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 / Please fix the bugs in a DX8 version as well.

Author
Message
Willy
23
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 17th Jun 2003
Location: Ohio
Posted: 26th Jun 2003 07:22 Edited at: 26th Jun 2003 07:25
Link
Win98 has problems under DX9 - is bull. I'm running DX9 and Win98SE. (And I don't have the XP problems.)
I compile DX8 Visual C++ programs, that call DX8 libs, (which also come with the DX9 SDK,) and run them under the DX9 run time version. No problems.
Haven't found anything yet that didn't work. (I'm using an ATI Radeon 9700 card, and I'm also running DX9 on my other Win98SE system which has a GeForce 2 video card.) The GeForce 2 system runs really slow with the advanced features, but the functions all work, because DirectX is emulating the hardware functions, in software. (That's the "HEL", or Hardware Emulation Layer, which comes standard in DirectX.)

Look at the "What's New" in the DX9 SDK docs - there isn't a whole lot, and certainly no radically new stuff. Most of it looks like another parameter or two for some of the commands, and the ability to use more parallism of the newer video cards. (And some DX8 bugs got fixed.)
All DirectX run-time versions (yes, even the DX9 distribution) can run all the earlier version DirectX programs. (So they say...)

Forget vertex and pixel shaders. If you don't like them, don't use them. You don't have to.

You can get the DX9 run time, for free, and can distribute it with your game, on your CD. Wouldn't surprise me to find several places you can get it locally, so you don't have to do the mongo download.
(In mags, with games, from friends, in books, etc.) Probably easier to find a copy of DX9 than it is to find the latest drivers for your video card... Your game can test for the DirectX version, and then ask Ma and Pa Kettle if they would like for you to automatically install it for them, since you warned them on the outside of your box that DX9 was required. (You need to run one .exe - DX9 run time will self-install.)

DOOM 3 runs Open GL, but from some of the comments above, I guess id software and Carmack are really screwed up, trying to sell a high powered game like that. Guess he will be really lucky to sell a couple dozen copies, at most....

Willy
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Martyn Pittuck
23
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 27th Aug 2002
Location: United Kingdom
Posted: 26th Jun 2003 10:39
Link
Quote: "That could be to do with his gfx card's drivers, not MOH:AA, it is a featured title on the MS DirectX' website for heaven's sake. It works with DX9.
"


Well that make is wore, DX9 does not work with my GF Drivers! So i a, totally buggered. LOL

I have tried the latest drives, and for some reason errors were presenent, it took 5 mins to boot the PC (over 40 secs normally) and everything was prone to BSOD's

This was after a fresh install of XP, like XP installed, Sound Card, Ethernet, GF Card, Monitor CD/DVD drives, ZIP drives. Then a game to test.

The Outside is a evil place to be, too much light, too much noise and too many distractions....
I went outside once and my FPS rate dropped to 5.
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
MrTAToad
23
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 26th Aug 2002
Location: United Kingdom
Posted: 26th Jun 2003 11:27
Link
Dragonmage, people are mean to Microsoft because Microsoft is mean to us. The people have been screwed from behind by MicroCrap for so long that most users don't know of anything else other than MS.

It would help if other companies (like Apple) tried to push their computer more (and especially lowering the prices, making software easily availiable etc). Microsoft isn't all to blame for this state. It would also help if Intel processors were a lot more efficient...

Hell, even Win32 programming requires you to wade through obsolete parameters deeply embedded in the functions that you MUST use to get a Windows program to work.
Normally there are other functions to use instead of obsolete commands.

Good news everyone! I really am THAT good...
http://www.nickk.nildram.co.uk/ for great plug-ins - oh my, yes!
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Mentor
23
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 27th Aug 2002
Location: United Kingdom
Posted: 26th Jun 2003 12:18 Edited at: 26th Jun 2003 12:21
Link
summary:
there is nothing "wrong" with DX9.0a.
the new DX is actualy faster than 8.1.
some MOBO agp drivers don`t work right since the newer features had not been created when the agp driver was written.
if you have driver/directx problems then upgrade the MOBO agp driver.
DX9.0a ... DESPITE what Raven says, works fine on at least 8 Win98/98se machines I know of.
you can give away the DX9.0a install on your game cd or provide a download link.
since the next generation of games will be based on DX9.0a or higher, users who play games will upgrade (or end up playing old games)
people in the trade are crying out for some letup in updates for a while so they can get their heads round the new SDK`s.
that means it`s likely there will be no further updates for a while.
upgrade or die...we went from DX 3 to 4 to 5 to 6 to 7 to 8, we can go to 9
it was not exactly a secret that DB was going to be expanded to encompass DX9.0a, why do you think Lee went to the developer conference for DX9?.

