|
cjb0087
Knave
Australia
76 Posts |
 Posted - Aug 28 2004 : 8:12:55 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by sdw
Why use a wrapper at all if you're using C++? I would think there'd be some speed issues there.
because Dx in C++ is a *female dog*, i.e. very hard and chucks fits all the time. Many people woudnt be bothered learning the API, so they just use a wrapper.
|
www.bugsplat.tk |
 |
|
|
cjb0087
Knave
Australia
76 Posts |
Posted - Aug 28 2004 : 8:14:42 PM
|
| on the subject of engines, i had an opengl library for VB6 a while back, but i seem to have lost it. would any of you happen to have it? |
www.bugsplat.tk |
|
|
|
sdw
Warrior
USA
160 Posts |
Posted - Aug 28 2004 : 9:46:57 PM
|
quote:
because Dx in C++ is a *female dog*, i.e. very hard and chucks fits all the time.
I really don't know what "chucks fits all the time" means but oh well. Really it's not so difficult. Those people who can't be bothered to learn the API are not going to make a game. Damn slackers :D Seriously, how hard is it to read a few tutorials on how to do something with directx, then make a nice wrapper function to it, and then re use it over and over like you would do in vb. You won't understand it instantly, you gotta work at it. I'm sure you know since you had to learn it for your games. |
|
|
|
Dan
Squire
United Kingdom
29 Posts |
Posted - Aug 31 2004 : 05:11:29 AM
|
quote:
Instead of taking time to learn someone else's wrapper you could take time to learn the API yourself, which will benefit you most. After you've learned the api you can do anything you could do with the wrapper, only more. If learning how to use DirectX is too difficult, then maybe making games isn't the thing for you. IMO wrappers limit what you're able to do with your game.
I don't think that I'll be able to convice you otherwise SWD. Graphics are a in my opinion a very small part of the game engine, yet is somthing that can consume alot of time. The use of wrappers help SPEED UP the process by providing tools and methods for achieving common projects tasks such as Asset management, collision detection, physics and particle systems, forcefeed back and input management, Landscape and enviromental management... etc. And the fact the underlying Directx objects are available at any time mean you can add any additional coding you wish. Although most wrappers are comprehenive enough not to need to touch these objects.
It's not a question of finding the Directx Wrapper to difficult to understand, more a fact that using a wrapper allows for a quicker development time and an already development means to load art assets in to the game world.
|
|
|
|
|
Brykovian
Bryk the Cheese Slayer!
USA
58 Posts |
Posted - Aug 31 2004 : 07:10:47 AM
|
I agree with Dan ... you use a pre-built wrapper or game engine instead of writing your own for the same reason you use a high-level language (like VB) instead of machine or assembly language ... it speeds up the development time. It depends a lot on your viewpoint ... do you want to be a programmer who happens to be working on a game, or a game-maker who happens to be able to program?
-Bryk |
www.mwgames.com |
|
|
|
Iodiplin
Knave
USA
67 Posts |
Posted - Sep 03 2004 : 10:59:30 PM
|
It's also the issue with "Programmer's Hono(u)r." I could use someone elses wrapper/engine, but who wants to make a game and not be able to claim credit for the graphics programming? I wrote my own wrapper and I think it's quite nice. It's not perfect, no, I've got bugs here and there. But I'd rather live with those bugs and work with my own code than have to feel ashamed that I was too lazy or "wasn't good enough" to write the code myself. I do use other people's code for little things, but I can still say I wrote the graphics programming, basically. Not to mention it's ALWAYS easier working with your own code (unless you stink at programming and give yourself more bugs than are necessary  ). And it's always good to know the low-level part of it even if you're using yours or another's wrapper SO that you can make additions and enhancements. But, as long as you've found a good wrapper, I see nothing wrong in using it, if you want.
EDIT: And one final note, about learning the low-level stuff in DX. It's not easy. I tend to disagree with SDW that you can just "read some tutorials" and be on your way. It took me over 6 months to get a good wrapper for DX together and it STILL has bugs. Not to mention my wrapper is for 2D ONLY. 3D adds a whole new dimension of potential problems. 
|
Environment Makes All the Difference. |
Edited by - Iodiplin on Sep 03 2004 11:03:19 PM |
|
|
|
Mutos
Squire
France
10 Posts |
Posted - Sep 06 2004 : 2:16:40 PM
|
Hi all,
It's been some months I use TV3D now & I'll tell u I've found the 3D engine I'll keep ! I tried WildTangent, was good but a bit slow. TrueVision has the same level of user-friendliness but is way faster, I checked on similar apps and same X files.
As for the watermark, I just don't care. If & when I ever go comm, I'll buy the licence and add a splash screen and a checkbox in the options to disable the watermark ^-^ And TV3D being a DX wrapper doesn't bother me either, I'd rather use a simple & fast wrapper & lose 1% FPS instead of loosing months of dev mastering the arcanes of DX... As for honour, mine lies in the creation of the universe and its rendering in an app, not for the engines themselves.
Now I'm seeking physics and AI engine. The specs are the same : easy to use from VB6, free for demomaking and fast enough for my simple needs...
For physics I've seen Tokamak, but for now I've not implemented anything using it, just seen a couple of VB6-TV3D demos using a wrapper & that seems quite good. Seen a few others but none marked me as Tokamak for now...
