...interested in Irrlicht with only DirectX9???
EDIT: I should have clarified, I meant in IrrSpintz. I would not expect Irrlicht to get rid of OpenGL, but in IrrSpintz, I could do so much more, only worrying about DirectX.
How many people would be....
How many people would be....
Last edited by Spintz on Sat Nov 19, 2005 2:44 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
Guest
I'd vote no. Not because I have any particular attachment to OGL, but because I like the way the engines rely on so few libraries for deployment. It's a PITA to have to go through "dll hell" to get an application working under Windows when the pre-requisite libs are missing. Going strictly DX would fall into this catagory, IMO. Being able to install a game with just the engine dll and ogl libs (perhaps the audio lib) is a simpler path for those who need it.
Besides, your work on Irrlicht-Spintz could be folded into the Irrlicht tree and I see that as a *very* worthwhile effort. Specializing could negate that...
I'd also agree to with afecelis' comment. Just my 0.02 worth...
Besides, your work on Irrlicht-Spintz could be folded into the Irrlicht tree and I see that as a *very* worthwhile effort. Specializing could negate that...
I'd also agree to with afecelis' comment. Just my 0.02 worth...
I voted yes.
I have nothing against OpenGL, mind you, but for other reasons, I am only targeting with DX9.
Anything that can be done to keep things as lean as possible, the better. I've already dropped DX8 and OpenGl out, and I am currently going through to remove any other features I know I won't want or use.
If someone really wanted OpenGL or DX8, it wouldn't be that tough to put in back in.
Then again, this is just based on my targeting and use.
I can see how others might want it left in.
I guess that either way, there will be a slight PITA for anyone.
Either some of us would want to take it out, or others would have to put it back in. (except, of course, for those who don't mind having idle code lying about their application)
I have nothing against OpenGL, mind you, but for other reasons, I am only targeting with DX9.
Anything that can be done to keep things as lean as possible, the better. I've already dropped DX8 and OpenGl out, and I am currently going through to remove any other features I know I won't want or use.
If someone really wanted OpenGL or DX8, it wouldn't be that tough to put in back in.
Then again, this is just based on my targeting and use.
I can see how others might want it left in.
I guess that either way, there will be a slight PITA for anyone.
Either some of us would want to take it out, or others would have to put it back in. (except, of course, for those who don't mind having idle code lying about their application)
-
Guest
and i think many others choose no because of that reason, too.-
dracflamloc
- Posts: 142
- Joined: Sat Dec 11, 2004 8:13 am
- Contact:
-
Guest
NO - copied from a similar thread - though as this is SPINTZ it is up to you and wouldn't be that missed as we would just stick to official irrlicht anyway but there are more reasons than many of you understand for having older apis in an engine - it is all to tempting to "clear out the deadwood" just because YOu and your FRIENDS all have DX9 installed... there are many many systems out there that do NOT and WILL NOT update - and they also have CRAP OGL drivers.. DX8 is the sweet spot for getting YOUR game to RUN on these systems.
This is for people interested in distributing games as sharware - if you intend on making any old free game with modern tech such as shaders etc - then fine you won't be needing to push it to those markets - others will however.
original post below:
---------------------
FFS no! We have had this discussion over @ ogre forums. Please people understand - the use of "older" tech like DX8 (and 7) is essential for ANY engine to be used by potential shareware authors interested in distributing their games to the widest possible audience. I don't really have time to post thousands of links on discussions about this but please understand DX8 is essential for windows shareware games because using DX9 puts it out of the mass market for the "typical" shareware (casual/semi casual) buyer. Also be aware that *I* know you can update to DX9 even with very old hardware but the point is these "Buyers" will not - they STICK with what is on their system (in the case of Winxp vanilla that is DX8). Even OpenGl is somewhat lacking (with extention problems) on older system or systems that the user NEVEr bothers to upgrade.
These users are a million miles away from us "hardcore" users / developers and they are literally scared to update anything - therfore if your DX9 game will not run on their system they won't download it at all rather than upgrade to DX9 *EVEN IF YOU POINT THEM TO THE FREE UPDATE* with a link...