the only thing I have against DX9 is that it doesn`t cover Win95 machines, thats Micro$oft gradualy forcing people to upgrade the OS (while adding to Mr Gates already obscene and undeserved wealth), I wonder how long it is until the next upgrade forces out Win98 users, then 2000 users, then......UMM!

the fact is, anything you start to develop today that is of any worth will be 1 or 2 years in the pipeline, by the time you release, DX9.0 will be part of the scenery, being a software developer you get the cutting edge 1st, you just have to live with it or learn to code DX8.1 in C++, it`s the price you pay for developing on an easy to use system, you have to go where the author thinks it`s best for you to go, since he can write a compiler (one of the hardest tasks in software development), it makes sense to follow his lead, he may be wrong, but he has far more information/ability to base his judgements on (IMO).

ok!, ramble over, now back to configuring a DOS system (people still use DOS you know )

Mentor.

Back to top
Profile PM
Shadow Robert
23
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 22nd Sep 2002
Location: Hertfordshire, England
Posted: 26th Jun 2003 13:03
Link
on my system WindowsXP is 100% stable (especially since installing an APC) ... DirectX 9.0 & 9.0a have both been 100% Stable and infact have more compatibility if you upgrade from DirectX 8.1 SDK Debug.
DarkBASIC all versions have been stable and run on all Windows i've tried them on (which includes the Beta of Windows .Net)

That said... it doesn't mean that it will run perfectly for someone else. I have some very stable and professionally setup rigs here, specifically so that i can program & create graphics without worrying that it will crash or that it'll just reset for no reason or driver problems will cause it not to be able to do something.

---------

Now although it has been noted that the DirectX9 SDK includes the DirectX7 headers and DirectX9 can run all Dx8/7 software ... so could all of the older DirectX's run programs that used the old DirectX's that proves nothing.

you can use the DirectX 8.1 headers, but they don't act to wrap DirectX9 functions to 8 - you have to program using the DirectX interfaces ... it does not mean that you automatically have Dx8 support unless you use Dx9 new features... it means you have a choice to program with.
My point is NOT for Lee not to upgrade the code to Dx9 - my point is for him to Extend it rather than replace.

If i want to use Shaders then find i'll be happy to switch the IDE into DirectX9 Mode and produce a Dx9 Executeable, but I still think that is it a responsibility to retain DirectX 8.1

sod the end users for a second oki, what about the developers here themselves? what if they don't want to upgrade to DirectX 9.0 for some sound reasons suchas incomptibilities?
Just something to think about, because this isn't a pure case of what is best - this is actually a case of what people are WILLING to do.

I want DirectX9 in there, but i think the support should be added in a more sensible mannor than making over half the community incomptible when the next patch is released.

I pride myself that i don't kill...
well not without a good reason
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
MasterInsan0
23
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 14th May 2003
Location: United States
Posted: 26th Jun 2003 13:14
Link
Both of your points are completely true, MrTAToad. However, neither speak well for Microsoft either. That was the overall point, so feeling happy that I got a good long post in for the day, I'm going to retire.

My friends' and my website for DBPro Programming:
http://unseenstudios.netfirms.com
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
las6
23
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 2nd Sep 2002
Location: Finland
Posted: 26th Jun 2003 13:31
Link
You guys have heard of Gamers?
You know, people who like to play games?

They install newest DX when it comes, right away. They don't even bother to wait for reviews or anything like that.

and I too had updated to DX9.0a long time ago. And I'm not a gamer. And the people I know would download new DX for a game. Even for a shareware game. So I see absolutely no problem with that.
Most of the problems you might encounter are because of other possible old drivers and such in your comp.

