B3D DX9+
Blitz3D Forums/Blitz3D Programming/B3D DX9+
| ||
| Ok, I like Blitz3d, I dont like Max, I dont like OO, all I want is the simplicity of Blitz with some up-to-date features... will this happen? |
| ||
| in a word, no. As I understand it you can program in BMax procedurally with little hasstle, and isn't that different from B3D when you don't use the OO features. I would just continue to work in B3D if you just *cant* stand BMax, as it really has enough to keep your mouth full for the most part. |
| ||
| DX9+ Who needs it? |
| ||
| I agree, WolRon. Look at the Orbiter space flight simulator. That things current graphics quality is achievable with Blitz -- as is the physics (well... assuming you have a lot of time on your hands -- Tokamak or ODE won't quite cut it without a lot of work). All you need is something cool that NOTHING ELSE does (eg, a space flight simulator that interfaces with Google Earth/Mars/Moon, and has proper collisions). Up-to-date isn't just graphics, it's ideas. Most game ideas are not up-to-date, because they use recycled gameplay from years ago instead of staying with the times and going forwards. (I almost said exit the atmosphere... argh!! I'm obsessed with that simulator...). The only thing up-to-date about them is that they use OOP, and have Dx9 graphics. There you go; 3 answers, all explaining why B3d won't/doesn't need DX9 :P |
| ||
| but good ideas PLUS DX9 would be better ;) |
| ||
| DX9 for b3d, It has been asked for many times and blitz research have made it clear that they do not intend to change blitz3d from dx7. If you want DX9+ then look to blitzmax and while it doesnt yet have an official 3d module there is nothing stopping anyone from writing there own. And as for not liking OO programming, well you dont have to use it to code anything in blitzmax and since the bmax syntax is then pretty much the same as old blitz whats the problem ;) |
| ||
| I don't think DX9 is really needed. All the features of DX7 would be enough, especially DXTC and the like As Max3D will take another eternity, the addition of DXTC would give B3D a boost until then. |
| ||
| It's all about the quality of model you can get for your game. I can understand dx 9 tech, for things like hardware boned animations. That's the only part of dx9 i'd probably need. I'd like texture compression for blitz3d. But, since it's been asked for, so many times, and BRL haven't said a word about it, not even so much as no, this will never be there. Bloody annoying so it is... anyway... If you game has rubbish/sub-standard graphics, having dx9 tech isn't going to make your game look any better tbh. Sure, you could have shaders giving some sort of weird glow or something, but, most ppl can see through that. You have bumpmapping in blitz also. It's not 100% functional, but for most simple cases, it really look decent. |
| ||
| I agree some of the things discussed in the post, but basically, If you plan to develop a game in order to publish it, there are a lot of things that nowadays, Blitz cannot offer you without a lot of pain and suffer. I think Blitz is the best game-language developed ever, (I've purchased GameStudio, Torque, Darkbasic and some other), its powerful and simple with a lot of expansion potential, but go deep with stuff like SHADOWS, BUMP & NORMAL MAPPING, WATER and SHADER effects is absolutely painful. Ok, sure someone could say that all I've mentioned is possible, or, at least, almost possible.... some tricky thing here, another one there and... TACHAN! you have something that seems HDR illum, or a decent water... but it is not enough if you are thinking in show your game to a publisher... and I'm not talking about a great publisher, just a small publisher that wants a -updated- game technology. I'm developing a FPS since six or seven months ago, and working with Blitz since its first version. The game has shadows (thanks Swift), blur, boned animation, "normal mapping", very basic physics (Tokamak), lightmaps (Gile) and basically all the stuff that someone could expect, developed / implement all of those things has been very very painful, and even with that it's not enough in terms of: a) facility to develop, logistic, required tools, trials, etc... b) results, are very good, but are not cutting-edge tech I agree with Ian, t3K|Mac and the rest of people that say DX9 could be a great advance for Blitz. Absoultely. regards, |
| ||
| ..you selling game, not technology..far as i am concerned as a player, if your gameplay taking my attention, I'll buy it..i dont care about DX7 background... |
| ||
