Discussion: Usage of D3DX in 4k intros

category: general [glöplog]

Gargaj: Guess so. At least the BP compo team regards the issue as solved, as d3dx is now allowed in the compos.

How come ?
What make you think the latest directx redistribution files (dec 05) will be shipped in standard with windows ?
Last time i've heard from ms they had no such plans.

These files are available for developpers to include with their software distributions, but maybe you have more up todate informations regarding this matter ?
added on the 2006-01-10 15:43:44 by hitchhikr hitchhikr
hitch: because the organizing team (as far as i know) considers the latest released directx redistributable installer as the de facto standard - which is the same you will install if you would install a game or if you would need directx in general. an out-of-the-box windows would only support dx8.1 afaik (unless you count sp2).
added on the 2006-01-10 17:30:23 by Gargaj Gargaj
Something smells fishy.
added on the 2006-01-10 18:05:57 by hitchhikr hitchhikr
on the c64, we do use the kernel/basic rom as well for 4ks, so using standard dll's contained on vanilla os's is ok. just my 5 euro cents.
added on the 2006-01-10 18:15:54 by Krill Krill
hitchhikr, and afaik dx will be included in windows vista, and if they're sane, they'll update that too via windows update.
it is teh futare.
added on the 2006-01-10 18:17:12 by kelsey kelsey
hitchhikr: It's quite simple logic actually. The current DirectX *end user* (not just the redist) runtime includes the d3dx DLLs. Which means that in the near future everybody using his PC for more than office work will have them on his machine.

Dunno what's fishy about that.
added on the 2006-01-10 18:58:41 by scamp scamp
Sorry, of course I meant "end-user runtime" not redist.
added on the 2006-01-10 19:19:11 by Gargaj Gargaj
"This download provides the DirectX end-user redistributable that developers can include with their product."

Well, the whole story is funny, first it is said it'll be included then it is said it won't, and now it is said it will :D

In june, i asked about this dll issue on a ms newsgroup, a bub from the gaming & gfx department answered me that microsoft had no plans about including this dll directly into windows but only to provide the necessary files with appropriate installing stuff for developpers & distributors wishing to ship these files together with their games.

Today, i asked a confirmation or cancellation of this, let's wait & see.
added on the 2006-01-10 19:35:35 by hitchhikr hitchhikr
Well the above link installed me all D3DX .dll's from _24 to _28(?) so who am I to complain? :)
added on the 2006-01-10 19:37:57 by Gargaj Gargaj
hitchhikr: yes, it came as a surprise to us, too. Actually we were made aware of it shortly before we were about to publish the compo ruleset forbidding d3dx...

Btw, the DLLs also are included in the real-enduser-enduser-enduser-ENDUSER-not-redist- web installer ;)
added on the 2006-01-10 20:23:35 by scamp scamp

The D3DX DLL is not part of the 'OS components' that make up DirectX, it is
an optional component like XINPUT API, XACT's engine, the managed
assemblies, etc. Therefore, you cannot assume the correct D3DX DLL for your
application already exists on the machine. If you are distributing with
media, use the DirectX SDK "REDIST" and configure it for your target and
application needs (see the DirectX Documentation for C++ topic "Installing
DirectX with DirectSetup").

If you are dealing with an extremely size sensitive distribution, you can
point your users to the "DirectX End-User Runtime (December 2005) Web
Installer" on the Microsoft website, which will install every possible
optional component up through December 2005 along with making sure the OS
runtime is DirectX 9.0c or greater.

-- Chuck Walbourn SDE, Windows Gaming & Graphics

Clear enough ?
added on the 2006-01-10 21:39:50 by hitchhikr hitchhikr
d3dx is the 9:11 of the scene
d3dx is the 9:11 of the scene

added on the 2006-01-10 22:39:50 by blackpawn blackpawn
so now scene will declare a war on... microsoft, whenever it may lurk?
added on the 2006-01-10 23:03:33 by NeARAZ NeARAZ
I don't see anything wrong with D3DX. You have entire system already there, with direct3d, opengl, glu, msvcrt and everything you can find in system DLLs. OSes evolve and 4k demos should do the same. What is allowed in compos and what isn't will always be decided by organizers, but when D3DX is allowed it just gives everybody more opportunities to be creative.

