createdbyx
Freshman
- Joined
- Oct 30, 2003
- Messages
- 34
Do you think that DirectX 9 is the worst supported and documented API to come out of microsoft? I do. so cast you vote so we can all make a consensus.
dx9 poll about bad microsoft support for directx!
- Thread starter createdbyx
- Start date
pjv
Regular
DX is poorly documented.. but it's not the worst.
wyrd
Senior Contributor
You're more then welcome to use OpenGL instead.
createdbyx
Freshman
- Joined
- Oct 30, 2003
- Messages
- 34
opengl not supported
opengl is not supported in .net (at least I have not heard of it)
wyrd said:
opengl is not supported in .net (at least I have not heard of it)
wyrd
Senior Contributor
createdbyx
Freshman
- Joined
- Oct 30, 2003
- Messages
- 34
Re: opengl not supported
AAWWW!! You know what even before I visit these site I just like you to know THANKS ALOT. By the way I was being sarcastic!
Now I'll probably never get anything done! And will be spending hour after hour pouring over the projects in those links.
But hay opengl in .net ... cool ....
createdbyx said:
AAWWW!! You know what even before I visit these site I just like you to know THANKS ALOT. By the way I was being sarcastic!
Now I'll probably never get anything done! And will be spending hour after hour pouring over the projects in those links.
But hay opengl in .net ... cool ....
steved
Regular
I don't think that DirectX9 is all that badly documented at all. I find the C++ docs more than adequate.
Managed DirectX, in particular, is quite another story. But that's not what you asked.
To shed some light on the situation: I was talking to a very knowledgable MS project manager at a VS.net/Server2003 launch a few months back, and his explanation of MDX was that it existed purely to introduce C# and VB.net programmers to the world of .NET. Microsoft doesn't really have a lot of interest trying to market MDX as a platform for game development (which accounts for the majority of DirectX use). Those programmers who find MDX useful can migrate to C++, or they can figure out how MDX works using the C++ docs.
That said, I think Managed DirectX is a really beautiful example of what can be done with .NET. "Classic" DirectX isn't always pretty to program, and I think MDX allows for some really simple and elegant code. And who knows. If people start to make legitimate use of it, maybe Microsoft will look at it more seriously.
And then maybe de Icaza will put a DirectX namespace into Mono?
Well, it's a nice dream, anyway...
Managed DirectX, in particular, is quite another story. But that's not what you asked.
To shed some light on the situation: I was talking to a very knowledgable MS project manager at a VS.net/Server2003 launch a few months back, and his explanation of MDX was that it existed purely to introduce C# and VB.net programmers to the world of .NET. Microsoft doesn't really have a lot of interest trying to market MDX as a platform for game development (which accounts for the majority of DirectX use). Those programmers who find MDX useful can migrate to C++, or they can figure out how MDX works using the C++ docs.
That said, I think Managed DirectX is a really beautiful example of what can be done with .NET. "Classic" DirectX isn't always pretty to program, and I think MDX allows for some really simple and elegant code. And who knows. If people start to make legitimate use of it, maybe Microsoft will look at it more seriously.
And then maybe de Icaza will put a DirectX namespace into Mono?
Well, it's a nice dream, anyway...steved
Regular
Right. And any sort of DirectX namespace in Mono would almost inevitably be some sort of OpenGL wrapper. I've heard a few OSS guys talking here and there that they planned to implement an open source DirectX API, but I have a feeling they are being somewhat naive in terms of the challenges that would entail (or impossibilities).
However, a DirectX namespace in Mono (acting as an OpenGL wrapper, much in the same way Java3D does for both Dx and OpenGL) would make .NET even more impressively cross-platform. I am, of course, not deluded enough to think that anyone will be tackeling this soon.
However, a DirectX namespace in Mono (acting as an OpenGL wrapper, much in the same way Java3D does for both Dx and OpenGL) would make .NET even more impressively cross-platform. I am, of course, not deluded enough to think that anyone will be tackeling this soon.
Robby
Ultimate Contributor
I find the tutorials and samples in the SDK are fantastic.
I managed to get some help out of the simpler samples in the SDK, but they don't exactly comment them well do they?
