masked bitmap drawing (2D Drawing)

BackupUser · Post by **BackupUser** » Thu Feb 06, 2003 4:26 pm

Restored from previous forum. Originally posted by mindplay.

I've seen this asked a million times on the forum, and now I'm stuck myself without this feature - simply a DrawImage command where you can specify a color that will be masked out, pixel by pixel ... no alpha/semitransparency, just monochrome masking.

Alpha/semitransparency of course would be bad-ass as well, but is more complicated to implement, I know

... but please - a simple option to mask out a single RGB color, that should be dead simple to implement??

BackupUser · Post by **BackupUser** » Thu Feb 06, 2003 5:04 pm

Restored from previous forum. Originally posted by PB.

> I've seen this asked a million times on the forum

See bottom of this thread:

viewtopic.php?t=2564

BackupUser · Post by **BackupUser** » Thu Feb 06, 2003 5:41 pm

Restored from previous forum. Originally posted by fred.

If it was dead simple to implement, it would be already done

.

Fred - AlphaSND

BackupUser · Post by **BackupUser** » Thu Feb 06, 2003 10:35 pm

Restored from previous forum. Originally posted by mindplay.

next week you say? well, that's good enough for me

BackupUser · Post by **BackupUser** » Thu Feb 06, 2003 11:31 pm

Restored from previous forum. Originally posted by fred.

Fred - AlphaSND

BackupUser · Post by **BackupUser** » Fri Apr 04, 2003 3:17 pm

Restored from previous forum. Originally posted by LJ.

I would like this feature also.
Something like: MaskImage (hWnd, (R,G,B))
Where the R,G,B, is the color to be made transparent in the image.

BackupUser · Post by **BackupUser** » Sun Apr 06, 2003 9:04 pm

Restored from previous forum. Originally posted by Amiga5k.

Is masking something that is available through DirectX (I would think yes), or would this have to be coded from scratch by Fred? I would think that most video cards have the ability to define transparent colors, especially when dealing with textures for 3D gfx, etc. Too bad they don't handle 'hardware' collision detection! (like in the good 'ol Amiga days)

Russell

***Commodore 64 - Over one million cycles per second, 16 vibrant colors, 3 incredible audio channels and 38,911 Basic Bytes Free! Who could ask for anything more?***

BackupUser · Post by **BackupUser** » Mon Apr 07, 2003 1:07 pm

Restored from previous forum. Originally posted by fred.

All DirectX commands (Sprite & co) already have this option and it works, no problem. About Image, it's OS only, no DIrectX allowed, else users will cry

. Then yes, it should be tricked and almost redone from scratch, as the regular API doesn't support it.

Fred - AlphaSND

BackupUser · Post by **BackupUser** » Mon Apr 07, 2003 9:15 pm

Restored from previous forum. Originally posted by Amiga5k.

I know Linux and AmigaOS users wouldn't like this, but couldn't it be implemented using DirectX for the Windows platform first and then in other ways for the other OS's later? This would be an extremely handy feature to have, to be sure! I know that there are already some commands/features that are only available in the Windows version, right?

Russell

***Commodore 64 - Over one million cycles per second, 16 vibrant colors, 3 incredible audio channels and 38,911 Basic Bytes Free! Who could ask for anything more?***

BackupUser · Post by **BackupUser** » Mon Apr 07, 2003 10:41 pm

Restored from previous forum. Originally posted by tinman.

I think Fred was saying that people would complain if all Windows applications that used 2D drawing required DirectX.

--
I used to be a nihilist but I don't believe in that any more.
(Win98first ed. + all updates, PB3.51, external editor)

BackupUser · Post by **BackupUser** » Wed Apr 09, 2003 4:36 am

Restored from previous forum. Originally posted by Amiga5k.

Hmm.. Seems like DirectX is pretty common and many of the other 'new' basics out there require it (Dark Basic, Blitz, etc), so I don't think that would necessarily be a bad thing. I'm surprised that PB is able to do all that it does without requiring DirectX!

Which brings me to another idea: Since OpenGL is open source and is already available for many different platforms, would it benefit PB if it was used instead? Just a thought...

Russell

***Commodore 64 - Over one million cycles per second, 16 vibrant colors, 3 incredible audio channels and 38,911 Basic Bytes Free! Who could ask for anything more?***

BackupUser · Post by **BackupUser** » Wed Apr 09, 2003 7:37 am

Restored from previous forum. Originally posted by tinman.

Originally posted by Amiga5k

Hmm.. Seems like DirectX is pretty common and many of the other 'new' basics out there require it (Dark Basic, Blitz, etc), so I don't think that would necessarily be a bad thing. I'm surprised that PB is able to do all that it does without requiring DirectX!

I knew someone would say that. The new basics you mention by name are for games, so its fairly likely they'd require DirectX - I don't know about any others though.

And yes, it would be a bad thing, even though most people would normally have DirectX. PureBasic's runtimes are small and fast enough that you can safely use your executables on pretty old or even scaled down (read: embedded) hardware. That's two areas where your user might not have DirectX installed.

Besides, if you really need to use DirectX in an application you can do so just now by opening a windowed screen (and if need be, put it on an invisible window).

It's not surprising how much PB can do without it because the 2D drawing commands are pretty limited

It might be useful to be able to take advantage of DirectX, but not require it.

Which brings me to another idea: Since OpenGL is open source and is already available for many different platforms, would it benefit PB if it was used instead? Just a thought...

Oh no, please don't start this one up again

Unless Fred deleted the topic you should be able to search the forums and find his answer to that one. Something like "OGRE 3D engine".

--
I used to be a nihilist but I don't believe in that any more.
(Win98first ed. + all updates, PB3.51, external editor)

BackupUser · Post by **BackupUser** » Wed Apr 09, 2003 9:54 pm

Restored from previous forum. Originally posted by Amiga5k.

Oh yeah, forgot about OGRE! (I wonder why he chose OGRE over OGL? OGL has Waaaaaaay more support for it). I found a very very interesting comparison of OGl vs DX written by the guy who wrote Doom. It's very funny, too (He basically blasts DX for it's stupid API, and vows to never use it - for technical and ethical reasons).

I'm looking through some OGL docs right now, and it is actually pretty straight forward: Something a non-PHD in Astrophysics person could actually figure out!

Russell

***Commodore 64 - Over one million cycles per second, 16 vibrant colors, 3 incredible audio channels and 38,911 Basic Bytes Free! Who could ask for anything more?***

BackupUser · Post by **BackupUser** » Wed Apr 09, 2003 10:04 pm

Restored from previous forum. Originally posted by tinman.

Originally posted by Amiga5k

Oh yeah, forgot about OGRE! (I wonder why he chose OGRE over OGL?

You've misunderstood what OGRE is I think. OGRE is a 3D engine - you give it some bits and pieces and it does all the calculations for you. OGRE sites on top of either OpenGL or DirectX. OpenGL, like DirectX, is "just" a 3D display system which can take advantage of hardware to make it display faster.

--
I used to be a nihilist but I don't believe in that any more.
(Win98first ed. + all updates, PB3.51, external editor)

BackupUser · Post by **BackupUser** » Fri Apr 11, 2003 3:47 pm

Restored from previous forum. Originally posted by geoff.

I think Fred was saying that people would complain if all Windows applications that used 2D drawing required DirectX

I would certainly complain.

Could you not do this operation in the normal Windows API by using 2 bitmaps, one containing a mask of the object. You AND the screen with the mask and then OR the object bitmap with the screen.