It was until recently DX7 that was the sweet spot but now DX8 is taking over (thanks to winxp being so widespread) it will be a while yet before DX9 is the "common" api in use on the majority of casual/shareware games audiences systems... and OGL is hit and miss on those for the previously mentioned reasons.
So.. leave DX8 just where it is thankyou! Old technology, not as streamlined as DX9 as it may be it is needed for many of us using irrlicht for more than "tech demos" and "another FPS".
This is for people interested in distributing games as sharware - if you intend on making any old free game with modern tech such as shaders etc - then fine you won't be needing to push it to those markets - others will however.
original post below:
---------------------
FFS no! We have had this discussion over @ ogre forums. Please people understand - the use of "older" tech like DX8 (and 7) is essential for ANY engine to be used by potential shareware authors interested in distributing their games to the widest possible audience. I don't really have time to post thousands of links on discussions about this but please understand DX8 is essential for windows shareware games because using DX9 puts it out of the mass market for the "typical" shareware (casual/semi casual) buyer. Also be aware that *I* know you can update to DX9 even with very old hardware but the point is these "Buyers" will not - they STICK with what is on their system (in the case of Winxp vanilla that is DX8). Even OpenGl is somewhat lacking (with extention problems) on older system or systems that the user NEVEr bothers to upgrade.
These users are a million miles away from us "hardcore" users / developers and they are literally scared to update anything - therfore if your DX9 game will not run on their system they won't download it at all rather than upgrade to DX9 *EVEN IF YOU POINT THEM TO THE FREE UPDATE* with a link...
It was until recently DX7 that was the sweet spot but now DX8 is taking over (thanks to winxp being so widespread) it will be a while yet before DX9 is the "common" api in use on the majority of casual/shareware games audiences systems... and OGL is hit and miss on those for the previously mentioned reasons.
So.. leave DX8 just where it is thankyou! Old technology, not as streamlined as DX9 as it may be it is needed for many of us using irrlicht for more than "tech demos" and "another FPS".
It's true that there are alot of people out there afraid to update to DirectX9. But if you think about it if you are developing a game, it is for the gamers, and these gamers should have the latest DirectX release installed so that they have the ability to play titles such as Doom3, Half-Life2, ect.
In my opinion, it would be very nice is Spintz would drop support for everything but DirectX9 and thus be able to provide us with quicker releases sporting more features, bug fixes and rendering improvements. No one would be requiring anyone to use the Spintz release of Irrlicht, but Spintz would be loosing a good percentage of his userbase from the outcome of the polls thus far. It's true that if this where to be done though, Linux support would then be dropped, but if your developing a game to be published the majority of the gamer base is running Windows; but alot of us will not reach this level and the indie gamer base has quite a good number of people running Linux
So it's got it's ups and downs either way you turn.
In my opinion, it would be very nice is Spintz would drop support for everything but DirectX9 and thus be able to provide us with quicker releases sporting more features, bug fixes and rendering improvements. No one would be requiring anyone to use the Spintz release of Irrlicht, but Spintz would be loosing a good percentage of his userbase from the outcome of the polls thus far. It's true that if this where to be done though, Linux support would then be dropped, but if your developing a game to be published the majority of the gamer base is running Windows; but alot of us will not reach this level and the indie gamer base has quite a good number of people running Linux
So it's got it's ups and downs either way you turn.-
Guest
those are *different* audiences I can assure you. You get SOME crossover but mainly the folks who play Doom3 will NEVEr touch anything you or I make even if you make an attempt at a cutting edge FPS they won't play it when they can play "RETAIL GFX SHOWPIECE # 23368"... belive me.
WHen you are actually MAKING games like Doom3 with the penatration they get THEN you can start dictating to your players what DX version they HAVE to update to - until then (and importantly only IF you intend on selling your games to as large an audience as possible) then you look at what the market is using commonly and TARGET that - yours and mine little game will never get any decent amount of people to update anything so don't kid yourself that it will.. sure I can play it - you can play it - and probably all your (computer techy mates) can play it - even the guys who have bothered to update to XP SP2 will play it (DX9 as standard) but millions of other users will see the requirements or see the "demo" fail to run on their system and bin it without a second thought. This has been researched and you would not believe how fickle some people are - as much as a pain as it is - you should never go out of your way to make things "difficult" for a potential player, if anything YOU should shoulder the "burden" (using an API you feel like abitraraly dumping just to keep your engine "clean") so that everyone who really matters (the players) can have an easy life and you can enjoy massive compatability.