I also find it off putting that if you can find any help in the SDK documentation its all in C++ etc
I'm learning DX9 purely by trial and error which is painful and long winded
I also find it off putting that if you can find any help in the SDK documentation its all in C++ etc
I'm learning DX9 purely by trial and error which is painful and long winded
I find the MANAGED DX stuff badly documented, DX itself is fairly documented, and there are a lot of good books. MDX on the other hand... Well, you have the Framework which is documented to the hilt, and then MDX, which is just taking the biscuit in comparison
Knight Chat X
Newcomer
So far my experiences with DirectX have been that more time has been spent searching for adequate documentation VS. actually programming.
Yet, now the same is true for me and VB.Net, I've been programming for years now and finally managed to take a look at Visual Studio .Net, now I'm finding myself struggling because of all the drastic changes that have been made, the same goes for DirectX.
And the lack of adequate documentation is the same now as it was before, only now the changes are vast.
Don't get me wrong, there are many books out their designed by individual's that have taken the hard time to create guides to programming method's through trial and error, and in most cases, I think 2000 pages to describe 1 topic is overboard, but they are out there somewhere, I just wish Microsoft did better to providing the information in the SDK.
Another example is the incomplete examples in the SDK, if you can do video programming in C++ , you shouldn't have to be forced to create a C++ DLL so it can be used in VB .Net just because they didn't provide an example or functionality of it already.
C++ examples in most cases are just fine, the problem is for true compatibility and flexibility acrossed all Visual Studio languages, you shouldn't need to use a specific language elsewhere to do the same task in another.
Yet, now the same is true for me and VB.Net, I've been programming for years now and finally managed to take a look at Visual Studio .Net, now I'm finding myself struggling because of all the drastic changes that have been made, the same goes for DirectX.
And the lack of adequate documentation is the same now as it was before, only now the changes are vast.
Don't get me wrong, there are many books out their designed by individual's that have taken the hard time to create guides to programming method's through trial and error, and in most cases, I think 2000 pages to describe 1 topic is overboard, but they are out there somewhere, I just wish Microsoft did better to providing the information in the SDK.
Another example is the incomplete examples in the SDK, if you can do video programming in C++ , you shouldn't have to be forced to create a C++ DLL so it can be used in VB .Net just because they didn't provide an example or functionality of it already.
C++ examples in most cases are just fine, the problem is for true compatibility and flexibility acrossed all Visual Studio languages, you shouldn't need to use a specific language elsewhere to do the same task in another.
McGuireV10
Newcomer
- Joined
- Apr 23, 2004
- Messages
- 1
I hate to say it -- no, I *used to* hate to say it -- but the quality of Microsoft documentation has been on a steady downward spiral for the past 10 or 12 years. Back in the day when the "Quick" series of DOS compilers were out, their help systems were genuinely helpful. You'd get a DISCUSSION of the function you were looking up, and the example would be relevant. They would take the time to discuss problems you might encounter, and make recommendations about how to use it.
These days, the documentation across their developer product line is as minimalistic and terse as they can get away with. If they bother to include sample code at all, it's usually a generic sample reused for a wide variety of topics, and cited only because it happens to contain the function in question.
They need to stop paying their staff to write goofy MSDN articles, and get them back into writing documentation for the products they're building. We need documentation by programmers, for programmers. If your communications skills are so poor that you can't write good documentation, or you're just too lazy to do it, then you shouldn't be employed to produce public-consumption APIs. To me, docs should be part of the job description.
These days, the documentation across their developer product line is as minimalistic and terse as they can get away with. If they bother to include sample code at all, it's usually a generic sample reused for a wide variety of topics, and cited only because it happens to contain the function in question.
They need to stop paying their staff to write goofy MSDN articles, and get them back into writing documentation for the products they're building. We need documentation by programmers, for programmers. If your communications skills are so poor that you can't write good documentation, or you're just too lazy to do it, then you shouldn't be employed to produce public-consumption APIs. To me, docs should be part of the job description.
