Why not Direct X?

http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=8568
http://groups.google.com/groups?num=100&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&newwindow=1&safe=off&q=DirectX+OpenGL

IMHO, it helps to understand some history about how DirectX came into being and how microsoft uses it before deciding if it is a "good thing" for you. I'm sure there are many people here that lived through the experience thus far, from the creation of DirectX in 1996.
Posted on 2003-12-04 21:03:52 by bitRAKE

And banana's are yellow, not white like you said. So you know I'm right and you're wrong.

Here is some friendly advice for a person with your disposition about who know what they are talking about and who does not.

Before you change feet to keep your mouth closed, at least wash to next foot that you place in your mouth to avoid the dirty aftertaste of making a fool of yourself.

If you had something useful to say about directX and how it was being improved and how it adapts to later technology, I have no doubt that many people would have found it interesting and useful and this is actually where the punch line is, having something intersting and useful to say.

Trying to scale a PC based software system out of its range was neither interesting or useful, it was just plain bullsh*t that a very large number of people understood.

As always, I am pleased to see that you may have had PHUN.
http://www.asmcommunity.net/board/cryptmail.php?tauntspiders=in.your.face@nomail.for.you&id=2f46ed9f24413347f14439b64bdc03fd
Posted on 2003-12-04 21:19:12 by hutch--
Rickey,

Thanks for the Inquirer article, its an interesting comment on the path of directX from its origin onwards.

Sounds like the normal stuff as far as graphics cards go, wait as long as you can if your current one does the job and when you buy another box or upgrade the existing one, buy the current taiwanese terror for peanuts and it will perform better than the last one.

When video cards are more or less up to scratch for forseeable requirements, they will become trivial and cheap.

Regards,
http://www.asmcommunity.net/board/cryptmail.php?tauntspiders=in.your.face@nomail.for.you&id=2f46ed9f24413347f14439b64bdc03fd
Posted on 2003-12-04 23:10:14 by hutch--
If you had something useful to say about directX and how it was being improved and how it adapts to later technology, I have no doubt that many people would have found it interesting and useful and this is actually where the punch line is, having something intersting and useful to say.


Now this is cute, coming from someone who has not made a single sensible technical argument about his points yet.
Re-read the thread, and you will see that f0dder and I have indeed said many useful things about DirectX. Unless it all went over your head ofcourse. But that's not our problem, really. From the reactions of other people, it is clear that they understand it.

Trying to scale a PC based software system out of its range was neither interesting or useful, it was just plain bullsh*t that a very large number of people understood.


How exactly is this different from scaling late 80s software for simple workstations to 21st century super-visualization systems?

bitRAKE: I see no info anywhere that addresses the issues that hutch-- mentioned. Such as how it would be impossible to implement on non-x86, or on non-Windows, or how it has technical limitations that OpenGL doesn't.
Posted on 2003-12-05 04:29:43 by Bruce-li

bitRAKE: I see no info anywhere that addresses the issues that hutch-- mentioned. Such as how it would be impossible to implement on non-x86, or on non-Windows, or how it has technical limitations that OpenGL doesn't.
I'm sorry, but can you quote where I said I was responding to those questions?
Posted on 2003-12-05 08:38:05 by bitRAKE
Damn,

You must have trod in something there boy. Now didn't I warn you about sticking a dirty foot back in your mouth ?

Now if you cannot prevent youself from treading in doggy poo of your own making, at least wash you foot before you put it back in your mouth.

Muhahahaha

http://www.asmcommunity.net/board/cryptmail.php?tauntspiders=in.your.face@nomail.for.you&id=2f46ed9f24413347f14439b64bdc03fd
Posted on 2003-12-05 08:38:19 by hutch--
I'm sorry, but can you quote where I said I was responding to those questions?


I'm sorry, but can you quote where I said I took your post as a response to those questions?
I merely noted that it didn't address any of the issues that hutch-- implied... so as far as I can see, these issues are still vapour, despite hutch--'s smug post that tried to imply that this information supported his view.
Apparently he also missed the part where I said that most GPUs are not designed in Taiwan. XGI is the only one, and it's not even on the market yet.
So his "Taiwanese terror" nonsense gets rather tiring aswell.