I will say no more on this as it is more a business/tech issues than a pure game-design/engine one. Of course you should go with what your project demands and what you feel best working with, especially if you just plan on making some "cool demos" or "another fps" (because not many thousands will play that trust me)... but if you are targeting the REAL markets that exist out there then you will want to stick to DX8 for windows (or DX7) and OGL for Mac etc. DX9 has a massive impact on downloads - and your conversion ratio comes from those downloads...
you don't just "use the latest and greatest" just because you can without looking at the bigger picture - it seems like you can keep a tidy mind by dumping everything - personally I dump DX9 in my custom irrlicht because it is NOT ready for prime time yet in the markets small indie developers move in. NOTE there are indie games out there that DO use DX9 and do well.. but they are usually targetted niche games - and they could do even better with a lower DX requirement. Especially if they really don't need any additional features of DX9. If your game is a shaders paradise and you don't use any FFP then you may HAVE to use DX9 in that case they above is invalid - just don't cut out DX8 for those that MAY need to use it simply because you don't understand the markets that exist.
And as I said - for spintz - it doesn't matter - this is for those who were asking to dump it from official Irrlicht.... bad .. very bad
WHen you are actually MAKING games like Doom3 with the penatration they get THEN you can start dictating to your players what DX version they HAVE to update to - until then (and importantly only IF you intend on selling your games to as large an audience as possible) then you look at what the market is using commonly and TARGET that - yours and mine little game will never get any decent amount of people to update anything so don't kid yourself that it will.. sure I can play it - you can play it - and probably all your (computer techy mates) can play it - even the guys who have bothered to update to XP SP2 will play it (DX9 as standard) but millions of other users will see the requirements or see the "demo" fail to run on their system and bin it without a second thought. This has been researched and you would not believe how fickle some people are - as much as a pain as it is - you should never go out of your way to make things "difficult" for a potential player, if anything YOU should shoulder the "burden" (using an API you feel like abitraraly dumping just to keep your engine "clean") so that everyone who really matters (the players) can have an easy life and you can enjoy massive compatability.
I will say no more on this as it is more a business/tech issues than a pure game-design/engine one. Of course you should go with what your project demands and what you feel best working with, especially if you just plan on making some "cool demos" or "another fps" (because not many thousands will play that trust me)... but if you are targeting the REAL markets that exist out there then you will want to stick to DX8 for windows (or DX7) and OGL for Mac etc. DX9 has a massive impact on downloads - and your conversion ratio comes from those downloads...
you don't just "use the latest and greatest" just because you can without looking at the bigger picture - it seems like you can keep a tidy mind by dumping everything - personally I dump DX9 in my custom irrlicht because it is NOT ready for prime time yet in the markets small indie developers move in. NOTE there are indie games out there that DO use DX9 and do well.. but they are usually targetted niche games - and they could do even better with a lower DX requirement. Especially if they really don't need any additional features of DX9. If your game is a shaders paradise and you don't use any FFP then you may HAVE to use DX9 in that case they above is invalid - just don't cut out DX8 for those that MAY need to use it simply because you don't understand the markets that exist.
And as I said - for spintz - it doesn't matter - this is for those who were asking to dump it from official Irrlicht.... bad .. very bad
-
Eternl Knight
- Posts: 313
- Joined: Tue Nov 01, 2005 5:01 am
I voted no for one primary reason - cross-platform compatibility. OpenGL has it, DirectX doesn't. Simple as that.
I came to Irrlicht because it could be easily used & adapted to run on multiple platforms. I like IrrSpintz because it takes certian features a step further. However, if you remove OpenGL support - you're taking a flying leap backward in that area.
