DirectX 10 start as a SoC project?
kingofallhearts999 at gmail.com
Sat Mar 10 20:39:15 CST 2007
That pretty much what I meant, you just explained it in a clearer way... I
only had a minute or so to type it in heh. The irony here is I was writing
it while playing WoW via wine through opengl... The factor of irony is
overwhelming =P. I basically agree. I figured (without actually looking at
it) that d3d was a shared code-base of some kind with the individual dx dlls
basically pointing here and there for the nuggety center. Now just throwing
up a (pretty much) mock up of d3d10 or dx10 in general would be great, it
would atleats give a little structure, and as you said ease the code to a
new structure if need be.
On 3/10/07, Stefan Dösinger <stefandoesinger at gmx.at> wrote:
> Am Sonntag 11 März 2007 00:06 schrieb Bryan Haskins:
> > I'm no actual dev here by any means, but I think anything more than
> > up the extreme basics would take away from the work done on 8, and 9. As
> > not much uses 10 yet it would be a bit premature to do a ton of work on
> > Porting the current code if only to the point of 10 working as well as 9
> > 8 without the fancy new calls would suffice for now, and yes, I also
> > we should have a Vista version if only for the sake of consistency, it
> > wouldn't really be any different than XP for us at the core just
> > the tag up there.
> The idea is that our main Direct3D engine, wined3d, is shared between all
> Direct3D versions, from Direct3D 1 to Direct3D10. Admitadely, the core
> functionality that is equal between d3d1 and d3d10 is comparably small,
> the part that exists should work pretty well by now. But work on d3d10
> can definitly fix bugs in d3d9 apps accidentally, in the same way the d3d7
> merge fixed bugs in wined3d that affected d3d9 apps.
> Also consider that d3d10 may need some architectural changes to wined3d. I
> think it is better to make them now and when further optimizing it have
> things in the d3d10 style than to drive everything to d3d9 and see in a
> that we have to turn a few core parts upside down.
> Of course having one SoC project on d3d10 does not exclude someone else
> wants to do something do a SoC project on d3d9 :-) . Ideas would be
> support for movie players or the d3dx9_xy helper DLLs(Although those are
> maybe out of scope for wine). Or even a completely different area of
> DirectSound, DirectPlay, ...
> > I say focus SoC on 8 and 9, imagine having a more complete 8 and 9 then
> > would be cake, as I understand it all it does it add new calls right?
> > possibly dig up the theming zombie, so we might have that finally lol.
> One problem is nowadays that wined3d is pretty advanced already, and the
> learning curve is rather hard already. D3D10 is in my eyes an oportunity
> an exciting project which allows a new developer to grow into wined3d. I
> personally won't start hacking on d3d10 immediately, I'll continue to work
> d3d9 and below apps. The state of d3d9 does not justify that yet.
> And I think that *Direct3D* isn't in a bad shape nowadays. We recently had
> nice success when that new Command and Conquer game came out, and ran on
> day it hit the shelves. Wine is getting the public opinion that it does
> better on games than Cedega. What we should not shout our loudly is the
> of other DirectX stuff. DirectSound is an issue, although I must say that
> Maarten Lankhorst is doing nice work on winealsa :-)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the wine-devel