<Cheeky_Yet_True_Statements>
I would like to give a big thanks to: my stubborness
Yes, its true. Without which I doubt the dgdk.net would currently exist. What do I mean? Long story short, I was fed up with DBP long ago (2 years), and stopped using it (more with the lack of oop and a decent ide, as opposed to the engine). Anyway, the mantra became "If theres a c++/lib sdk, there's gotta be a way to use it or port it for .net". I knew this would require a good programmer with a full C++ skillset (/me eyes Apexnow). I began the dailly cattle-prodding of said programmer. "C'mon man, theres gotta be a way" "c'mon". Then we'd have brief explorations, then they would be deemed not viable, etc etc, then I'd go off and tinker with some .NET alternatives - until one day, said programmer figured out a viable solution. Me danced. Work began. Me tested. We tested. We tested some more - BOOM! Viable dgdk.net toolkit born. Had some input in other aspects of the kit as well (lots of suggestions and ideas that were adopted into the final product).
Anyway, I am in no way trying to take any credit per se, all the credit goes to Apexnow & TGC. But I can tell you, and any of you that have been around since 2003 will know, I have been relentless in my hemming and hawing about .NET support, or lack thereof, since day one, and its due to my refusal to use DBP proper, or switch to an underdeveloped alternate engine, or learn DX programming, is probably why we have the awesome DGDK.NET at this juncture. Stubborness (and maybe laziness too) has payed off, but it was only predicated on the fact that a c++/lib version already existed, and it really pissed me off that there was no direct .NET port from TGC themselves. Either way, thats in the past, and we have one now!
</Cheeky_Yet_True_Statements>
Hats off to Paul!!! Congrats on this mate. And I can't wait to see those unmentionable upcoming things we discussed
Cheers