Some thoughts on 4k competition rules
category: code [glöplog]
msqrt: Probably all the user needs is the web DX runtime installer. Extra benefit is that it changes user perspective from "this 4k needs a ton of DLLs" to "my system is outdated so I can't run hi-end stuff".
people still use XP? my god. btw, the dinosaurs extincted!
Quote:
Rejecting D3D for intros just because of some DLL-butthurt seems silly to me. Just install the needed runtimes and be done with it. Or if you don't want to do that, watch the YouTube version.
It was around the time when intros started requiring a new DX runtime to be installed that I started watching the youtube version first, because it was almost always a complete pain to get stuff running. It was also the time when I started mailing people the youtube link instead of the .exe because the chances of the exe actually working got really low.
I'd say sticking with the runtime downloads is maybe a win for coders, but a serious lose for the scene because you're pushing people to watch the video - which might be cool, but is nothing like as cool as seeing the same thing delivered in 4k.
Quote:
OS X happily runs any binary you'll throw it. You mean Win8 won't? :O
OS X will run anything, so will win 8 Pro. iOS is another story though - and so is Win 8 RT. They're following apple's closed model.
Quote:
psonice: As far as I understand, going through Windows Store will be required only for mobile/tablet devices.
This is where I worry though. First because the world is going mobile - if in 2-3 years all your friends are using tablets with win 8 RT they can't run any demos. Also, I'm pretty concerned that this is 'foot in the door' time for MS, and Win 9 will follow the RT model even on the desktop.
Apple have been going that way too - iOS is obviously closed, but OS X is "semi" closed by default now too. It can be set to only allow app store software to run, or to only allow 'signed' software (not such a bad thing, the dev certs are free to obtain and trojans etc. are less likely if you can trace the source...) or it can be left totally open.
By default I think it's now set to allow signed software or app store downloads, but what happens in 10.9 next year?
las: please don't turn a factual discussion into your personal dx-hatred rant ;)
I for once would really love to see and use a minimalistic dx11 rwwtt framework.
I for once would really love to see and use a minimalistic dx11 rwwtt framework.
Maybe we should think about a compromise for a current phase of transition - at least showing all imported DLLs on the beamslides + in the voting system shouldn't be that much of a hassle and would allow the voters to also judge for "compatibility" in whatever direction they like to vote.
xTr1m: of course the compo machine would have the correct ones installed and the distributed ones deleted; I'm talking about my very own comfort here :>
KK, does that actually give the shader compiler dll? I remember having some problems not finding that in the windows, DX or any other SDKs after a long search... Might've been the header instead of the dll, though.
I'm very sad every time I have to check a cool prod from youtube instead of running it myself :(
KK, does that actually give the shader compiler dll? I remember having some problems not finding that in the windows, DX or any other SDKs after a long search... Might've been the header instead of the dll, though.
I'm very sad every time I have to check a cool prod from youtube instead of running it myself :(
'in order to watch this demo, you need to jailbreak your hardware'
Quote:
las: please don't turn a factual discussion into your personal dx-hatred rant ;)
The post you are referring to contained facts. jsyk.
msqrt: This will at least keep DirectX9 and partially 10 up to date. Current DX11 compiler is, as said, only available in the SDK and the app developer is responsible for distribution.
So for current DX11 the situation is quite fucked up for intros (demos can just include the d3dcompiler dll in the zip). There's not even a download at MS to point people to.
So for current DX11 the situation is quite fucked up for intros (demos can just include the d3dcompiler dll in the zip). There's not even a download at MS to point people to.
In my opinion it would be justified to simply distribute the compiler with the intro; it's an integral part of what you need to use DX. I doubt if everyone will share my point of view, though :)
i'd rather tip ms to make use a simplified standard helper runtime package just like always. it's not that damn much. latest 3 d3dx dlls for 9 and 10/11 and the compilers.
or just include the bloody d3dx dlls in windows update. >_<
las: If your "compatibility" voting system would require you to provide screenshots made on AMD and Intel GPUs, I'd say you should go for it. ;)
msqrt: I don't know. I'm still using DirectX SDK from about March 2008 before compiler was in separate DLL, because during DX10 transition MS completely messed up shader compilation time.
msqrt: I don't know. I'm still using DirectX SDK from about March 2008 before compiler was in separate DLL, because during DX10 transition MS completely messed up shader compilation time.
correct standard @gargaj ;)
KK: Intel GPUs are somewhat oldschool. I consider supporting AMD/NV as enough customer care. The Intel Device will be too slow anyways.
