welllllll.... This will be my last post on this thread.
First off, i do want to apologize for coming off a bit stronger than i really intended, and i did kind of miss the mark with some of the things i mentioned.
That being said, there's only a few last things i would like to offer up for consideration.
I've been off-and-on working on a game for about a year now, the game is a 2d space shooter, using a mix of 3d and 2d graphics. I've bumped into numerous issues in development that I believe are directly related to the use of direct-draw commands. Specifically with mixing the 2d and 3d on one screen. In my code i'm using 2 sections for graphics drawing for each frame, a 3d pass, followed by 2d overlay. Doing it this way i have found it to be quite restricting as far as how i display graphics. i *can* do most of what i'm trying to, it just makes my code look uglier, and my program run slower, due to the work-arounds.
one other thing that inspires much confusion is "DX9 compliant" vs. "DX9 compatible", it took me more than a few googles to find a good definition of the differences:
Compatible Versus Compliant: DirectX 9 compliant cards are VPUs whose design supports DirectX 9 features and functions. These cards were made hand-in-hand with the DirectX 9 API. DirectX 9 compatible cards are VPUs made during previous generations, namely the DirectX 8.1 generation, that are capable of usually running most DirectX 9 features, though at a possible quality and performance hit.
Practically any reasonably recent video card or even chipset is DX9 compatible, DX9 compliant cards start at about $30 USD, not the $22 that would get the bottom-of-the line 3d card.
Unfortunately, we are talking about current systems, too. You can go buy a brand new PC and it will completely die on DX9, but will still play 2D DX7 based stuff just fine. Most new computers sold do not have graphics cards, they have embedded video chips which will choke on anything over DX7.
This i have to disagree with, mostly. Yes, most new computers that have onboard graphics will choke when playing *high end* DX9 games, but the games i'm talking about are titles such as quake 4, or doom 3. Playing a DX9 2d emulated game should not cause any issues for embedded graphics on current systems, unless the reasons are the code for the game itself. DX9 does not instantly raise the bar as high as you think for every application that uses it, though it has the *potential* to do so.
I did not have a "real" DX9 video card up until just a few months ago, however my previous card had no issues what-so-ever playing the most recent DX9 games. And no, i never, ever buy the top of the line video cards, $500 for a video card is ludicrous in my opinion.
I have to admit that my definitions of outdated are a bit mean by most standards. I generally consider anything < 1ghz to be very outdated... and < 2ghz to be aging.
I do also have to admit that i haven't actually haven't had the opportunity to try a variety of different video cards/chipsets using dx9 for 2d (emulated...) although my mini-pc (which is aging, by my standards) has a quite capable onboard graphics chip, even though it has shared memory and it is using a via Savage8 chip. I may be a youngster by your standards, but i have watched the computer market intently since the dawn of 3d, and even the weakest of modern 3d chips are quite capable.
And i really dont want see that Fred will/must spend more time in coding for an old technology
Nothing to spend time on, just don't delete what is already there. Its that simple
I agree with you on this... however... I think that the dx9 implimentation of 2d commands should still go forward, perhaps renaming the commands for DD, or using different names for the DX9 routines, and ultimately, if they cannot co-exist peacefully, then DD should not take priority over DX9. worst case, as you've already stated, you can use an older version of PB to accomplish your goals, and others wont be limitted by it.
anyhow, the last thing i will say here... is that despite what you think, people that have posted in this thread *do* know what they're talking about, although i missed the mark on a few things. I would have to say though, as much as you think that i don't know what i'm talking about, for many of your points, i feel just as strongly that you don't know what you're talking about.