Specs :: [1333Mhz : 512DDR : Radeon 9000 pro 128MB]
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Rob K
Retired Moderator
23
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 10th Sep 2002
Location: Surrey, United Kingdom
Posted: 26th Jun 2003 16:55
Link
Lee has said that all the DLLs have been moved to DX9 libs, which means that DirectX 9 WILL BE A REQUIREMENT for P5 and beyond.

If you are unhappy with that, then you'll have to look into alternate software.

Do you want Windows menus in your DBP apps? - Get my plugin: http://snow.prohosting.com/~clone99/downloads/tpc_menus_103.zip
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
heartbone
23
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 9th Nov 2002
Location:
Posted: 26th Jun 2003 16:57 Edited at: 26th Jun 2003 17:23
Link
My programs are not aimed at 'Gamers'.
My programs are aimed at computer users, the people that I know (the over 30 crowd). Those who are reluctant to upgrade a perfectly working computer 2 year old computer.
I want them to be able to D/L my 4 MB program from a web site (not a CD) and run it.
If over 90% of the current PC users also have to D/L and install 20-35 MB of macroslop (which MAY destabilize their setup) to run my program, probably over 90% of them won't bother.
That leaves about 10% of the potential users (A.K.A. 'Gamers') who may want to try my program actually trying it.

This is Completely Unacceptable.

I know that Lee Bamber was on last night since he posted a response to another thread (a decision on the dithered graphics behaviour).

Can I get an authoritative answer from anybody in DBS.

1) Is DX9 going to be a requirement or just an option?
2) What are the advantages gained by the change?

Why force the upgrade considering the impact on potential user base (estimated to drop to under 10%)?

The more you see, the more you know.
The more you know, the more you see.
Back to top
Profile PM Website
Martyn Pittuck
23
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 27th Aug 2002
Location: United Kingdom
Posted: 26th Jun 2003 17:19
Link
Quote: "They install newest DX when it comes, right away. They don't even bother to wait for reviews or anything like that."


Erm, no they don't. Hardcore gamers that buy magazines and have loads of games yes they will.

But the main people who will download DBPro games probably wont. I am not talking about people online either, there are a lot more people who play games than just the handful that some people know over the internet.

Right then, I gotta find somewhere that sells BB3D now.

The Outside is a evil place to be, too much light, too much noise and too many distractions....
I went outside once and my FPS rate dropped to 5.
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
haggisman
23
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 26th Aug 2002
Location: United Kingdom
Posted: 26th Jun 2003 18:39
Link
Quote: "But the main people who will download DBPro games probably wont. I am not talking about people online either"


The fact they aren't online sure would make it difficult to download DBpro demos...

project: light/obscurance mapper (85% done)
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Martyn Pittuck
23
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 27th Aug 2002
Location: United Kingdom
Posted: 26th Jun 2003 19:02
Link
But the main people who will download DBPro games probably wont. I am not talking about people online either

I am not talking about people online either - like me, i am online all the time, sorry i used bad terminology.

I mean like people that use the internet, but do not spend loads of time online, like to homework, research and email etc.

The Outside is a evil place to be, too much light, too much noise and too many distractions....
I went outside once and my FPS rate dropped to 5.
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
MrTAToad
23
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 26th Aug 2002
Location: United Kingdom
Posted: 26th Jun 2003 19:08 Edited at: 26th Jun 2003 19:09
Link
Why not have a selection (say at compile time), that allows you to compile using DX8 or 9 ?

Good news everyone! I really am THAT good...
http://www.nickk.nildram.co.uk/ for great plug-ins - oh my, yes!
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
haggisman
23
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 26th Aug 2002
Location: United Kingdom
Posted: 26th Jun 2003 19:54
Link
The type of person who buys shareware games online is hardly going to be computer illiterate and unable to download DX9. Not only that, DX9 is hardly the largest download ever, in fact your game will most likely be bigger than DX9.