For AI I've seen SpirOps, a french engine based upon a quite interesting thesis (waouh, the printer is still aching after the 300+ pages...) & encountered its creator. Really seems a great engine but for now I don't really know the licence terms. |
@+
Benoit 'Mutos' ROBIN
mailto:mutos@hoshikaze.net
http://hoshikaze.net |
Edited by - Mutos on Sep 06 2004 2:19:37 PM |
|
|
|
Dan
Squire
United Kingdom
29 Posts |
Posted - Sep 07 2004 : 10:26:06 AM
|
quote:
As for honour, mine lies in the creation of the universe and its rendering in an app, not for the engines themselves
Well said.
quote:
Now I'm seeking physics and AI engine.
TV6.5 uses the Newton Physics engine (http://physicsengine.com/). It is very easy to use and setup. You simply add the meshes you wish the physics engine to control. Setup the relationships between different materials and choose the joints required and Newton does all the hardwork for you . It currently supports rigid body and ragdolls and is planned to have Car physics as soon as it becomes available in Newton. I wish I could share with you some of the videos from the beta testing as some stunning results are possible with very little coding required. ( Iodiplin and SDW would hate it ;) )
|
|
|
|
|
Excaliber
Squire
USA
28 Posts |
Posted - Sep 12 2004 : 10:45:06 AM
|
| I've seen several of the videos (from Javin) and they are quite spectacular. I about passed out when Javin informed me it took roughly 13 lines of code for the entire simulation (many bricks and a baseball, you can infer the rest) |
|
|
|
sdw
Warrior
USA
160 Posts |
Posted - Sep 12 2004 : 7:18:17 PM
|
Yes, that Newton Physics Engine does look cool. So whats the deal with that anyways? The Newton engine is free to use and tv3d is integrating it with their wrapper?
quote:
I wish I could share with you some of the videos from the beta testing as some stunning results are possible with very little coding required. ( Iodiplin and SDW would hate it ;) )
Well yeah, thats what wrappers are intended to do ;) And you're right, I would hate to pay $150 for some DX wrapper :P |
|
|
|
Dan
Squire
United Kingdom
29 Posts |
Posted - Sep 13 2004 : 11:58:20 AM
|
The deal with the new physics engine is that it is built in to the core of TV, meaning that physics can be applied to standard TV objects very efficiently and quickly.
Sure you can use the newton engine direct with out going through TV, but you would need to write a wrapper class to be able to use it with VB As I believe a wrapper only exists for Delphi.
TV is free to use during development. Apps can be distributed with a watermark showing. The $150 is for a comercial licence that allows you to remove the watermark.
Yes, you could argue that you don't pay anything if you were to use directx directly. but the whole point of using an engine, a library, a wrapper or whaterver you call it is to save time writting renderig code and more time developing a game. I don't know how much value you put on your time but for me $150 for 3 developers full time input & a well established community makes perfect sense.
|
|
|
|
|
Iodiplin
Knave
USA
67 Posts |
Posted - Sep 13 2004 : 2:18:21 PM
|
Now now, when it comes to incapability, it's a whole different story. I am personally not good enough at math to write a good physics engine, so using another's is perfectly fine in my book. Even if I did there's nothing WRONG with doing it, just less hono(u)r.
Also you must realize that many of us (including me) are young and stupid. That implies that we either don't have a job (in that we're young), or have a lame one (in that we're stupid). I work in retail. I get 70 bucks a week, minus tax. I have to pay for car insurance, etc. Buying a $150 license isn't my first choice. Only a few months ago, I only got money for mowing my lawn, so $150 would be a month's work.
I'm not saying that all guys my age are stupid, or even young (ahum)...well actually I am, that is, in comparison to you ol' folk, some of you. |
Environment Makes All the Difference. |
|
|
|
Excaliber
Squire
USA
28 Posts |
Posted - Sep 13 2004 : 5:50:14 PM
|
The money spent on the piddly $150 makes up for the months of labor to create a wrapper for your game that does similar. Sure, if you are doing this as a hobby, its not a big deal. But when you are producing a game and have actual intentions to sell it, have a budget to work around, people and resources to pay for, and capital venturists that you have to please in a *timely* manner, you would appreciate this kind of thing.
Sure, you *could* write your game in ASM. After all, why pay for VB when you can write it all out in ASM or C++ for free (assuming you dont use VS)? You have chosen VB (assuming you have chosen VB, it is a VB site after all) because you know it and it is a RAD. So why not integrate a RAD language with an engine that was designed with VB in mind?
It all comes back to time. You can spend a few months (and thus a few months of time wasted, and time wasted = money wasted) to make a probably subpar engine, or use an existing one and fork out a tiny amount of money. If you game isn't going to bring in at least $150 then you shouldn't be developing it anyhow.
Months of effort or $150 and 3 lines of code. Hmm... |
Edited by - Excaliber on Sep 13 2004 5:52:26 PM |
|
|
|
VBBR
Moderator
Brazil
617 Posts |
Posted - Sep 13 2004 : 6:36:31 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Excaliber
<br>After all, why pay for VB when you can write it all out in ASM or C++ for free?
Who said you need to pay for an original copy of VB?
Hehe, just kidding.  |
Whatever. Who knows... |
Edited by - VBBR on Sep 13 2004 6:39:30 PM |
|
|
|
Excaliber
Squire
USA
28 Posts |
Posted - Sep 13 2004 : 6:49:00 PM
|
| Heh |
|
|
Anyone uses Ogre 3D render engine in VB6 ?