And actually that would be way more of a hassle than what I originally proposed - so I stick with the original proposal - what you are asking for would require way more effort.
And actually we are pretty fast in providing AMD/ATI fixes for our intros - just in case we screw up first ;).
And actually that would be way more of a hassle than what I originally proposed - so I stick with the original proposal - what you are asking for would require way more effort.
And actually we are pretty fast in providing AMD/ATI fixes for our intros - just in case we screw up first ;).
las: It happens that I have one in my laptop and it really surprised me positively when it comes to functionality and performance. Performance is of course lower than AMD (they sit in my laptop side by side), but the difference is maybe 3-5x depending on workload and considering the AMD is high-end mobile one, I think that's fair result. And, well... battery lasts 5-6h when using Intel GPU.
So to sum it up, currently there is absolutely no reason not to support Intel GPUs. No problems with functionality (both DX9 and DX10) and performance is fair.
Sorry. No excuse for you. ;)
So to sum it up, currently there is absolutely no reason not to support Intel GPUs. No problems with functionality (both DX9 and DX10) and performance is fair.
Sorry. No excuse for you. ;)
Quote:
Oh so I just can dump all my textures and samples into the d3dx*.dll that i'm redistributing? Sorry msqrt, nobody will allow that :) The prod is the executable alone. Period. Everything else should be part of the platform and not of the prod. In the end it's the party organizers who decide if d3dx is part of their supported platforms or not.
I think sceners are smart enough to be able to detect modified dx dlls from legit ones...
besides, there's .nfo files for that...
KK, I don't think most prods are exactly made for the lower-end Nvidia/AMD cards either :)
xtr1m: there is no triangle in a rwwtt setup for dx11 :) That's how it can be small enough even for 1k. (thought I already gave that away..)
But then you'll requre dx11 hardware, so the intel functionality is lacking, even if KK is saying otherwise.
As kb said, the real problem is future dx11 compiler versions. Dx9 is static ofcourse, and current d3dx11_43 is part of the dx runtime download too, but from that on it's only in the windows sdk, so no "standard microsoft download" for end users.
But then you'll requre dx11 hardware, so the intel functionality is lacking, even if KK is saying otherwise.
As kb said, the real problem is future dx11 compiler versions. Dx9 is static ofcourse, and current d3dx11_43 is part of the dx runtime download too, but from that on it's only in the windows sdk, so no "standard microsoft download" for end users.
i sense more webgl 4k entries in 2013
psenough: And in which version do you sense WebGL support coming to Internet Explorer? ;)
Jokes aside, I wonder whether there is more gain than loss in WebGL for 4k. You save bytes on PE header and window/context setup, but lose Crinkler compression and FPU speed for sound rendering.
Jokes aside, I wonder whether there is more gain than loss in WebGL for 4k. You save bytes on PE header and window/context setup, but lose Crinkler compression and FPU speed for sound rendering.
Please make a separate thread if you want to discuss about WebGL 4ks.
Which is at least partially considered deprecated by mircosoft.
Actually it's not only problematic for dx11 - at least in case you want to use the latest compiler for dx9/dx10 (which might not be the case... but yeah)
I would be interested what they mean by "incorrect" ;)
I think they meant also 46 there - but despite the typo: that sucks and is imho not the way to go for intros.
See here at Microsoft
Quote:
[...]is part of the dx runtime download too[...]
Which is at least partially considered deprecated by mircosoft.
Quote:
Note The D3DX (D3DX 9, D3DX 10, and D3DX 11) utility library is deprecated for Windows 8 and is not supported for Windows Store apps.
Actually it's not only problematic for dx11 - at least in case you want to use the latest compiler for dx9/dx10 (which might not be the case... but yeah)
Quote:
Invoking run-time compilation through the legacy D3DX DLL will use the incorrect older version of the HLSL compiler. Replace all references to D3DXCompile*, D3DX10Compile*, and D3DX11Compile* APIs in your code with the D3DCompile function in D3DCOMPILER_46.DLL.
I would be interested what they mean by "incorrect" ;)
Quote:
The D3DCOMPILER_44.DLL from the Windows SDK is not a system component and should not be copied to the Windows system directory. You can redistribute this DLL to other computers with your application as a side-by-side DLL.
I think they meant also 46 there - but despite the typo: that sucks and is imho not the way to go for intros.
See here at Microsoft
but seriously, why don't just switch to gl and having your prod running on vanilla machines? everything is in the shader anyway, right? or i'm missing something and there are much more efficient packing techniques for dx content exclusively?