| Hi Naughty, I agree with you, but the publishers dont. Today all is based in a thin balance. The gameplay (that thing all people talk about) is as important as the technology or as your marketing skills regarding to sell your product to the publisher, not to the public, as a first step. really it's a shame not all the publishers thinks like you... I absolutely agree with you, but our concerns as players doesn't take much care for the publisher when they will spend xxx thousands/millions dollars on your production. The race for show features at the box has started! and of course, in this race all is valid, you know. regards, |
| ||
| Hey Pinete...what publishers you talking about exactly. I check 2 months ago with few publishers (one of them is God games) exactly this issue about tools used...far they are concerned is same...very good game/gameplay (of course you cant approach them with C64 graphics), but mainly few shoots I show them they agreed that no problem with it (I mention DX7 background).. |
| ||
| I partly agree with what has been said. I think that once graphics get good enough, there is nowhere to go. DX7 is almost there. I think it is quite good. But I also think that if blitz3d could just PLEASE go to DX8, then there would be nowhere to go. Whith future DX releases, there might be minor speedups or a few new features, but for the most part, I think you could continue to get high quality games from blitz3d. I have been working on shadows lately, and I REALY want to do them the acurrate way, so that all meshes can can cast on each other and on themselves. To make this at all reasonable in speed, I need access to the depth buffer. There are also many other things that you can do quite well now, but if only blitz upgraded to DX8, you could do AMAZINGLY well. I realy realy like blitz, but I feel just a little bit limitted. I think that with DX8, I would never feel limited again! Blitz Reasearch, PLEASE reconsider your decistion to stay with DX7. DX8 is all that I ask, then I will never whine again! |
| ||
| But, if you have DX9, you models you create, aren't going to look any better. The most people around here will do, is use shaders. What about finishing a whole game? |
| ||
| Can someone show me a completed Blitz3D game that pushes DX7 to the limit, and that would benefit greatly from a DX8/9 upgrade? Genuine question. |
| ||
| Good question. |
| ||
| we are losing the focus. Of course, saying that Blitz supports DX9 will not do that the models of my game looks better, yes, but that's not the chat! we are talking about "facilities" and "possibilities" that BB3D could bring to you. Sometimes I've turned crazy making functions or finding at code archives stuff that BB3D could have implemented just following its basic directives: a) Make easier and faster the creation of games b) Making a good approach to the intermediate user without hard knodledge of C or C++. I am refering, for example, the possibilities of making stencil Shadows, a shader based water or similar effects, a good normal mapping functions (and not the current ones with flag 4), the possibility of sort alpha meshes, and some silly stuff I forget at this moment. I've spent till this moment 3/4 of the time I've been developing a game researching onto those subjects. and for Naughty, ok, agree with you about publishers, there exist a vast range of them, but I'm not talking about publishers that buy your game by less that 100000$ and royalties, I'm targeting higher, and, in this case, you need a little more. regards! |
| ||
| Sorry to be rude, i really don't mean to, but if your writing a top quality game like that, surely Blitz3d isn't really the kind of tool you should be using to complete a quality title that goes for more than $100,000 ,[EDIT, sorry!] |
| ||
| He said 100k. But with that in mind, I would get Torque + TSE. I'm aware that with Blitz you mainly create "gaming experience" and not technology ... but at the moment, one of the main reasons Blitz games look "old rubbish" is that you are forced down to low quality textures because the missing DXTC does not allow you to save 75 - 85% of the actually used VRAM. I'm aware that DXTC has some restrictions, but I don't think that "You can't modify DXTC textures with the regular buffercommands" is really a reason to force Blitz games to crap graphics. I'm using Gile[s] and seeing what worlds of difference it makes for your ingame atmosphere if you can use 1024x1024 (supported on any shader capable card so down to GF3) instead of 512 or even 256, I'm quite annoyed about BRLs attitude to this specific topic. For the moment I'm using Toms R2T dll, which uses the regular "Direct3DSurface hack" to get the compressed texture in. Seems like it works stable with ATI and NVIDIA nowadays (older ati drivers had some serious problems). I'm aware that you can control what is within VRAM with intelligent techniques, but even if the textures are not in VRAM, they must still be kept in system RAM, and I still think, games forcing 500-800 MB RAM are quite inacceptable in general (there are a few exceptions like Sims 2, that have that much of "always existing" content, that they can't come around it in an intelligent and efficient way) |