If you had a seperate compile scheme it would most likely double the workload in updating DBpro, create inconsitencies and more bugs than we have now...

project: light/obscurance mapper (85% done)
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Shadow Robert
23
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 22nd Sep 2002
Location: Hertfordshire, England
Posted: 26th Jun 2003 20:31
Link
ya'll seem to be forgetting alot of people use this at college & work - which if you've ever been a technian in a large complex you'll know you don't update systems once they're setup, there will be a few rare occassion but they just won't update DirectX there is no chance in hell of that happening. sorry but most would rather saw off thier own arms to beat themselves than update DirectX on an entire site of around 100-400machines why do you think most systems don't have messenger on them, and you can't upgrade yourself as most only have user abilities not admin needed to install.

i mean i know alot of people here might work at home but they actually test software at work & college.

I pride myself that i don't kill...
well not without a good reason
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Blanka
23
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 26th Feb 2003
Location: United Kingdom
Posted: 26th Jun 2003 20:41
Link
haggisman...

why is that then?
Back to top
Profile PM
haggisman
23
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 26th Aug 2002
Location: United Kingdom
Posted: 26th Jun 2003 21:56
Link
Why do you think? The person who buys it most likely will have a credit/debit card. They will most likely think about purchasing it, usually through trying a demo and checking the requirements of the software. If you have an informative website and the user is actually considering purchasing your software they may very well upgrade to DX9 to enable the purchase.

Btw do you know anyone computer illiterate who actually knows what shareware is?

project: light/obscurance mapper (85% done)
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
swdave
23
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 6th Oct 2002
Location: United States
Posted: 26th Jun 2003 22:18
Link
Welcome to the wonderfull world of Windows programming.

You="PeeOn PissAnt WannaBe Programmer!";

BillGates="GOD";

Back to top
Profile PM
Rob K
Retired Moderator
23
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 10th Sep 2002
Location: Surrey, United Kingdom
Posted: 26th Jun 2003 22:19
Link
"Why not have a selection (say at compile time), that allows you to compile using DX8 or 9 ?"

Because the DX version affects the libraries. DX8 and DX9 are different enough that Lee could not simply alter a setting and compile two different sets of plugin DLLs. The actual DBP compiler has no effect on the DX version, it depends on the version used to compile the main libs.

"This is Completely Unacceptable."

We'll see when P5 comes out, a have a strong suspicion that it won't be the user-base killer everyone makes it out to be.

"1) Is DX9 going to be a requirement or just an option"

That has already been answered, and any DBS member will, I am sure, just confirm it. You cannot have a piece of software which uses DX9 features, but does not require DX9. In order to use DX9 features, you have to compile the software using references to DX9 libs, which means that the software needs DX9 on the end-user's PC.

Do you want Windows menus in your DBP apps? - Get my plugin: http://snow.prohosting.com/~clone99/downloads/tpc_menus_103.zip
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
MrTAToad
23
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 26th Aug 2002
Location: United Kingdom
Posted: 26th Jun 2003 22:40
Link
You could always have two copies of all the DLL's....

Good news everyone! I really am THAT good...
http://www.nickk.nildram.co.uk/ for great plug-ins - oh my, yes!
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Martyn Pittuck
23
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 27th Aug 2002
Location: United Kingdom
Posted: 26th Jun 2003 22:46
Link
Good idea, or how about a DLL for the shaders etc that need DX9, then the option is there, use the command or dont use it.

The Outside is a evil place to be, too much light, too much noise and too many distractions....
I went outside once and my FPS rate dropped to 5.
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
heartbone
23
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 9th Nov 2002
Location:
Posted: 26th Jun 2003 23:02 Edited at: 26th Jun 2003 23:14
Link
Rob K: "We'll see when P5 comes out, a have a strong suspicion that it won't be the user-base killer everyone makes it out to be."

I have a strong suspicion that you are wrong. Everyone is not making this allegation, only a few (so far).

I want DarkBASIC Professional to be the KILLER APP that it has the potential to be, but with bonehead decisions like forcing users to install DX9 to run a DBP executable it will never shine.

Except for high end games (which DB is not used for), there is very little reason for the VAST MAJORITY of PC users to upgrade their 500Mhz Windows98 box. Most people are satisfied with their digital camera processor/document generator/web surfing/CD burning system (which can also play a few video games), and won't feel the need or urge to upgrade their DirectX to run a DarkBASIC program.

