VBGamer

256 mb of ram?? Thats crazy, lol, why does it require so much?

That's just the specs for a minimum PC configuration. The demo runs fine on our 128mb test machines. ;)

Quite impressive. Will the code for this demo be released along with the engine?

Hi VBBR, Thank you for the comments. Yes, all source for the demos we put out over the next few weeks will be part of the engine release.

I must say...that's definately an improvement to your last version. Not bad...not bad at all.

Agreed. Getting more and more interesting with each version.

hm, asking for a minimum of a geforce 2 is ridiculous. that makes your engin completly unusuable in a viable fashion. since a vb game's market is usually some kind of shareware model of 'cheaper' games (note i didnt say less quality), that would make your target audience 1/20th of what it could be. (yes, 1/20 of shareware users DONT have a geforce 2 yet, hell, i still only have a tnt.) thats like selling a car running on jet fuel when you cant get jet fuel in gaz stations... nevermind that it also uses dx8, that cuts your target audience in half again. :P still looks like a good engin, just wondering on why you chose such high end specs

I think GeForce2 is a little too much. I guess some old Voodoo card support DX8 too...

Yeah, my whimpy little graphics card runs DX8 just fine... except for pixel shading and any resolution > 16bit.

haha, my GeForce 2 doesn't support pixel nor vertex shaders... (as with I know at least). well at least i can survive some 32bit games.

Hello, As one of the programmers on this project, clearly we need some work on whats gets posted publicly about the requirements of this engine. :) 1) The demos posted work on 128mb machines. 2) The engine runs fine on ANY 3D card that supports the DirectX 8 API. Geforce 2 cards are pretty much the low end still available today. We just purchased 2 more for test machines over the weekend from "Comp USA" for only $45.00 each. (Great deal by the way, with 64mb on the card.) But clearly we are focusing this engine on today's typical user, not yesterdays. 2D games are making a huge comeback. Today's shareware downloader expects more. They expect "3D like" effects. We're not developing this engine so programmers can make updated versions of Tetris. Instead, think of games like 2D Sonic & the Castlevania series. Novice programmers will be amazed by the results they can achieve with minimal code. Advanced coders will be able to program some truly awesome projects. Stay tuned.... :)

I completely disagree with an engine needing to use high end cards and machines... I still play nintendo through an emulator while my ps2 sits unloved and collecting dust. What makes a game isn't graphics nor "3d effects" its playability, if a game is fun enough the player will find these things secondary. This is where I messed up, because I just spent weeks writing an useless engine, because I was trying for glory... I am a great believer that old school 2d rocks, keep the high end stuff for 3d... Back to the drawing board, I'm overhauling the engine into Directx7, then anybody can run it.... DaBooda Out...

I'd like to point something out: the spec requirements for this engine don't make any sense, so you shouldn't be taking them very seriously. For example: there is no such thing as a computer with 256 MB of memory and only 300mhz of processing speed! That's totally unheard of. Back in the Pentium I age, computers barely had a Gig of hard drive space (okay, maybe 10 if you were really lucky) let alone a quarter of a gig of RAM! 16 MB of video memory's pretty lame these days, most have 32 at least, if not 64 or more. It sounds to me that you guys all have crap computers ;) But hey hey, that's ok. Compatability is still very important. BUT... Let me ask you a question. If, by using 3D graphics, a game developer's audience is cut in half...why do 3D games exist? They could get WAY more money with 2D games! This may be a (slightly) lame argument...but it still applies. The fact is...the MAJORITY (not the minority) of people out there have computers with AT LEAST a 3D adapter...and that's all DX8 needs. From there on, everything can be utilized or not utilized after enumerating. DX8 halves the audience? Probably not. With .NET out, DX9 is big...so DX8 is old...not state of the art. Just like MOST people have Macromedia Flash Player 7 (the NEWEST)...most people have at least DX8 (not the NEWEST). And heck, if they don't, go download it for goodness sake! What I am looking for in an engine is its STRIVING FOR COMPATABLITY WITH WHAT IT USES. This engine uses DX8, so dxgame should make it strive for compatability with most computers. You should even do this with DX7! Just because it's an older version doesn't mean it's guarateed compatable. Leave dxgame alone, please. It's getting on my nerves. Don't like his style? So what. You're all programmers aren't you? Go make your own engine the way you want it instead of trying to force more and more on someone elses (even though its commercial). If dxgame is smart (which I think he is), he'll find what his engine lacks and implement it. Thank you.