He could at least stop posting when he has nothing factual to offer.
He is just insulting the intelligence of the board members now, by constantly restating the same nonsense that has been proven wrong a number of times already.
What does he hope to achieve anyway? Does he want to annoy everyone to death?
Perhaps it's time to just close this thread? Because hutch-- obviously isn't dealing with a full deck.
Posted on 2003-12-05 08:52:11 by Bruce-li
And doggy poo to you too. :tongue:

Rickey,

Don't waste your air on him, a troll is a troll is a troll.

Regards,

http://www.asmcommunity.net/board/cryptmail.php?tauntspiders=in.your.face@nomail.for.you&id=2f46ed9f24413347f14439b64bdc03fd
Posted on 2003-12-05 08:59:38 by hutch--
Troll: An individual who chronically trolls in sense 1; regularly posts specious arguments, flames or personal attacks to a newsgroup, discussion list, or in email for no other purpose than to annoy someone or disrupt a discussion. Trolls are recognizable by the fact that they have no real interest in learning about the topic at hand - they simply want to utter flame bait. Like the ugly creatures they are named after, they exhibit no redeeming characteristics, and as such, they are recognized as a lower form of life on the net, as in, ?Oh, ignore him, he's just a troll.?

(from http://jargon.watson-net.com/jargon.asp?w=troll)

It is painfully obvious that f0dder and I have had a lot more interest in discussing the topic at hand than annoying other people than hutch--... So if anyone should be called a troll, it should be hutch--. Then again, calling names is so childish, is it not? Especially when you still have to argue your statements.

By the way, here's some information on the hardware that SGI produced over the years: http://sgistuff.g-lenerz.de/timeline.html

As you can see, the hardware SGI had available at the time that OpenGL was developed (1989-1992), was some orders less than the PCs that DirectX 9 was developed for.
Therefore OpenGL doesn't suit larger hardware as well as DirectX 9 does.
Posted on 2003-12-05 09:09:21 by Bruce-li

I'm sorry, but can you quote where I said I took your post as a response to those questions?
Mine was a rhetorical question and yours could be, too. It is nice to see we can make many assumptions and then present arguements that help outline our assumtions. Unfortunately, some people don't back track enough to stay on the topic (oh, I'm not speaking of you Bruce - we know how hard you stay on topic), or recognize their own assumptions.

Hutch--, one of these days I am going to spend my holiday on your side on the globe and get a tan for xmas. :grin:
Posted on 2003-12-05 10:10:11 by bitRAKE
a little off-topic, but I would like to comment the way hutch talks about the x86-pcs-win-dx thing, it seems obvious that he profoundlly despises it, why , i have no idea, but thats how it is , and it seems gamers-, kiddies-, and taiwan-related too.

apart from the fact that saying "such a box could never compete with supercompus, and this is because this box uses x86, pc, win and dx" is rather ... strange, its the way you now look down at these machines, and these gamers (kiddies?) , as if their powerlessness (?) was a reason to hate them, that annoys me.

is it because in your mind they dont know anything about how things work?
there was a time my little self didnt know anything about computers, but was able to see what one could do with them, and was amazed. And guess what, i wasnt amazed by spreadsheets or programming languages, I was amazed by the so amazingly beautifullness of three dimensional worlds.

THIS is the thing that has led me to programming things. Today i m a student in computer science, and at least i know how a computer works, that might seem nothing to you, but if think back to the days i knew nothing, i m extremly happy of knowing how things work, nevertheless at that time I couldnt know whether or not one day i would understand it all. So maybe nobody sees why I say all this, but i feel that your words are insulting kids that play games on win pcs with dx 3dcards, and me too, coz i also still am just a kid playing games on a win pc with dx 3dcard, and that you do it just because of the hardware and software they use.

by the way, there surely was a day when you hutch, too, had no knowledge of computers.
i suppose you began programming on a sgi box when you were 6?
Posted on 2003-12-05 10:54:50 by HeLLoWorld
quote:[

Hutch--, one of these days I am going to spend my holiday on your side on the globe and get a tan for xmas.

]
/quote

whats a tan??
Posted on 2003-12-05 10:56:18 by HeLLoWorld

whats a tan??
Darkening of the skin in the warm sun.