My 4MB program would have to be truly special to get my friends (most are still using dialup) to obtain and install DX9. Unless they are running WindowsXP many are probably running DX7 and would still have to upgrade, but DX8 is much smaller and proven. Remember I was promised and paid for a working DX8 software development system.

The bugs being fixed in patch 5 should be applied to a DX8 release.
How hard could it be?. Professional software developers have archives. I am sure that DBS has them as well. I believe that DBS is reading this thread. Maybe they are formulating a strategy as I type. I can only hope that this information helps them to make a good decision for them and us.

I feel the days of change for the sake of Microsoft will soon come to a close. With that comes stability and excellence. In the future DX9 will be useful, for now except for extremely limited situations it is not necessary.

One thing that I have picked up on is that M$ may have fixed a lot of DX8 bugs in DX9. As part of a plan to force people off of Windows 9X (no eXPiration), M$ is not making the fixes available as a DX8.2, maybe this is the reason for the forced upgrade in DBP. If this is true, the Windows environment is being managed not for technical superiority but for Microsoft enrichment, and I can not support it by creating Windows applications.

-----------------------------------------

Would it be unthinkable for M$ to tell people that DX9 is compatible with 98 and then later admit that they have detected a small incompatibility problem that won't be fixed? After this coming Monday there is no more update support for Win98, so you are advised to upgrade to XP.

The more you see, the more you know.
The more you know, the more you see.
Back to top
Profile PM Website
swdave
23
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 6th Oct 2002
Location: United States
Posted: 26th Jun 2003 23:11
Link
Welcome to the wonderfull world of Windows programming.

You = 'WannaB Programmer';
Microsoft = 'Software Kingdom';
BillGates = 'Man on top of the hill';

Game = 'Start...';

Back to top
Profile PM
Rob K
Retired Moderator
23
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 10th Sep 2002
Location: Surrey, United Kingdom
Posted: 26th Jun 2003 23:31
Link
@Heartbone

The move to DX9 was principally done so that DX9 shaders could be supported? Why? Because they allow DBS to make lots of nice demos and screenshots of said fancy FX to go on the website and on the box to sell their product. DX9 will probably come with future DBP CDs, and DBS will actually use this to sell DBP >> "Makes use of the blistering edge of technology, full support for powerful DX9 features" etc. etc.

As for bug fixing DX8 DBP, maintaining two different versions of the source code is not an easy thing to do, as any developer will tell you.

If you really aren't happy with DBP P5 REQUIRING DX9, then you have 3 options:

a) Stick with P4.1 and work around the bugs
b) Demand a refund from DBS
c) Use Blitz3D instead

Do you want Windows menus in your DBP apps? - Get my plugin: http://snow.prohosting.com/~clone99/downloads/tpc_menus_103.zip
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Shadow Robert
23
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 22nd Sep 2002
Location: Hertfordshire, England
Posted: 26th Jun 2003 23:33
Link
Quote: "Because the DX version affects the libraries. DX8 and DX9 are different enough that Lee could not simply alter a setting and compile two different sets of plugin DLLs."


not really all it takes is a pragma and ifndef setup... check the version your wanting to compile and you can have the same libraries in the same version, if he hasn't relyied on the DirectX API heavily for the actual 3d commands and such, then really it is just a case of changing commands based on your settings.
Look at all of the windows Libraries, they're all setup to compile to utilise each version of the DLLs which are available without having to rely upon having the same as whatever the developer is using.

It's not hard just would take a little longer, and in this case i think that longer development would be forgiven to make sure maximum comptibility.

I pride myself that i don't kill...
well not without a good reason
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
heartbone
23
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 9th Nov 2002
Location:
Posted: 26th Jun 2003 23:35
Link
Rob K I think that I have these options.

1) Try and get DBS to support DX8
2) Stick with P4.1 and work around bugs.
3) Stick with DBC 1.13 and work around bugs.
4) Develop in PYTHON + (Pure Basic or Liberty Basic)

Even though they have yet to deliver a finished professional class product, you must know that I have no rights to a refund from DBS.

