d3dx implementation senseless?
marcus at jet.franken.de
Fri Jan 4 07:12:33 CST 2008
On Fri, Jan 04, 2008 at 01:46:22PM +0100, tony.wasserka at freenet.de wrote:
> I enjoyed the current wine development of the D3DX libraries and also tried to implement an interface.
> However, while testing it I noticed that Wine seems to fully support everything when it has a native
> d3dx9.dll (though it even was able to run one of my games without any dll...). So I was asking myself
> if there's even a reason to implement anything other than the inlined functions of D3DX, when we only
> lose performance and development time with it. Also, what would we do at functions like
> D3DXCreateTextureFromFile which supports 9 file formats? Would we implement e.g. a BMP file
> loader ourselves or would we use a 3rd party library for that? Are there any patents regarding the
> DX specific file formats (.x/.dds)? Don't misunderstand me, I'd also like to help out at D3DX, but I
> really think we'd be better off by removing everything of D3DX but the inlined stuff.
> Best regards,
> Tony Wasserka
Well, does the d3dx* DLL license permit redistribution and use with
I pretty much doubt so.
So this alone would be a reason to implement them.
More information about the wine-devel