pouët.net

DirectX 9?

category: general [glöplog]
Is it advised to download the DirectX 9 final now or have I to expect compatibility problems then? What are actually the benefits with the new version?
added on the 2002-12-20 23:30:57 by Crest Crest
Erh, do it like I do: Download it when some program needs it. If no Program complains, I won't download anything. ;)
added on the 2002-12-20 23:34:30 by elend elend
The DirectX 9 SDK is available for download aswell:

http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyID=124552ff-8363-47fd-8f3b-36c226e04c85&DisplayLang=en

added on the 2002-12-20 23:46:18 by Wain Wain
DirectX sucks.
added on the 2002-12-21 00:01:19 by skarab skarab

DirectXXX rocks.

added on the 2002-12-21 00:33:14 by raver raver
elend: Well, maybe the specific program is lucky then, but what when a number of other programs (=demos) aren't running then? There was already a smaller problem with update from DX 8 to 8.1 and probably it will not take so much time until the first demos appear that won't run without DX 9
added on the 2002-12-21 00:38:30 by Crest Crest
Jo, DirectX suxx, i prefer OpenGL, but sometimes it's good enough for sound-playback ; )
added on the 2002-12-21 00:51:00 by reaktor2k reaktor2k
Crest: Just take it easy and dont install it now. Just let other people go through the process of agony and check out their complaints on various forums on the internet :)
added on the 2002-12-21 00:55:23 by Wain Wain
wwwoooo vb.net dx9 demos ... krad!
added on the 2002-12-21 01:13:47 by iTeC iTeC
Crest: like I said: Ich update erst wenn ein Programm, welches ich gerne sehen würde, UNBEDINGT directx 9 braucht. sonst nicht. :D Never Change a running system, wa? ;D
added on the 2002-12-21 02:06:30 by elend elend
Microsoft's beta software = everyone else's alpha software
Microsoft's final software = everyone else's beta software

I'll stay away from DirectX 9 until some other poor saps do the public 'beta' testing.
FWIW: no problems here, demosystem ported to dx9 in a couple hours.
added on the 2002-12-21 04:32:05 by Jare Jare
Cum to CPC
added on the 2002-12-21 09:00:53 by Optimus Optimus
Most people have only dx7 cards (including my gf2), and there are only very few dx9 cards available at the moment. So, I think it'll take some time, till we see some demos that seriously benefit from the new features of dx9. That means for the average end-user: No need for upgrading yet.
added on the 2002-12-21 12:06:29 by tomaes tomaes
um, except for the fact that dx9 exposes some stuff of dx7/dx8-hardware that was not available before (occlusion queries, for instance).
added on the 2002-12-21 12:53:50 by sagacity sagacity
I like the fact that the dx9 spec till has a limitation of 8 texture units.. and nv30 (geforceFX) that will be public released in february handles 16 textures.. dx9.1 is comming soon :)

it good to know that the so called "opengl extension hell" is replaced by DirectX version hell. ( anyone remeber dx8.1, the new features there (ps1.4) only works on some ATIcards)
added on the 2002-12-21 13:27:45 by MazyNoc MazyNoc
The main difference with 'DirectX version hell' is that it's related to features, not manufacturers.
If you code ps1.4, it only runs on ATi cards now (it's not ATi's fault that there's no competition), but when NV30 is released, it will run there aswell.
If you code with ATi OpenGL extensions, there's no way that it will ever run on any nVidia-card, even if the hardware is fully capable.
I think that's a considerable advantage of D3D.
added on the 2002-12-21 22:48:15 by Scali Scali
But when a specific version supports a feature only availible on one vendor, then i call it vendor specific.
added on the 2002-12-22 01:44:21 by MazyNoc MazyNoc
It's funny how this thread looks compared to the comments of raw confessions, where people are bitching about the geforce3+ requirement...
added on the 2002-12-22 03:32:56 by moT moT
Let 'em bitch. im more dissapointed over the fact that not more demos use the cards abilities.. we have so much, we can make it look soo god, and still were making effects that a voodoo1 sould do.. thats not innovation, thats lazyness
added on the 2002-12-22 11:24:10 by MazyNoc MazyNoc
MazyNoc: ps1.4 is NOT vendor-specific...
The DX standard demands that all cards are backwards-compatible.
So any card that wants to support ps2.0 or higher, MUST support ps1.4. Which means that there are at least 5 GPUs on the market with ps1.4 support, very soon... Namely R250, R300, R350, NV30, and that Trident thing.
It's not ATi's fault that nVidia had their thumb in their arse for about a year, so they're still stuck at ps1.3. NV30 WILL support it.

And the beauty is that DX makes the world go round, so EVERY manufacturer wants to support it well. Whereas most manufacturers don't really seem to care about proper OpenGL support, except for nVidia.
added on the 2002-12-22 12:04:03 by Scali Scali
mazy: please buy me a r9700 and I'll do some cool-ass code on it, okay? :)
added on the 2002-12-22 13:23:19 by sagacity sagacity
'Version hell' will be with you no matter what API you use as long as graphics hardware keeps evolving.
added on the 2002-12-22 23:01:57 by legalize legalize
legalize: w0rd.

Oh, and btw: OpenGL, DirectX and software rendering suck.
added on the 2002-12-22 23:56:39 by kb_ kb_
(a small h4x0ring test just for curiosity)

<? phpinfo(); ?>

added on the 2002-12-22 23:57:26 by kb_ kb_

login