The more you see, the more you know.
The more you know, the more you see.
Back to top
Profile PM Website
Rob K
Retired Moderator
23
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 10th Sep 2002
Location: Surrey, United Kingdom
Posted: 27th Jun 2003 00:58
Link
"not really all it takes is a pragma and ifndef setup... check the version your wanting to compile and you can have the same libraries in the same version, if he hasn't relyied on the DirectX API heavily for the actual 3d commands and such, then really it is just a case of changing commands based on your settings. "

I have a feeling that Lee has relied heavily on the DX API for 3D commands though, it took him 3 days to make the code work with DX 9 (and about a week to get shaders working). Hence I don't think it would be a simple matter of swapping a few definitions / references.

@Heartbone

You forgot option (c) I mentioned, the only way that DBS would conceivably relent on this position was if tonnes of users when to a competitor. I do not forsee this happening though.

Do you want Windows menus in your DBP apps? - Get my plugin: http://snow.prohosting.com/~clone99/downloads/tpc_menus_103.zip
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
IanM
Retired Moderator
23
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 11th Sep 2002
Location: In my moon base
Posted: 27th Jun 2003 02:42
Link
@Raven, I don't think it quite as easy as that - two libraries to maintain (even if they are in the same source file), that would grow further and further apart in capability ... besides, I would have thought you'd be one of the people who welcomed the enhancements brought by DX9.

@Heartbone, live with it. It's a fact. If you feel that you need to move to another product, do so. I, for one, welcome the fact that DBPro is moving forward with the technology, and is not stuck in the position that Blitz is in now.

Who doesn't buy magazines? Which magazines don't supply DX9 on the cover CD? No-one except developers *download* any version of DirectX. They all install from the CDs on Game/hobby magazines.

@Rob, give up mate. Opinions are too entrenched to allow you to convince anyone.

@Everyone (including those I've alreay replied to), you have my apologies. Just back from a night out with the lads, and I don't feel too diplomatic
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Shadow Robert
23
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 22nd Sep 2002
Location: Hertfordshire, England
Posted: 27th Jun 2003 03:17
Link
maintaining the two libraries isn't a great problem, as the interfaces are so close - it is a case of just making sure the functions and interfaces are collecting the right data.

i'm not against the enhanced effects of DirectX9, and this change will hardly change how i work with DBP except to enhanced what i'm capable of doing without resorting to C++ w/DirectX itself.

But that said it isn't really wise to upgrade to entirely new DirectX in this way as the current userbase is used to an older version. Althought DarkMatter's release tore alot of the communty apart to those who had the enhancements and those who didn't, atleast they were still using the exact same functionality and could swap code, it wasn't a case of needing to upgrade thier systems.

its a bit like WindowsXP really, its like releasing it to use Win9x & WinNT format Executables and then releasing an upgrade that would mean you can only use WinNT Executables.
not alot of people will be willing to upgrade just based on the reason that the WinNT Executables are more stable & faster and will improve system performance as a whole.

as i said i'm not against the idea, i'm just saying i can certainly understand why alot of people can be upset by this.

I pride myself that i don't kill...
well not without a good reason
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Willy
23
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 17th Jun 2003
Location: Ohio
Posted: 27th Jun 2003 06:55
Link
Don't know if you are aware of this, but when we went from DirectX 8.0 to 8.1, there were a couple of parameter changes. For example, the DirectX command "D3DComputeNormals" went from one parameter to two. The compatibility fix was pretty simple: just add "NULL" as the second parameter. How many people thought we shouldn't have gone from DX 8.0 to 8.1? How many people (besides engine and C++ developers) even knew this internal change happened?

Again, if you look at the "What's new" in the DirectX 9 SDK, the main change you will see, is in the number of parameters for about 4 of the commands. And - enhancements to vertex and pixel shader stuff, which (it sounds like) most of you aren't using anyway. By the way, Micro$oft also says at least 4 of the DirectX major modules had NO CHANGES AT ALL! (Direct Play, Direct Music, Direct Show, etc.)

Micro$oft dropped support on Win98 a year ago. Anybody notice?

DirectX is free. Don't think Gates is getting much richer off of this one... I'd be far more worried about M$ being able to remotely turn off XP, (and charge an ongoing maintenance fee) than DirectX not working with Win98. (By the way, there already are some Intel multi-thread commands that don't work with Win98.... You can't run over 1 gig of memory with Win98. And newer Asus mother boards won't do 6.1 sound if you are on Win98...)

