Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Direct3D 9 Support Released For Linux Via Gallium3D, Running Games

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #61
    I do fully agree that developing a native interface would be a bad thing, but developing an interface for wine was awesome. I hope that it not only improves performance, but also compatibility,

    Comment


    • #62
      Originally posted by peppercats View Post
      WinXP is EOL next year and most game makers do *not* care about the majority. If they did, their recommended specs wouldn't contain $300+ graphics cards.
      Many games released this year are already DX11-only. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...ctX_11_support you can sort it by games that are DX11 only.

      I'd honestly be curious how much of a % China makes up of game buyers anyways.
      2%? 3%?
      I'd imagine North America + European markets make up the massive majority.
      You should really check that link you posted There are 30-40 forty games compared to thousands which are for D3D9 not to mention that those DX10-11 games apart from few exceptions suck and most of them support also DX9

      Comment


      • #63
        Originally posted by Shirudo View Post
        If DirectX is upheld as the standard graphics API for GNU games instead of OpenGL, then we will become dependant on a technology fully under the control of quite the hostile entity. That is the critical difference being OpenGL being the standard and DirectX-- OpenGL is, as it's name suggests, an open standard, and not controllable by any 'enemy' of GNU.
        You don't have to worry about that : the only thing implemented is D3D, directX is a lot more than that, it takes care of input, sound, font rendering and more. That is still only implemented in wine. SDL takes care of most of this under linux.

        Comment


        • #64
          I'm probably not getting the whole picture since getting driver level native D3D (9c) compatibility and the 400000% increase in the # of supported games that it would bring is too huge of a deal to be worth just 7 pages.

          Comment


          • #65
            Originally posted by Serafean View Post
            You don't have to worry about that : the only thing implemented is D3D, directX is a lot more than that, it takes care of input, sound, font rendering and more. That is still only implemented in wine. SDL takes care of most of this under linux.
            I was referring specifically to D3D, probably should have said that. What my concern is is that, as another poster suggested earlier, developers who might otherwise be inclined to support GNU natively (with OpenGL) will just target D3D and expect it to be crossplatform. If this became commonplace then D3D would be the de-facto graphics API for GNU; the problem then arises that our de-facto graphics API is controlled by an enemy, who could attempt to make later versions of it incompatible with Wine as best they can. In the alternative scenario where some developers began using OpenGL, they (the developers) would be more inclined to continue supporting it as they already have experience with it, whereas if they had been exclusively using D3D it would be less appealing to suddenly make an OpenGL version for the newly disenfranchised GNU users.

            Comment


            • #66
              Originally posted by Kostas View Post
              I'm probably not getting the whole picture since getting driver level native D3D (9c) compatibility and the 400000% increase in the # of supported games that it would bring is too huge of a deal to be worth just 7 pages.
              Its not that its NOT a big deal...but it has to be merged into Mesa and Wine to be of use to most people (which is questionable since Wine didnt accept the DirectX10/11 code). Also it only helps games that HAVE DirectX9 codepaths. And it DOESNT help any games that didnt work because of other reasons.
              All opinions are my own not those of my employer if you know who they are.

              Comment


              • #67
                Originally posted by Shirudo View Post
                If DirectX is upheld as the standard graphics API for GNU games instead of OpenGL, then we will become dependant on a technology fully under the control of quite the hostile entity. That is the critical difference being OpenGL being the standard and DirectX-- OpenGL is, as it's name suggests, an open standard, and not controllable by any 'enemy' of GNU.
                Right now gamers don't use Linux. They don't cause their games are running DirectX 9 minimum and it runs slow. But offer nearly the same performance as Windows and lots of people will switch. Developers will take notice and future games will be made using OpenGL for Linux. But all those old games will never see a native port to Linux.

                As it is I doubt developers are happy to see Directx 11.2 exclusive to Windows 8.1. So eventually we'll see OpenGL replacing DirectX over time anyway. But not all of them will.

                Comment


                • #68
                  Originally posted by Shirudo View Post
                  I was referring specifically to D3D, probably should have said that. What my concern is is that, as another poster suggested earlier, developers who might otherwise be inclined to support GNU natively (with OpenGL) will just target D3D and expect it to be crossplatform. If this became commonplace then D3D would be the de-facto graphics API for GNU; the problem then arises that our de-facto graphics API is controlled by an enemy, who could attempt to make later versions of it incompatible with Wine as best they can. In the alternative scenario where some developers began using OpenGL, they (the developers) would be more inclined to continue supporting it as they already have experience with it, whereas if they had been exclusively using D3D it would be less appealing to suddenly make an OpenGL version for the newly disenfranchised GNU users.
                  I couldn't agree more.

                  Compatibility with legacy software is nice, but this should never be used for creating anything new.

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Originally posted by Cyber Killer View Post
                    I couldn't agree more.

                    Compatibility with legacy software is nice, but this should never be used for creating anything new.
                    Dito. Also a huge problem IMO with Mono-Game, which advertises to "write your next game in XNA and make it work on all
                    these wonderful platforms!", when it should really just explain that it's life support for a dying platform, and NOBODY should
                    use XNA for new games.

                    Sadly the same thing happened with Samba, where the Microsoft protocol only became the de facto standard by means of
                    massive install base, and now that it's supported on all platforms there's no incentive to write something from the ground up
                    cross platform.

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Originally posted by chithanh View Post
                      Then I suggest that you start reading
                      http://blog.mecheye.net/2012/06/the-...raphics-stack/ (a bit more detailed)
                      Thank you - this is such a good article!

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X