ThePentiumGuy
Senior Contributor
hmm
there are books written by Microsoft for example from Microsoft Press "DirectX: a progrtammable graphics pipeline" or somethig like taht iirc
and there are some books written by people who work for microsoft(But not in MS press) so they should know the proper ways of doing things in directx
yeah you're right the samples/documentation suck
and for a simple example in the d3d wizard,
they type in code like this
[/size]
they really gotta provide good free docs, not just books
pent
edit: oh yah and witht the installation of the summer update - the wizard doesnt work, has a few minor errors (cannot convert color to integer..etc)
there are books written by Microsoft for example from Microsoft Press "DirectX: a progrtammable graphics pipeline" or somethig like taht iirc
and there are some books written by people who work for microsoft(But not in MS press) so they should know the proper ways of doing things in directx
yeah you're right the samples/documentation suck
and for a simple example in the d3d wizard,
they type in code like this
Visual Basic:
[/color]
[size=2][color=#008000]' We won't use this maliciously
[/color][/size][size=2]<System.Security.SuppressUnmanagedCodeSecurity()> [/size][size=2][color=#0000ff]Private[/color][/size][size=2][color=#0000ff]Declare[/color][/size][size=2][color=#0000ff]Function[/color][/size][size=2] QueryPerformanceFrequency [/size][size=2][color=#0000ff]Lib[/color][/size][size=2] "kernel32" ([/size][size=2][color=#0000ff]ByRef[/color][/size][size=2] PerformanceFrequency [/size][size=2][color=#0000ff]As[/color][/size][size=2][color=#0000ff]Long[/color][/size][size=2]) [/size][size=2][color=#0000ff]As[/color][/size][size=2][color=#0000ff]Boolean
[/color][/size][size=2][color=#008000]' We won't use this maliciously
[/color][/size][size=2]<System.Security.SuppressUnmanagedCodeSecurity()> [/size][size=2][color=#0000ff]Private[/color][/size][size=2][color=#0000ff]Declare[/color][/size][size=2][color=#0000ff]Function[/color][/size][size=2] QueryPerformanceCounter [/size][size=2][color=#0000ff]Lib[/color][/size][size=2] "kernel32" ([/size][size=2][color=#0000ff]ByRef[/color][/size][size=2] PerformanceCount [/size][size=2][color=#0000ff]As[/color][/size][size=2][color=#0000ff]Long[/color][/size][size=2]) [/size][size=2][color=#0000ff]As[/color][/size][size=2][color=#0000ff]Boolean
[/color][/size][size=2][color=#008000]' We won't use this maliciously
[/color][/size][size=2]<System.Security.SuppressUnmanagedCodeSecurity()> [/size][size=2][color=#0000ff]Public[/color][/size][size=2][color=#0000ff]Declare[/color][/size][size=2][color=#0000ff]Function[/color][/size][size=2] timeGetTime [/size][size=2][color=#0000ff]Lib[/color][/size][size=2] "winmm.dll" () [/size][size=2][color=#0000ff]As[/color][/size][size=2][color=#0000ff]Integer[/color][/size]
[size=2][color=#0000ff]they really gotta provide good free docs, not just books
pent
edit: oh yah and witht the installation of the summer update - the wizard doesnt work, has a few minor errors (cannot convert color to integer..etc)
Last edited:
MDX is just SO much nicer to use and get into than the unmanaged version that Microsoft should be focusing on attracting newbies to it. But it's a bit hard when you have to go away and learn all the old style DX just in order to figure out what the cleaner MDX objects do.
Pleeez can we have an interim doc update, Microsoft? Never mind the spelling mistakes, just gimme!
Pleeez can we have an interim doc update, Microsoft? Never mind the spelling mistakes, just gimme!
DrunkenHyena
Freshman
MDX is a brand new product, in many ways it is rough around the edges. It was released sooner than later so people could play with it and MS could get feedback.
If they didn't release it for another year, you'd whine that you want it. So they release it early and you whine that it isn't polished.
Welcome to reality. If you want to play with cutting edge stuff, sometimes you get cut. If you want very safe technology go back to using Unmanaged DX and wait for MDX to be updated.
No one is forcing you to use it. I understand that it can be frustrating. There is however a difference between expressing frustration and *****ing and whining. Many of these posts cross that line.
A new version will be released this summer, but it still will likely not be as polished as Unmanaged DX. DX is in it's 9th major revision, MDX is in its first.
If they didn't release it for another year, you'd whine that you want it. So they release it early and you whine that it isn't polished.
Welcome to reality. If you want to play with cutting edge stuff, sometimes you get cut. If you want very safe technology go back to using Unmanaged DX and wait for MDX to be updated.
No one is forcing you to use it. I understand that it can be frustrating. There is however a difference between expressing frustration and *****ing and whining. Many of these posts cross that line.
A new version will be released this summer, but it still will likely not be as polished as Unmanaged DX. DX is in it's 9th major revision, MDX is in its first.