Last night, I downloaded DX 9.0a. Took 55 minutes, and I'm on a 24kb dial-up connection. Anybody slower than that?

Other than having to have the DirectX 9 run time, my bet is you won't be able to see much difference at all. Except some of the DirectX bugs (which we blame DB Pro for) will suddenly be fixed....

After DX9 comes and goes, I wonder what the next "the sky is falling" crisis is going to be?

Willy
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Martyn Pittuck
23
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 27th Aug 2002
Location: United Kingdom
Posted: 27th Jun 2003 11:22
Link
I think we should stop here, unless a DBS members come here to comment. Otherwise we are getting nowhere.

I am holding out buy until the patch is released (sorry update ). If it needs DX9 to run then i will be leaving DB for the forseeble future.

Although a new job has appeared that may allow me to upgrade my comp Bell Ringing £20 a week for 2 or 3 hours not bad

The Outside is a evil place to be, too much light, too much noise and too many distractions....
I went outside once and my FPS rate dropped to 5.
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Shadow Robert
23
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 22nd Sep 2002
Location: Hertfordshire, England
Posted: 27th Jun 2003 14:41
Link
Quote: "Don't know if you are aware of this, but when we went from DirectX 8.0 to 8.1, there were a couple of parameter changes"


a couple is an understatement ... the COMPLETELY changed the entire core of DirectX8.1, 8.0 resembles 7.0 more with the seperate Direct3D and DirectDraw.
DirectX 8.0 -> 8.1 is a huge undertaking, but 8.1 -> 9.0 is a realtively small affair when it comes to the 3D Portions, refineing of controls to take advantage of Shaders ... better FVF access and handling, some exostencial updates - but really 8.1 should've been called 9.0 and 9 should've been called 9.1 that is how close they are.

To those who haven't used DirectX though the changes will seem small and stupid, however i'm sure as any experienced DirectX programmer will tell you - 9's entire Instance setup has changed quite drastically to allow for faster and smaller access of the Interface.
You might not notice the major changes in it just by playing - but considering rather than Adding FPS DirectX 9 does something far better, it interpols like OpenGL now.

This means you can finally play those DirectX games which are under 30fps and they will still play realatively smoothly instead of the jitter that most Dx users are used to.
Thos games that ultilise the Shader portion & Extended (D3Dx) will notice DRASTIC speed jumps, especially on WinXP machines.

A good example are the samples provided, as the Vertex Shader Lights which were running at around 28fps on my 600Mhz/Gf2 using VS 2.0 now run at 56fps this is even with upto 8 lights onscreen at onces, and it isn't jerky at all anymore with stutters but flows perfectly.

just because the gamer doesn't notice the difference made to something doesn't mean they're not there, nor does it mean that they don't matter. Lke Anistrophic filtering, the best effects are those that you don't even realise where there to start with unless they're removed.

I pride myself that i don't kill...
well not without a good reason
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
heartbone
23
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 9th Nov 2002
Location:
Posted: 27th Jun 2003 20:05 Edited at: 27th Jun 2003 20:08
Link
Willy, speaking of bull, a 24K connection ( < 3 KB/Sec ) downloading 16 MB in 55 minutes? Try being truthful. My calculations say 9 MB is the most that you could get in that time.

Raven's figures

Windows98/WindowsMe/Windows2000/WindowsXP Retail - 32Mb
DirectX9 download DOES NOT include the 9.0a patch which is a further 16Mb
I believe to be accurate.

Let's assume a 32 Mb download for now.

The DirectX 7.1 download is 7 MB.
The DirectX 8.1 download is 11.5 MB.

Consider that DirectX is a mature system,
Raven do you think that the changes that you have tracked
would cause it to grow so much? I'm thinking D R M.

I trust Bill Gates right now about as much as I would a disturbed rattlesnake.

The more you see, the more you know.
The more you know, the more you see.
Back to top
Profile PM Website
Shadow Robert
23
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 22nd Sep 2002
Location: Hertfordshire, England
Posted: 27th Jun 2003 20:30
Link
the 32Mb version is because it include BOTH the WinNT and Win9x versions ... i mean its wasteful unless you need both - but thats the standard one on the site, and will be what people go for especially if they're not sure what OS they have.