How many people actually work on this wrapper?

I'm wondering that too, I do have my own engine(DaBooda2DEngine) and I keep marveling at how much of a piece of junk coding it is...but then I remember it was just me doing all the work...and I share that code with no catches or licensing agreement...what is that about....People are here to learn from others.... As for the video card, I'm running a XFX 5600 128mb, this card zooms... but it isn't necessary for running a good 2D game, I own it to run 3d games I was just pointing out, that you can throw every special effect into an engine possible, but if the game made with it is crap, its just better looking crap... Thats why I think 2D games need to be made in DirectX7 or lower because lack of special 3d effects will force people to be more creative... People are putting too much emphasis on how it looks, not how it plays... DaBooda out...

Yeah, I also think the most determining factors in a game are fun and game-play. Unhappilly the graphics make the first impression though.

just want to point out some wrong informations given here: the majority of computer users DONT have a 3d card. saying they do is very false. its not because you upgrade every year that ppl don't. The retail market and shareware market are two different ones and have different customers. If your engin will run doom3 like graphics, then thats all good. but i doubt it. especially since its aimed at VB, i figured you were targetting a maximum amount of customers, that is, ppl with No 3d Card or 3d cards that will buy over the web and are more into gameplay than actual graphics (not that good gfx is bad, its a good sell incentive). anyways, believe what you want, but the fact that the minimum card you find in a store has 3d capabilities doesnt mean ppl are there yet. i dont want to diss your project, its super nice of you to share etc, i'm just thinking, who needs a 2d engin with use of 3d and dx8 if instead of being able to sell 10 copies he can only sell 1. "Let me ask you a question. If, by using 3D graphics, a game developer's audience is cut in half...why do 3D games exist? They could get WAY more money with 2D games! This may be a (slightly) lame argument...but it still applies. The fact is...the MAJORITY (not the minority) of people out there have computers with AT LEAST a 3D adapter...and that's all DX8 needs. From there on, everything can be utilized or not utilized after enumerating." that is so wrong. They make 3d games cuz they only care about the high end gamers, ppl that will fork 70$ to play the latest game. I dont think a vb game can compete in that niche. and again, the MAJORITY (80%) of ppl dont have 3d cards. look it up. Of the ppl that will buy shareware type games, 80% fit in the other category. 80% of 80% is a big chunk of costumer ( lets take a ratio of d/ls to buys of like 5000/1) so if you have a million possible costumer, you might get 200 sales now, take the % off (360000), you get 72 sales. thats a big amount of money you lose, especially considering your avg costumer is all about game play and graphics arent that important (your web site look is more important, the screen shots are important, but they are static, no need for super duper effects) my 2 cents, the engin still looks great, i just dont see commercial purposes

I don't believe someone should need a 3d gfx card just to play a simple 2d game in vb, but I think certain 3d-like effects to a game are important. I'm sure that if someone spent the money to buy a great 3d card then they would not look to a vb game to quench their gaming thirst. Simply put, a 2D game should not require a 3D card. Doesn't that just make sense to you? Also, I wonder how many programmers there are because dxgame makes it seem as if he's working in some company with many other people to perfect a great 2d engine. Am I missing something?

Well...perhaps your figures are more accurate...but I have experienced otherwise (we must also take into account that not all computers NEED 3D cards considering not all users play games at all...or, like my grandma...simply play wordzap, etc.: so a better measurement would be the percentage of computers with 3D cards and with users that NEED them.) I agree that the game play is far more important than the graphics...but the graphics are still a big factor...as well as sound. My goal is to get VB out of the "can only create lame 2D games" reputation and at least into the "can create excellent 2D games." The fact is (dispite the proverb)...people STILL judge a book by its cover (I know I do quite often)...so even if you have a sweet game plot with very nice game play...if your graphics are crap, people are going to look at the screen shots and think "lame" and go back to google. Anybody remember Alpha 7? Probably considering it won like all the Christmas Contest awards. If you look at those screen shots you think "wow, now that's a game I want to play." (unfortunately the download links are dead...!) That's the kind of game that gives a good name to VB...I want to continue that heratige. Just as that saying goes: "If you never want to miss your target...aim low." It is true that VB will always be able to do decent 2D graphics...but why aim low when aiming high is far more challenging, interesting, and, frankly, cooler looking. :) BTW, what's such the advantage to DX7? If you can just download DX8, what's the big deal?

