industry practice has shown that automating code generation pays off in the long run, with faster, more consistent builds with fewer errors than coding changes by hand. In short,

if you can generate it automatically, it is a better route to take, even if it means losing a little efficiency.

The OgreDotNet folks use SWIG, and give compelling reasons why using it instead of wrapping code by hand is better:

Downfalls of using a ported project

Because a port requires the manual re-writing of code, there is an increased chance of bugs being introduced to what started as already-stable.

It takes a long time to complete anything.

If the original project (DarkGame SDK) releases an upgrade, the port project (DarkGameSDK.NET) has to pick through the entire original project, look for changes, and update the

port project. This means new updates take a long time to be released. Quite often, updates from the last release aren't complete before the next release is out, making a

"perpetual update" situation, instead of continued work on finishing the project as a whole.

Because of changes made to the methods and structure by the porting team, your support community is reduced to only those who are also using the port.

If the SDK makes extensive use of plugins, they also need to be ported for use with the ported version of the SDK.

Truthfully, the only reason for using a port is to avoid the very slight performance hit caused by a wrapper. [Or perhaps restructuring the code, but this would in effect make it

a new project which now differs from the original project DarkSDK.]

Benefits of using a wrapper

Using a wrapper instead of a port has a few major benefits:

A complete port from C++ to C# is a huge project requiring a complete rewrite of the code. A wrapper merely exposes the existing C++ code to C# and VB.NET.

This means less chance of bugs being introduced.

We [the OgreDotNet folks] use a program called SWIG, which automatically does the code generation and wrapping, meaning changes and new Ogre functionality is almost immediately

available, rather than having to wait for it to be ported over.

The Ogre community is much larger and more capable of offering support.

Ogre itself is more fully-featured than the Axiom port. [Note: The Axiom project is now effectively dead.]

Plugins don't care that the Ogre DLLs are wrapped, because they are loaded by the OgreDLLs themselves. Thus, there is no need to bother with porting, converting, or wrapping any

of the plugins.

A good way to think of it is that instead of reinventing the wheel, we're taking an existing wheel and making an adapter for it to work with a different vehicle.

One disadvantage is that the wrapper introduces a layer between your application and the rendering engine that effects execution speed. The degree of performance degradation,

however, is minimal to the point of being not even noticeable.

Conclusion

The first hand-coded release of DarkGameSDK.NET may be great. But subsequent hand-coded updates will prove more difficult to stay in sync with the C++ SDK updates, especially if

the .NET version of the SDK restructures the code so it may be a better fit for .NET, but differs somewhat from the .COM C++ SDK version. (This is what is happening with the

Irrlicht.NET graphics engine). This also raises the likelihood of bugs occurring.

If you still insist on hand coding a .NET version of the DarkSDK, which is a worthwhile endeavour, you would be better off keeping it as a separate project with a functionality

all its own, IMHO.
gameboy
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 13th Jul 2004
Location:
Posted: 20th Apr 2006 15:40
Sorry for the double-post. I forgot forum posts are not immediately visible.
CattleRustler
Retired Moderator
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 8th Aug 2003
Location: case modding at overclock.net
Posted: 20th Apr 2006 15:58
The dgsdk.net was being wrapped by hand but Apexnow has taken a brief detour to write an automation piece, that will, in the long run, have this fooker wrapped up faster than had he continued strictly by hand. The temp detour actually will save time, over time.

APEXnow
Retired Moderator
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 15th Apr 2003
Location: On a park bench
Posted: 20th Apr 2006 16:14 Edited at: 20th Apr 2006 16:15
CR is correct. I had begun the project by hand which was working out just fine, but as we all know, there are alot of functions in the DGSDK, and from a stand point of future updates to the DGSDK (C++), manually handling function updates is extemely slow, and prone to manual human error. I've been working on an application to automate this process which does require rules when handling return types and strings etc. The automation process will speed up the implementation of the interface and remove the potential of error during manual coding.

Paul.

[EDIT] Corrections


Home of the Cartography Shop - DarkBASIC Professional map importer
Briere
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 28th Feb 2005
Location: Amherst New York, United States
Posted: 20th Apr 2006 17:16
Yes thats awsome!
gameboy
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 13th Jul 2004
Location:
Posted: 20th Apr 2006 17:36
That is good news indeed (and a big relief).

