yeah i would care to correct you ... because there is a GREAT difference between the interface of DirectX and the Engine of DirectX.
But they're seemlessly intergrated, which is no doubt why you believe that it isn't. The APi is simply a direct pointer to the hardware using the low level code to create instances which can be used when developing your own engine. HOWEVER DirectX already has a basic engine in there, because a game engine is the framework you use to develop your titles ... and althought these can be unique, they're not always.
Quake 1 - 2 - 3 have thier own engines, and they do not use DirectX is any shape or form ... because DirectX is a full OO APi and the Quake Engines were developed within C, which doesn't use OOP. You can't go by the code you find within the Engine SDK's on thier ftp because Carmack recoded them for Visual C++ 6.0 and included ALOT of comments, because he works from almost commentless code.
the UT engines are Engines because they don't use ANY of DirectX's Engine aspects because it needs to utilise the Graphics from Software & OpenGL as well, and i'm aware that Dx isn't just about the graphcs ... and UT doesn't only use its graphics, but when you make an engine which is to access both Direct3D and OpenGL you CAN NOT add support for things which are only viable within one APi without loosing compatibility with the other.
They're using pure instances of the devices and creating thier own content ... however DirectX has engine content as well - DarkBasic even uses some of this engine content because it isn't restrained to being purely thier own engine, and infact alot of the program is simply wrapping functions which will compile into useable code.
When they introduce their new pipeline THEN it will be closer to a Stand Alone Engine... however why not completely?
Becuase they'll be still relying on the DirectPlay functions for networking, DirectInput functions for Input Devices, etc...
There is no shame in using these because it'd be a bitch to have to recode for every controller and networking within DirectX isn't exactly the easiest of things in the world.
But at the end of the day they will still be using aspect from the DirectX Engine whilst using the APi for instance for certian other aspects.
are you any closer to understanding now?
i mean look at what you wrote ->
Raize_k - "BOTH ENGINES USE OF COURSE THE DIRECT X API, YET THEY BOTH OWN A SIGNATURE WAY OF DISPLAYING Graphics"
which firstly you were wrong with the first statment, and it is amusing how many people believe that Quake Engines were Dx based ... but also you hit the nail on the head, UT uses 3 APi's for utilising the Display Devices - so it MUST have its own engine in place.
And OpenGL has ZERO Engine features, which is why Quake also had to.
anychance you care to explain what exactly an APi is?
be interested to hear what you think to word stands for, and also what its function is.
Tsu'va Oni Ni Jyuuko Fiori Sei Tau!
One block follows the suit ... the whole suit of blocks is the path ... what have you found?