"I don't believe someone should need a 3d gfx card just to play a simple 2d game in vb.." If all you program is a "simple" 2D game, no argument there. "I'm sure that if someone spent the money to buy a great 3d card then they would not look to a vb game to quench their gaming thirst." You make it sound as if VB is the bottleneck, the bottleneck factor is the progammer, not the technology. "Simply put, a 2D game should not require a 3D card. Doesn't that just make sense to you?" Yes and no. If you want to program "Mindsweeper", "Tetris", "Hangman", etc, then using any form of DirectX might be considered overkill. But if your goal is to write a 2D arcade game with effects such as smooth scaling, rotation, alpha blending, etc, you might be better off writing your game using an engine that supports extended hardware features. ;) "Also, I wonder how many programmers there are because dxgame makes it seem as if he's working in some company with many other people to perfect a great 2d engine. Am I missing something?" There are several programmers involved with the project. Not all are VB coders. (We plan on porting the engine to other languages as well.) Some ofcourse are using the engine to write their own games. Actually, that's how most of the features get added. :) While we may not write the best or most powerfull 2D engine, the goal is certainly to produce one of the easiest engines to work with. And keep in mind, easy does not mean "just for novice" programmers. But I'm sure some of the more low level coders out there will do a double take when even these "simple 2D" games created in VB start popping up with all kinds of cool effects. ;)

This is turning into less filling! taste Great! except its Looks Better! Plays Great! In all this programmer turmoil, I forgot to do one thing, and that is to give the "crew" or "one guy" at dxgame a big kudos from dabooda, I have been downloading your demos, and I have been trying to match your speed with no avail.... So here's to you and I would use your engine, but the fun in making games for me is to make the game as a whole, the only thing external I will use is DirectX8 and Vb.... and again, nice job and keep up the good work... DaBooda Out..... P.S. PLAYS GREAT!!!

"Yes and no. If you want to program "Mindsweeper", "Tetris", "Hangman", etc, then using any form of DirectX might be considered overkill. But if your goal is to write a 2D arcade game with effects such as smooth scaling, rotation, alpha blending, etc, you might be better off writing your game using an engine that supports extended hardware features. ;)" Couldn't you use DirectDraw and a few DLLs instead of using D3D?

You should do a port to C/C++ thats vb friendly. Then people will have more of a reason to use the wrapper.

Hey masterbooda! Thanks for the comments! You "da" man! :) SDW, "Couldn't you use DirectDraw and a few DLLs instead of using D3D?" Yes and no. Direct Draw (Dx7) does have alpha, rotation support via the .bltfx command, but it is highly unsupported by the majority of graphics cards. And yes you could code similar effects via software routines coded in C or assembly and accessed via a dll. "You should do a port to C/C++ thats vb friendly." On the task list... ;)

sdw...i've tried countless times to do even simple things like alpha blending and rotation with DD. Here's what I got out of it: 1) -10 frames, if not more 2) Not so great quality 3) Hecktic messy bugs because passing data to vbDABL is like cramming a turkey into a blender (its hard to get it to work. I went to DX8 because: 1) It's newer and, I have discovered, a thousand times more stable (it handles bugs better) 2) I can get rotation, vertex color blending, vertex alpha blending and countless more effects without even 1 frame loss 3) Becuase I need those

Oh...and not to mention clipping: DX8 does it FOR you DD is a CHORE for you (and don't even get into clipping rotated, resized, mirrored images...that's like jumping on a pogo stick to get to heaven)

EACam, I thought the whole point was to give the game more compatibility. All that DX8 stuff requires a 3D card, no? lol @ turkey in the blender

True...but that isn't the only thing to worry about. If compatability was the primary issue for everything, we'd all be stuck with TPC (or whatever) for our internet data transfer in games...we'd also be in the frame rate range of 10 to 15 by using it. :)

"that DX8 stuff requires a 3D card, no?" Keep in mind, DX8 is even several years old now. DX8 is not current state of the art DirectX technology by a long shot. Our engine will run on a large percentage of today's active gamer's configurations.

DX8 stuff doesn't require crap from your graphics card if I can use it. Nicer graphic cards will make it go faster, yes, but I believe DX8 will run as long as you stay away from certain card-intensive operations like Pixelshaders.

I'm wondering if people mean by running good, if they can get over a hundred frames a second or not........yes your better cards will do this, but honestly.. 2d video games run at 60fps, that is the industry norm...and most cards should be able to do that, especially if the program is programmed right....