Someone could argue that, for example, allowing .NET framework in 4k compo would be silly (I prefer unmanaged coding, too), but if somebody made a 4k compo with .NET allowed and if all entrants were aware of it, I'd really like to see what they were able to come with.
added on the 2006-01-11 04:06:04 by KK KK
You cannot compare .NET to a non standardized (but sometimes distributed) DLL. .NET is a platform, let it be that, you wouldnt really claim that "Amiga demos needs external software to run" (on your pc), would you?

Problem is what defines the standards of a platform, we have already left the "Windows core installation" and replaced it with "Windows core installation + latest DirectX", now the problem is to define what "latest DirectX" we are talking about, imo it would soon be easier to list "The standard of 4k DLL's" or something, where we could simply put up DLL's that we feel needed (Windows core DLLs, DirectX dlls with generations back).
added on the 2006-01-11 05:27:02 by Hatikvah Hatikvah
Agreed. The problem is, that general agreement needed to create such list is most probably impossible to reach.
added on the 2006-01-11 06:08:02 by KK KK
Agreed. The problem is, that general agreement needed to create such list is most probably impossible to reach.

I think it would be possible if it where assembled on scene.org or here on pouet in a somewhat more democratic way then usually. Like, letting people vote away a dll or in. After all, we arent really speaking about millions of dlls, as the core ones etc shouldnt be voteable, just listed so its easy to check that a windows installation isnt "bloated" etc.
added on the 2006-01-11 06:33:54 by Hatikvah Hatikvah
now the problem is to define what "latest DirectX" we are talking about

The latest DirectX is the one that http://www.microsoft.com/windows/directx/ labels as "latest DirectX" (which is currently the 2005 December installer) - I think that's a solid basis for a consensus.
added on the 2006-01-11 16:40:22 by Gargaj Gargaj
latest DirectX SDK then? And what if we got splitted DirectX downloads ? Iam not saying THAT is a problem now, or ever will be. But having a list of what is accepted and not also helps to check if a sizelimitedprod is breaking the rules, by just running it thro a debugger.
added on the 2006-01-11 16:45:31 by Hatikvah Hatikvah
If the bloody dll isn't part of a freshly installed windows it's out of the game, all simply.

If you're allowing this dll there's no reasons to forbid SDL which is even more a standard than d3dx and can be downloaded by "end users" too.

I guess assembly organizers won't allow it since it's not a standard dll (see my previous post).
So we'll have breakpoint's 4k intros in one hand and in the other hand intros from other parties ?
If that's the case you can't decently classify them in the same category, what about: "4k intro using external dlls" & "4k intro" ? :D

Looks to me that you want to use that dll a little bit too much, or at least enough to be willing to bend the rules or what ?

Gargaj: direct's size is 3 times bigger than this 46 megs file and the version shipped together with windows is located here

I would like to see it included within the system too, that would save me a lot of time (and bytes) but if it's not, it's not.
If you start to allow that kind of stuff as standard there'll be no end to it,
& you can discard the whole size limited competitions right away as they'll become meaningless (not that they have much meaning nowadays anyway).
added on the 2006-01-11 17:40:39 by hitchhikr hitchhikr
surely a base xp install, plus whatever comes through windows update in the way of DX, plus most recent drivers etc. would be a sane standard? Including SDKs, additional stuff like d3dx, java, etc makes it pretty non-standard to me.
added on the 2006-01-11 18:00:25 by psonice psonice
can i use simons basic in my C64 4k intro? :)
added on the 2006-01-11 18:06:10 by xeron xeron
that depends :) (mainly on yourself...)
added on the 2006-01-11 18:11:17 by havoc havoc
Hitch: No out-of-the-box Windows installed DirectX 9.0 (let alone DX9.0c) either until the versions that came together with SP2. It's like Plastic demanding recent drivers because of FBO's.

The generic Breakpoint policy, as far as I understood, is that the compo machine has to be up-to-date concerning software, meaning DirectX and Catalyst/Detonator. If that means they'll install the latest End-User Runtime of DX with D3DX, then they'll do that.

As I think I'm not the most competent one to raise points in this debate... RYYYYYYYYYYYYG!!!!!
added on the 2006-01-11 18:29:06 by Gargaj Gargaj