Irrlicht Engines Graphical limitations?

CuteAlien · Post by **CuteAlien** » Mon Aug 13, 2007 9:11 pm

DX 10.1 is a nightmare. But don't worry too much, I don't think anyone will use that. I suppose games will still run on DX 10 and ignore that bad 10.1 joke.

BlindSide · Post by **BlindSide** » Mon Aug 13, 2007 10:22 pm

Spintz wrote:
BlindSide wrote:I know its slightly unrelated but I tried to figure out how Spintz creates DX9 RTT without sharing the device's backbuffer (or something..) but the implementation appeared the same for the most part.
You sure? I havent looked at the Irrlicht code for months, but I know I changed stuff with the RTT for MRT( Multiple Render Target ) support. What exactly is it that works in IRRspintz and not in Irrlicht?

Not MRT, but simply put, the RTT in irrlicht (In DX) shares the backbuffer with the main device, so that it cannot be bigger than the device. I looked at the creation code and they both use the same methods for obtaining the DX9 draw surface, which is

Code: Select all

Device->GetBackBuffer(0, 0, D3DBACKBUFFER_TYPE_MONO, &bb)

Im not really sure if I am looking in the right places though, hehe..

Oh yeah, spintz, that sucks man... the whole DX10.1 announcement sounds like a stock market crash.

I am using an old 9.0c sdk that doesnt need those additional DLLS to run and still has PS 1.4 support, and I think I will stick with this for a while

PS 3.0 alone is still way too much for me to handle.

Virion · Post by **Virion** » Tue Aug 14, 2007 3:26 pm

support opengl lol

Spintz · Post by **Spintz** » Wed Aug 15, 2007 12:05 pm

mm765 · Post by **mm765** » Fri Aug 17, 2007 3:07 am

he spintz, getting wise in your old days ?
just kidding - sorry, but i really couldn't resist.

Spintz · Post by **Spintz** » Tue Aug 21, 2007 2:39 pm

mm765 · Post by **mm765** » Wed Aug 22, 2007 3:06 pm

Im waiting for DX10.2 - until then MS might have figured out what they want

Spintz · Post by **Spintz** » Thu Aug 23, 2007 2:28 am

sRc · Post by **sRc** » Thu Aug 23, 2007 6:19 am

as far as im aware, the "hardware changes" needed for 10.1 are just making required several things that were optional with 10.0. and its something that thye announced right at the beginning, both 10 and 10.1 requirements were announced at the same time when it was introduced. unless theyve actually changed something, if anyone can show me that.

doesnt surprise me tho that 9 is faster than 10 tho, between mixed engines constraining performance (in theory) and crappy Vista drivers from both sides