Obviously, it's your port - so do what you want to do. Benefits of open-source and all that (and no-one is paying you after all). However, I personally think that in removing cross-platform support - you take what was an improvement on Irrlicht and turn it into "Irrlicht-limited".
--EK
I came to Irrlicht because it could be easily used & adapted to run on multiple platforms. I like IrrSpintz because it takes certian features a step further. However, if you remove OpenGL support - you're taking a flying leap backward in that area.
Obviously, it's your port - so do what you want to do. Benefits of open-source and all that (and no-one is paying you after all). However, I personally think that in removing cross-platform support - you take what was an improvement on Irrlicht and turn it into "Irrlicht-limited".
--EK
-
needforhint
- Posts: 322
- Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2005 10:34 am
- Location: slovakia
I voted yes, becouse to have irrlicht compiled only with directX would be good thing to be done I believe...since Spintz does such a cool stuff with directX...myself is trying to get X file loader in irrlicht repaired, 'couse very often Microsoft SDK Meshviewer succeed while irrlicht fail in loading X mesh properly.
what is this thing...
-
Eternl Knight
- Posts: 313
- Joined: Tue Nov 01, 2005 5:01 am
As a follow-up on my previous message...
If I wanted an engine that worked DX only (with simiilar licensing restrictions to Irrlicht), I would choose Nebula2. It is a more "complete" engine than Irrlicht in many ways, but is limited to the Windows only platform. Irrlichts's PRIMARY draw for most people I have talked to are simplicity & cross-platform compatibility.
Your extensions to Irrlicht are very welcome Spintz. (Very welcome indeed!) As we all know - Niko is folding several of these features back into the main branch. However, if you drop OGL support - this is not possible (or at the VERY least - incredibly difficult).
As I said before - it's all up to you of course. I am just trying to highlight the ramifications the choice may have. If you like the fact that your extensions are folded back into the main branch for others to use - OGL should be kept in. If you (like the Lightfeather crew) are interested in FORKING Irrlicht into something else - then DX9-only support is simply a feature/limitation of the fork.
--EK
If I wanted an engine that worked DX only (with simiilar licensing restrictions to Irrlicht), I would choose Nebula2. It is a more "complete" engine than Irrlicht in many ways, but is limited to the Windows only platform. Irrlichts's PRIMARY draw for most people I have talked to are simplicity & cross-platform compatibility.
Your extensions to Irrlicht are very welcome Spintz. (Very welcome indeed!) As we all know - Niko is folding several of these features back into the main branch. However, if you drop OGL support - this is not possible (or at the VERY least - incredibly difficult).
As I said before - it's all up to you of course. I am just trying to highlight the ramifications the choice may have. If you like the fact that your extensions are folded back into the main branch for others to use - OGL should be kept in. If you (like the Lightfeather crew) are interested in FORKING Irrlicht into something else - then DX9-only support is simply a feature/limitation of the fork.
--EK
-
Eternl Knight
- Posts: 313
- Joined: Tue Nov 01, 2005 5:01 am
True, but that's really only useful for those that will be using .X file formats. Irrlicht currently loads a heck of alot of other file formats too. And there are developers, such as myself, with custom file formats who would gain no benefit whatsoever.One thing that would be great for having only DX9 being used, is that you could use the DirectX API's for loading .X files, binary and ASCII and all the features.
I think the fact of the matter is that those of us who want OGL, want it not because it is BETTER but because it is PORTABLE. I for one like your new features, but they are useless to me unless they run on Linux (& soon Mac OSX - I'm working on a port as Niko does not seem to have the time).
--EK
-
needforhint
- Posts: 322
- Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2005 10:34 am
- Location: slovakia
why not do irrlichtOpenGL and irrlichtX, dealing primarely with one of the graphics routine, since directX3d is a primar routine for many developers and myself jjust loves directX3d becouse it's cool (and I am going to buy a book about directX soon, costs a lot of money 
) and since Spintz does extensions based on directX a believe it would be great to make directX-only irrlicht
) and since Spintz does extensions based on directX a believe it would be great to make directX-only irrlichtwhat is this thing...