pouët.net

I now speak as a normal user (I'm not a programmer) of the open source project XBMC. The install really has a very low amount of included visualizations, and I don't think there exist any cool visualizations at all for XBMC.

This really.. Well.. Sucks. The included visualizations are very basic and looks like they were programmed for 486 Pentium, making the cpus really just sit and yawn of the low pressure.

It would be awesome if somebody from the demoscene contributed to this project ;>>> I also suspect there are a lot of you guys already using XBMC.





Here are some links for visualization:

• Visualization and Screensaver Dev forum:
  
http://forum.xbmc.org/forumdisplay.php?f=38


• Vortex scripting:
  
http://forum.xbmc.org/showthread.php?t=22365


• Xbmc Visualizations Wiki:
  
http://wiki.xbmc.org/?title=Visualizations

If you have any questions, you might find help at #xbmc at irc.freenode.org

Peace out <;)

XMBC uses DirectX in windows, OpenGL on Linux.. These are not compatible.

This shuns me at least, can't say for others, but as it stands right now I don't know of any visualization project which supports both GL/DX, huge huge amount of work to get that rolling.

AFAIK I can only think of big commercial game engines supporting both.

Okay.

Well how about focusing on the Windows release, as this seem to be the entrance for a lot of the youth out there? The Linux version has some features that the Windows version don't, so maybe it's about time that the Windows release get some features that the Linux doesn't.

hehe. my code is OpenGL. and not changing.

Maybe it's time for some people install Linux? I have an XBMC box running Ubuntu here with AMD CPU + Nvidia GPU. Near-perfect solution, with 1080p, streaming and WoL + remote control from my Android phone.

Ah, and I use projectM for visualization in XBMC which I find quite nice.

[rant]Imo DX can die a horrible death, maybe then OpenGL drivers would finally get some love...[/rant]

yea, buying a windows license for a HTPC seems like a waste of money ;)
windows is only absolutely _needed_ for games (steam) and MS Office anyway. got any stats on how many XBMC users there are on windows vs. linux?

Nope. :)
Also, if someone does end up doing this, go OpenGL so that I can use it on OSX.
I'm sure they exist, but looking at the overall market share of those platforms is sure to be an indicator.

I just wanted to state that for a separate machine (HTPC) it might make sense. I installed Ubuntu because it was free and XBMC was/is working on it equally well/better than on Windows...

Didn't find any.

I'm don't know. People who build/install their own HTPCs are also more "technophile" and those people tend to prefer "something else than Windows"...

raer: very speculative but feel free to back up with facts :) The very technically people I know all use Windows or OSX.

I was in the process of porting over my OpenGL music visualizer/screensaver a while back and I was about half way though but then they changed to DirectX9 so I put the project on ice. If they change to DirectX10 I might take a stab at it again. But I don't see that they will do that anytime soon and I don't see any reason for them to do it either for what they actually use DirectX for.

If you stick to OpenGL ES 2.0, maybe you could use http://code.google.com/p/angleproject/ to supply Windows compatibility.

Isn't 99% of all the built-in visualizers crap anyway, XBMC should compare well with the industry average!

WHY?!
Go for OpenGL and cross platform dev?!

Where is the problem with OpenGL compatibility on Windows? Just use proper drivers and give it a go - it's not thaaaat bad.
You don't want to run very GPU intense visualizations on GPUs without "proper" drivers anyways.

It was originally developed for the xbox.

Not on AMD...

las - what do you mean by "proper" drivers, if you don't mind me asking? What are non-proper drivers? With WHQL-drivers being b0rked regularly and in multiple ways, it's not easy to identify which ones work. Guess this helps a bit: http://www.g-truc.net/post-0445.html

That being said, gl-drivers are quite good on AMD these days, so I do think it would make sense to stick to one api. Then again, wrapping dx/gl is not that big a deal either.

@las: It was because they wanted to use DXVA. Another reason might be the state of OpenGL drivers. The same reason WebGL uses angle. Also from my own usage stats I can see that almost 20% of all users of my visualizer (so not gamers) doesn't even have OpenGL 2.1 but I wouldn't be surprised if they had DirectX 9. It's tragic for sure. You really dont want to try to explain to a non technical user that they need to download new drivers when they can't even tell you who made their machine. It just needs to work.

@linde: Correct but for the PC version they did a OpenGL port first so they could use it on both Linux and Windows. Then they converted the OpenGL to DirectX for windows.