| ||
| Hi all, I agree that we had not push B3D to its limit. However, if we make a great game, the publisher just concern DirectX 8/9 or higher version, what should we do? How about if they don't consider out games because we are using DirectX 7? BTW, will "idigcon" still publish new B3D games? Thanks Sammy :) |
| ||
| You could ask Garagegames as well. They sell games for their content, not for eye candy. |
| ||
| uhh..I'm getting @#!*ed off with this image uploads, so I'm deleting all this crap..ggr.. |
| ||
| Hi Dreamora, Does it mean that the CHOICE of publisher is limited if we use DirectX 7 technology??? (I have no experience with publishers) Thanks Sammy :) |
| ||
| I would just like to point out that Half-Life 2 includes a DirectX 7 render path. Sure, graphics quality suffers but it does not in any way detract from the gameplay. No competant publisher is going to turn your game away solely because you used DX7. There are still (I'm sure Grey Alien will tell you) many PC's out there with no capability past DX7. |
| ||
| I totally agree with Dreamora's point (and sorry to quote the wrong figure), about the attitude towards the DXTC. Not many games really modify the textures, as alot of them are tiled, or used on other meshes. It would be nice to hear SOMETHING from BRL on this. |
| ||
| I have tried max, I dont like it, simple as that. Blitz, for me, was easy to learn and quick to allow me access to the 3D pipeline. I can go into any of the code archives and pick up Blitz program and its easy to read, I cant say the same for the Max code. OO by its very polymorthic ethos, makes every program a complex heap of child parent inheritence that I detest. I feel Max has lost its way from as far as its target audience is concerned. Its adding complexity with not a great deal of increased functionality. Please dont say how wonderfully easy you find it, this is my personal take on Max... its either Blitz with a future or bye bye BRL productline from me. This is very sad for me, as I am pretty sure the answer will be Max or nothing, as BRL obviously have put a lot of time and effort into Max and not providing an update to Blitz, should force the majority of developers towards Max and its new shiny 3D engine when it appears... For me, Ill just move on and not look back... My 10ps worth... |
| ||
| IMO, Blitz3d still beats Max. It's pretty much rock solid, you can use 3d very easily. Only thing it's missing is...well, dxtc :D |
| ||
| ..since DXTC missing, I find a way to 'compress' textures on to reasonable size in order to use big amount of textures, so, for example 256x256 texture is 4-8 Kb heavy (jpg) while 128x128 is approx 1-3kb heavy. Trust me..this is huge speed up, and thats why I was able to finish properly (with smooth graphics) my comercial walkthrou's since architects required plenty of different materials.. |
| ||
| lol ... JPG does not make the texture smaller in VRAM (its always width * height * bitdepth unless you use DXTC) it will only destroy Masking or better: destroy any type of alpha. And that it is faster on objects is logical as the bandwidth usage drops to 1/4 - 1/16 compared to textures that don't look crap. |
| ||
| I didnt said it will make it smaller..I said its not heavy and taking less VRAM than before.. |
| ||
| I am completely agree with Ian Thompson regarding his point of view about Blitz3D and BlitzMax. It is not possible for me to say it better. regards, |
| ||
| Excuse me, what is "Toms R2T dll"? |
| ||
| didnt said it will make it smaller..I said its not heavy and taking less VRAM than before.. But you're wrong- it does not take any less VRAM. |
| ||
| Excuse me, what is "Toms R2T dll"? Search for Render2Texture in the Blitz3D boards :-) |
| ||
| What about World of Warcraft? It's DX7 and Blizzard is earning billions each year.. |
| ||
| WoW with nice graphics is DX9 + shader (especially vertex shader for model animation) |
| ||
| Why not marry the two technologies of Blitz3D and BlitzMax, with Blitz3D being the main foundation/core and some of the added functionality of Max being added to it? Also, update to the DX9! Blitz3D is a marvelous product, and if Max is adding complexity with little functionality, than I say go back to B3D as the core, as it could be a *really* kick-butt product with upgrades. |
| ||
| The B3D core would not work with actual technology. It was built for its actual job but adding advanced technology will most likely break it. Otherwise it would have gotten DXTC support at some point as it wouldn't be that much to add. (compared to vertex weighted bone based animation for example) |
| ||