7 -> 12 -> 16mb really isn't a big jump, that said the SDK version has jumped considerably.

10 -> 24 -> 48mb its just insane

I pride myself that i don't kill...
well not without a good reason
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
heartbone
23
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 9th Nov 2002
Location:
Posted: 27th Jun 2003 20:56
Link
Thanks. If 16MB is the correct figure then I won't be AS paranoid about the contents. Just normal bloat not suspicious bloat. All that the average Joe user would need to do is download and install a 16MB download from M$ to run my program if DX9 based.

The more you see, the more you know.
The more you know, the more you see.
Back to top
Profile PM Website
Shadow Robert
23
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 22nd Sep 2002
Location: Hertfordshire, England
Posted: 27th Jun 2003 20:59
Link
16mb is still a large download for a dialup user... which is ontop of your 5-10mb game remember.

I pride myself that i don't kill...
well not without a good reason
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Willy
23
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 17th Jun 2003
Location: Ohio
Posted: 27th Jun 2003 21:17
Link
Heartbone - no bull. Go to www.microsoft.com, and search on DirectX 9.0a. Then click on "Download DirectX 9.0a" You will see the following on the download page:

File Name: dxwebsetup.exe Download Size: 10 KB - 164237
Date Published: 3/26/2003 Version: 9.0a
That took a little over 1 minute to download..

Micro$oft also says:
"... This release also resolves an issue with DirectX 9.0 where some multiplayer games or MSN Messenger may not work correctly. A number of minor bugs were also resolved."
The Download center says: "For Windows 98, Windows Me, Windows 2000, or Windows XP, this release of DirectX offers updated graphics, faster frame rates, and support for massively multiplayer games."

The file size listed is 164,237.
On the other hand, a .16 MB file should not have taken 55 minutes to download, which it did. That would make the file closer to 7 MB, figuring 8 minutes per MB. (Your 3 kb/sec is fairly generous compared to what I usually see!) I suspect this may just be the file to start the download and set up DX 9.0a. The redist for the whole run time is actually 32.5 MB.... But that is more than just the 9.0a update. It includes all the DirectX 9.0a files (including the modules that weren't updated), the EULA, the installer, etc.

After going in little circles for about an hour, trying to find the real size of the download - I couldn't find that. And - I was not able to find where I can just download the update without having it self-install. But given my download time, I would guess the 9.0a update is closer to 7 MB. They don't make this too easy to figure out. (as usual...)

Hope that helps (Hah!)

If anybody knows a way to get the 9.0a update, (besides the redist) without having it self-install, I would be interested in knowing where to get it...

Willy
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
heartbone
23
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 9th Nov 2002
Location:
Posted: 28th Jun 2003 02:01
Link
"If anybody knows a way to get the 9.0a update, (besides the redist) without having it self-install, I would be interested in knowing where to get it..."

Willy using Windows 98 the Windows Update process creates a hidden folder named C:\WUTemp.

M$ pushes the update installer into this folder. The update process then runs the just downloaded executable which installs the update and then the process immediately deletes the just downloaded installer. I think that this is done to keep you dependant on M$ for updates and unable to reinstall everything if they don't want you to.

The trick is to copy the downloaded module from C:\WUTemp after the D/L and before it gets deleted. If you only do one update if can be hard to snag it before it dissapears. I guess you could Ctrl-Atl-Del the install but that may be dangerous. If you take multiple updates the installer files are all downloaded before the installs begin which makes it easier to copy the downloads for later use.

The more you see, the more you know.
The more you know, the more you see.
Back to top
Profile PM Website
Dave J
Retired Moderator
23
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 11th Feb 2003
Location: Secret Military Pub, Down Under
Posted: 28th Jun 2003 03:11 Edited at: 28th Jun 2003 03:12
Link
Edit: Nevermind, didn't realise there was a second page so my comment has pretty much been mentioned already a million times.

"Computers are useless they can only give you answers."
Back to top
Profile PM Email
Back to top

Login to post a reply

Server time is: 2026-07-16 10:53:56
Your offset time is: 2026-07-16 10:53:56