The only one I hate is myself. I love all others for pulling me away from myself. :grin:
Posted on 2003-12-05 11:16:30 by bitRAKE
I was amazed by the so amazingly beautifullness of three dimensional worlds.


When I had my first computer, 3d graphics weren't possible on regular PCs yet :)
Most of it still had to be invented :)
This was around 1981 I think.
I got a ZX81.
Later I got a C64 (1985ish), which could do colour graphics(!) and music(!!!).
It wasn't 3d yet, and no virtual reality, but graphics and sound always interested me (music is also one of my hobbies anyway).
In a way I saw it all being developed right in front of my nose. And it still hasn't stopped yet, quite amazing :)
The Commodore Amiga (introduced in 1985) was perhaps the most important development here.
It was a very powerful, and affordable home computer.
It made simple realtime interactive 3d graphics possible.
And more importantly: virtually anyone could afford it.
Previously only 'the elite' could really do 3d graphics, because they had access to powerful machines at universities and such.
But now every smart and creative young individual could toy around with graphics.
This led to the demoscene, where young coders, graphicians and musicians made presentations of their skills, and pushed the hardware ever further. See http://www.pouet.net for a large database of demos.

And games also became 3d, and things started getting more serious.
Around 1994, the original Amiga was running out of steam, and the Amiga 1200 (1993) was not enough to keep it going... The 486 with localbus SVGA had arrived, and people were moving to PCs.

On the PC we now had games like Wolfenstein 3D, and Doom. And things started getting ever more realistic...
Then 3d accelerators arrived, giving another boost to realism.
And we are now at a point where a lot of graphics innovations are actually done in the game sector, not just those few 'elite' on their powerful computers.
John Carmack is a good example of this, I think. He has worked with NVIDIA on a fast and robust way for realtime stencilshadows, and NVIDIA has published many papers on the subject.
There are also many other technologies to be found on the sites of NVIDIA and ATi.
The funny thing is, the shadowvolumes idea has been known since the 70s, but it took until now to actually have the hardware powerful enough to apply them in realtime, and solve the remaining problems that the technique had, and they were partly solved by John Carmack, who is 'just a PC game kiddie'.

And the more realistic games become, the more maths and physics they employ... So today's game developers are quite clever mathematicians aswell. I guess games are also some of the most 'versatile' programs around. They combine many aspects of programming, and they require many different problems to be solved (linear algebra, physics, acoustics, and what more).
Personally I think games may be one of the most 'complete' areas of programming, and I think they will only become more complete, as games are basically trying to build entire virtual, completely functional worlds.

So yes, I totally agree with you that the game industry is not just 'kiddie' stuff, and the people working there are doing a good job, and deserve some credit.
I don't mind kids playing games either, they make it possible after all... They demand ever greater, grander games :)
Posted on 2003-12-05 12:08:48 by Bruce-li
haha, maybe i shouldnt have felt insulted, but anyway bruce you said what i wanted to saiy better than me:)

its the despising of this technology and the people using it that disturbed me, well i think scientists designing mainframes and supercompus are no different from scientists designing mainstream hw, and if i am ever to produce something useful for graphic engineering(which is not very likely but one never knows) , it will be because such machines were available to me at a time, and because i could fool around with them at this time. So supercompus creators likely one day probably WERE kiddies that got their passion from low end system, and of course when i said gamers i also meant demomakers and people that learn how these hardware works, to get the most out of it, and THESE are the people that one day will invent new things.

Of course, people that only have been studying math without implementing algos ALSO discover things that are useful to bare-to-the-metal coders, and so do people that only sudied physics... the best thing being to be a genius in all topics :) , but thats hard... Yes indeed, my friend, thats why 3d engines, and more generally games, are truly interesting programs as they gather so much knowledge together in a wonderful, WORKING ,SEEABLE way... you could say the same of a car, a space shuttle or a fridge, or a screwdriver (well, okay, maybe not a screwdriver :grin: but thats a matter of taste... my taste goes to computers :)




Around 1994, the original Amiga was running out of steam, and the Amiga 1200 (1993) was not enough to keep it going... The 486 with localbus SVGA had arrived, and people were moving to PCs.



are/were you part of a demo group?
Posted on 2003-12-05 12:33:14 by HeLLoWorld
WOOOHOOO! my first successful quote!!!