| Hi Sir Gak, I completely agree with you!!! However, IMO, the situtation is similar to Windows ME and XP. If you are already using Windows ME, which versions will MicroX most benefits - ME or XP? ME - no income, XP - new income. That's all. (In fact, for daily use, ME is already enough, except under special situtation) From BRL view, they are right. From our view, that's why there will be no new features. Sammy :( |
| ||
| The problem with Blitz3D is that the income from it has most likely run pretty dry. What we need is to pay the man for all the extra work in updating the language. I would be willing to pay for major updates, especially if it meant new features. |
| ||
| I would also pay for a DX9 update. |
| ||
| The man is being payed to make a 3d module for a new language which is, according to those that take time and give it a chance, superior to B3d in many ways. (B3d does, however, have some merits.) BRL isn't a big company; they can't do both no matter how much is thrown at them. Someone could make a full 3d engine that goes on top of B3d as a userlib. In fact, it's been done, but it ended up dieing. Not because it didn't work, though! (Until it died... then it fell apart over time due to lack of support). I would not be willing to pay for major updates, because I spent money on a product which explicitly stated that all updates would be free of charge. I also am relying on another product being developed by BR to be released this century, which would definietly not happen with them rewriting B3d from scratch. Maybe they'll do it later, though, using BMax as a basis but also having a language that is as pleasant seeming as B3d. Blitz3d is an old engine. Like all old engines, it had its time and it is now time for people to accept the sad fact that there are new engines. "Out with the old and in with the new", and all that. Besides, B3d's old DX7 technology is actually an advantage. Because it is still compatible with really cheasy and old computers, it can be used to make some really successful games. |
| ||
| ^-- second that! DX7 is fine for most purposes. If your game looks bad and needs a highend machine to run playable, i doubt its DX7's fault... |
| ||
| As Ian says, I will pay too for extra and serious updates of Blitz3D regarding to adapt the language to the new technologies. No doubt. :) regards, |
| ||
| first thing for me we have to remember that this is 3d engine which is purposely made for customer doing something regarding 3d project, not just looking into game but as for me, im using it for doing 'LightPick' software from pixar.. and for me, shader is somewhat important in our project, so DX7 for me is lil' bit off in doing that, we are looking into DX8 and above, why BRL just take a peek into something like this: - for a minor update of functions stability within B3D, its ok for free, but when it comes to a major update like switching to above DX, its ok for us to pay it... |
| ||
| I believe the differences between DX7 and DX8 and above proclude 'upgrading' Blitz3d. The main issue relates to how DX8 changed to become fully 3d with software driven 2d stuff?? (someone correct me if i'm wrong). |
| ||
| Ok, I like Blitz3d, I dont like Max, I dont like OO, all I want is the simplicity of Blitz with some up-to-date features... will this happen? You do realize that you can still write procedural code in BlitzMax as well? There's no need to use OO if you don't like it. |
| ||
| ok... 1) I would pay for an upgrade. I've said this on these forums for two years. 2) There's still life yet in B3D, while people are creating fantastic scenes using bump-mapping and cube-mapping etc. I hate those who say it's had it's day - check out the Gallery. 3) We're like a bunch of whining ninnies on this forum, gossiping amongst ourselves,, while BRL just seem to leave us to it without giving any kind of an answer. |
| ||
| I have tried max, I dont like it, simple as that. Blitz, for me, was easy to learn and quick to allow me access to the 3D pipeline. I can go into any of the code archives and pick up Blitz program and its easy to read, I cant say the same for the Max code. OO by its very polymorthic ethos, makes every program a complex heap of child parent inheritence that I detest. I feel Max has lost its way from as far as its target audience is concerned. Its adding complexity with not a great deal of increased functionality. Please dont say how wonderfully easy you find it, this is my personal take on Max... its either Blitz with a future or bye bye BRL productline from me. This is very sad for me, as I am pretty sure the answer will be Max or nothing, as BRL obviously have put a lot of time and effort into Max and not providing an update to Blitz, should force the majority of developers towards Max and its new shiny 3D engine when it appears... For me, Ill just move on and not look back... My 10ps worth... This explains why I prefer Blitz to Max. If Blitz and Max, were 2 seperate products, not one being the 'upgrade' from the other and they had equivilent 3D engines. I believe Blitz3D would have a larger user base, simply because its more readable and beginner friendly. And yes, you can program C within C++, but it would preclude you from a rather large source/knowledge base as well. Not ideal. |