Please forgive my previous long post, but I should mention one correction. In the first sentence I meant to say "I don't think the decision NOT to use an automated tool like SWIG is a good one".

Now that you are writing your own automation wrapper tool, you will have more control and no doubt achieve better results than using someone else's "generic" tool like SWIG to do the job.
APEXnow
Retired Moderator
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 15th Apr 2003
Location: On a park bench
Posted: 20th Apr 2006 20:51
People may be pleased to know that the DGSDK.Net system runs perfectly under SharpDevelop with the 2.0 .NET Framework.



Paul.


Home of the Cartography Shop - DarkBASIC Professional map importer
Dangerous Dan
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 29th Jul 2004
Location: Oklahoma City, OK
Posted: 20th Apr 2006 21:56
@Apex's screenshot: droooool
enablerbr
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 22nd Jun 2003
Location: United Kingdom
Posted: 20th Apr 2006 22:33
APEXnow i'm curious in that screen shot i don't see any reference to the directX files. if we need directx sdk for the normal c++ version. shouldn't we still need them for the .NET version?
APEXnow
Retired Moderator
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 15th Apr 2003
Location: On a park bench
Posted: 20th Apr 2006 22:34
Nope!


Home of the Cartography Shop - DarkBASIC Professional map importer
enablerbr
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 22nd Jun 2003
Location: United Kingdom
Posted: 20th Apr 2006 22:35
scary.
CattleRustler
Retired Moderator
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 8th Aug 2003
Location: case modding at overclock.net
Posted: 20th Apr 2006 22:51 Edited at: 20th Apr 2006 22:52
haha
when i get home Ill post some code snippets of how to instance the engine from vb.net, its quite easy.

Miguel Melo
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 8th Aug 2005
Location:
Posted: 20th Apr 2006 23:26
This is looking very sexy indeed. As a side note, how good is VB.Net? At work I currently use VB6 (which I loathe) and C# (which is very good indeed syntax+structure-wise). I expect VBNet to be somewhere in between... am I correct?

Does VBNet have proper OO support or is it still Mickeymouse like VB6? (e.g. in VB if a class extends another one you have to implement ALL the base methods!)

Does VBNet still use reference-counting like VB6? That is an effin' nightmare when you have circular refs...

Does VBNet have short-circuting in eval'ing expressions unlinke VB6?

... and so on...

I have vague plans for World Domination
APEXnow
Retired Moderator
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 15th Apr 2003
Location: On a park bench
Posted: 20th Apr 2006 23:31
Although VB.net is by far, better than VB6, this is not the place to be discussing the pros and cons, benefits and disadvantages of VB.net. Download the VB.net Express 2005 compiler and try it for yourself. That way, you'll be able to see if it's up your alley

Paul.


Home of the Cartography Shop - DarkBASIC Professional map importer
CattleRustler
Retired Moderator
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 8th Aug 2003
Location: case modding at overclock.net
Posted: 20th Apr 2006 23:38
easy answer: vb.net is c# with nicer syntax, and framework 2.0 adds operator overloading. I was a professional vb6 programmer, once I got my greasy mits on .net I never looked back. But if you like c# stay with that, the dgsdk.net doesn't care

CattleRustler
Retired Moderator
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 8th Aug 2003
Location: case modding at overclock.net
Posted: 20th Apr 2006 23:47 Edited at: 20th Apr 2006 23:53
as promised, a lil code teaser... (vb.net)



That runs in a vb.net winforms project, with startup object set to sub main. The only other thing needed that you cant see here is the added reference to the dgsdk.net dll. Thats it. See, easy

Inbetween Games
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 20th Apr 2006
Location:
Posted: 21st Apr 2006 00:29
How much will all this joy cost us?
theDK
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 20th Jan 2004
Location:
Posted: 21st Apr 2006 01:48
Hi guys ...

any news from TGC about DGSDK.net?
I mean what do they think of it so far?
Also, any news about pricing? ... is it gona be free for DGSDK owners or do they have to pay for it?