:grin: :grin: :grin:

(to "distend the atmosphere" as we say in my language :) , and to increase my post count :) )
Posted on 2003-12-05 12:35:34 by HeLLoWorld

Darkening of the skin in the warm sun.

a tan
A tan is that which you get
when you under the sun lay
a few days in till the sun set
so happy you get, but hey!
a sunburn is what you get
if your sunpaste you forget

or (not so pseudo-poetic = ^ )
tan, trignometric function, tan v = a/b :tongue:
Posted on 2003-12-05 14:29:48 by scientica

Later I got a C64 (1985ish), which could do colour graphics(!) and music(!!!).
It wasn't 3d yet...


It was capable of 3d graphics, although obviously it didn't have specific acceleration.

Games like "elite" for the BBC micro (model B and above, and later ported to virtually every "home" machine since) offered wire-frame objects (and in later versions flat shaded polys). The game itself was written on the BBC micro by Ian Braben and David Bell, and the source code for it is still floating around (which interestingly comes as about 6 files, because the 32k RAM on the BBC couldn't hold the entire source). The disk version of the game (with the military laser) apparently filled 30.5k of the RAM, with 1k reserved for the BBC BASIC interpreter, just 512 bytes of free RAM!

Of course the game is an exception rather than the general case, but as a case in point it shows that 3D has been in the home for years. It also shows that when faced with limited resources, people (like Braben, and later Carmack) can really do some quite stunning things.

The interesting thing about current graphics is that for the first time ever, gaming demands have brought about changes in the "professional" arena. The hardware rendering options are purely available because of the DX shaders. When PCI Express hits the shelves it will in theory at least be possible to pack 5 or 6 $400 cards in one box and have them as the render farm, rather than the processors.

Mirno
Posted on 2003-12-05 14:54:55 by Mirno
It was capable of 3d graphics, although obviously it didn't have specific acceleration.


Everything with a raster or vector display is capable of 3d ofcourse. But it was too slow to really do anything realtime, that's what I meant, sorry I wasn't clear. Amiga didn't really have 3d acceleration either, although the blitter could accelerate linedrawing or polyfilling, which helped a great deal (it basically took a 486-33 with a localbus VGA card to beat a standard 68000 7 MHz Amiga when it came to rendering polys. On the other hand, since the 486 already did software rendering anyway, texture mapping was a relatively cheap improvement to the renderer. The blitter could not perform texturemapping at all... and because of the Amiga's planar display, it was very inefficient to implement it in software. When Amigas became powerful enough though, an internal 'chunky' buffer was used as a rendertarget, and after the frame was rendered, it was converted to planar and put on screen. And at that time, Amiga made a strong comeback with fake phong, bumpmapping, reflectionmapping and the lot :)).
Also, the technology wasn't fully developed yet. After the Amiga was introduced, people started to mimic the Amiga-effects on C64, in low res.
I do remember an early wireframe game on C64... Gunship. But it was about 1 fps or so, and really ugly :)

It also shows that when faced with limited resources, people (like Braben, and later Carmack) can really do some quite stunning things.


Yes, I think there is a difference between the 'theoretical people' that used to work on computer graphics with large computers, and the people that used a PC. I think the PC people are more creative with limited resources, and this results in more efficient rendering strategies, which can be translated back to faster systems.

When PCI Express hits the shelves it will in theory at least be possible to pack 5 or 6 0 cards in one box and have them as the render farm, rather than the processors.


In that light, I would like to mention http://www.gpgpu.org.
There are some articles there about doing 'general purpose' processing with graphics accelerators. The results can be stunning.
Posted on 2003-12-05 16:12:12 by Bruce-li
Oh, I just spotted this article: http://www.beyond3d.com/articles/directxnext/
Since a while ago, someone mentioned DirectX 10 and OpenGL 2.0, it may be interesting to see what exactly will be in DirectX 10, which is affectionately codenamed Next.

I must say, after reading through it quickly once, I am already quite excited about the future... This is going to be a major change in hardware accelerated rendering. I especially like the idea of making pixelshaders as powerful as vertexshaders, and then just re-using the same functional units, clever trick that.
Posted on 2003-12-05 17:24:10 by Bruce-li