| ||
| I hate those who say it's had it's day - check out the Gallery. I, for one, am not saying it's had its day. I am saying that it is time to move on and stop expecting it to do more.The gallery, in fact, shows exactly what I am saying. It shows that the language has definietly not yet hit the bucket, and it also shows that it is very capable of great things already, thus proving that the need for a major upgrade to a totally different engine is an unnecessary task. If Blitz and Max, were 2 seperate products, not one being the 'upgrade' from the other and they had equivilent 3D engines. I believe Blitz3D would have a larger user base, simply because its more readable and beginner friendly. -BlitzMax is not an upgrade to b3d; it is a seperate product. B3d has continued to recieve support from BRL, and judging by the gallery and worklogs, people continue to happily use it. It is however, being somewhat succeeded by BMax because of old B3d users who want more but like Blitz.And yes, you can program C within C++, but it would preclude you from a rather large source/knowledge base as well. Not ideal. -Being the standard programming language, C++ has a ginormous source base. Just about every engine and API is developed specifically for it. In my opinion, a paid update to B3d would have a much more negative effect. People would be claiming code ot be for Blitz3d, when it's really for Blitz3d running under the payed update. How would the version numbering work for such a proposed update? Would this make people who never updated B3d to DX9 suddenly unable to recieve any other updates as well? Such a thing would be exactly the problem that you have described. The only way this would work is as a seperate product. Forgive me if I'm wrong, but I think we're also forgetting that B3d isn't really a language at all. It is an engine built on top of the BlitzBASIC 2d language. |
| ||
| How would the version numbering work out of all the reasons not to update b3d, thats the worst ive heard.. i suppose the same could be said for bmax and module purchases then. i think if you see code that uses advanced features, or you download code and it gives errors that indicate featuers you dont have.. lets see.. 2+2= oh yes.. it must be for a version you dont have :). I dont expect b3d updates, although i would like them, and would pay for them.. but put forth just a little effort when giving reasons against them. |
| ||
| Ah, but BMax has precompiled modules; B3d does not. Unless we want an external DLL, which would not work well as it would require a totally rewritten engine (probably just copy and paste sort of stuff, though), thus even more wasted space in programs. It was a brilliant reason! Thinking completely uoutside of the box :P However, now that you've got me going, I'd best support my claim with an excessively dramatized scenario: I don't necessarily mean the idea of simple version numbering, though. It is a complete mess when one product suddenly branches off into 2 seperate chains of updates. Suddenly one end is recieving updates and one is not, errors are ocuring when code is copied and pasted from one code base to another to speed up development time to accomodate the two seperate versions. Two seperate update forums materialize; one for B3d with dx9, one for b3d with dx7. Perhaps even seperate forums altogether to keep things orderly. Further curfuffle as threads disappear. Suddenly people's questions in forums, and comments in update forums, and bug reports only appear to half of the B3d ommunity! Complete DOOM!!!! Here is my reason against a payed update My reason against a payed B3d update is that it would destroy Blitz Research's credibility as a developer that stays true to its word. What word? This word: You will also receive a registration code with your purchase, entitling you to free product updates and full access to the Blitz3D community forums. And there are many other official quotes stating more specifically that Updates Are Free. Stop asking to spend money on behalf of everyone; it's not going to happen, and if it does there will be much anger. I'm all for it if someone starts up a money pot for B3d update donations, but suggesting a paid update is, in my opinion, absurd. If you want to encourage an update, go ahead and give them money. Don't donate mine with it. |
| ||
| The problem would not only beeing their word ... but the fact that this part was part of the contract you bought it with. If they changed that, you would be entitled for a refund as they want to create a new contract. |
   |