I keep watching this thread twice a day ... stop torturing us like this
APEXnow
Retired Moderator
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 15th Apr 2003
Location: On a park bench
Posted: 21st Apr 2006 02:35
Be patient, I'm working as fast as I can

Paul.


Home of the Cartography Shop - DarkBASIC Professional map importer
theDK
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 20th Jan 2004
Location:
Posted: 21st Apr 2006 13:41 Edited at: 21st Apr 2006 13:42
I'm not rushing you Paul ... you take as much time as you need to get this right.

my questions were not about when will DGSDK.net be available ... they were about other details .. but if that bothers you then I'll shut up
Miguel Melo
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 8th Aug 2005
Location:
Posted: 21st Apr 2006 14:27
Quote: "Also, any news about pricing? ... is it gona be free for DGSDK owners or do they have to pay for it?"


I dearly hope it will be free, but knowing TGC it probably won't be - which is a shame... not sure if I can justify the cost if it ends up being £30 more or something.

I have vague plans for World Domination
APEXnow
Retired Moderator
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 15th Apr 2003
Location: On a park bench
Posted: 21st Apr 2006 16:16
@theDK

No no no, was no bother mate . If my tone sounded condiscending, I appologise. Nah, I was merely stating a friendly gesture that I'll have it done ASAP .

Hehe, no worries.

Paul.


Home of the Cartography Shop - DarkBASIC Professional map importer
theDK
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 20th Jan 2004
Location:
Posted: 21st Apr 2006 18:57
Quote: "I was merely stating a friendly gesture that I'll have it done ASAP"


Goodluck with that
Briere
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 28th Feb 2005
Location: Amherst New York, United States
Posted: 22nd Apr 2006 00:44
OMG PAUL HURRY UP~!~~!

I cant wait!

Now is this a an update... or a whole new product?
Cause if its a whole new product... well I aint happy!
MikeS
Retired Moderator
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 2nd Dec 2002
Location: United States
Posted: 22nd Apr 2006 04:36
Now now folks, Paul is doing a great service to the community by actually taking up this project, as well as CR. Both have faught desperatly asking for this type of project(especially ), and they're doing this out of their free time, so lets not rush them.

Either way, the project is looking fantastic, and I'm quite excited for this.



A book? I hate book. Book is stupid.
(Formerly Yellow)
Lost in Thought
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 4th Feb 2004
Location: U.S.A. : Douglas, Georgia
Posted: 22nd Apr 2006 05:34
Whether it is a free or paid version I will buy it and DGSDK as soon as I can. You can be sure anything by APEX is done right and worth buying. Just make sure the importer works with this as well.

APEXnow
Retired Moderator
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 15th Apr 2003
Location: On a park bench
Posted: 22nd Apr 2006 09:45
LOL, I've not even thought about the importer aspects yet

Paul.

(Again, thanks for the encouraging words folks)


Home of the Cartography Shop - DarkBASIC Professional map importer
OSX Using Happy Dude
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 21st Aug 2003
Location: At home
Posted: 22nd Apr 2006 12:17
I'm waiting for the C version...

APEXnow
Retired Moderator
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 15th Apr 2003
Location: On a park bench
Posted: 22nd Apr 2006 13:57
C Version!??? That's what the DGSDK is. Can be used with both C and C++. Unless I'm missing the point of the joke

Paul.


Home of the Cartography Shop - DarkBASIC Professional map importer
OSX Using Happy Dude
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 21st Aug 2003
Location: At home
Posted: 22nd Apr 2006 14:09
Quote: "Unless I'm missing the point of the joke"

I think you are

APEXnow
Retired Moderator
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 15th Apr 2003
Location: On a park bench
Posted: 22nd Apr 2006 14:15
Oh... ok,


Home of the Cartography Shop - DarkBASIC Professional map importer
Lost in Thought
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 4th Feb 2004
Location: U.S.A. : Douglas, Georgia
Posted: 22nd Apr 2006 14:22
Don't forget the importer *Cracks the whip*

Login to post a reply

Server time is: 2024-06-26 09:27:22
Your offset time is: 2024-06-26 09:27:22