Max3d - old hardware
BlitzMax Forums/BlitzMax Programming/Max3d - old hardware
| ||
| I dont mind the Directx9 requirements but is it possible to have the shader-stuff in a different 'module' to the basic blitz3d type commands? (because I read a post by mark about non-shader hardware) |
| ||
| I agree! But i'll take anything DX I can get at this point. |
| ||
| I think you may have misread the post. DirectX 9 wasn't a requirement (although the engine will be for DX9 and OpenGL), but Mark did say the 3D engine would probably be aimed at DX9-level hardware (that's the Radeon 9xxx/Xxx series and the GeForce 5xxx/6xxx series IIRC) and may additionally require pixel shader support (which is a smaller subset of those cards). Now pixel shader cards aren't uncommon these days, but it does mean that this engine won't run on older cards unless Mark decides to add fixed-pipeline support. I really hope he does, but I'm not too worried as there are a couple of third-party 3D engines in the wings which will probably work on older hardware. |
| ||
| Earlier, people were complaining that B3D didn't have DX9 support... Now they're complaining that the next engine won't have support for older cards... It seems you can never satisfy people... :p |
| ||
| Sadly though 'shader hardware required' does rule out a large number of PCs brought in the last three or four years. My laptop for example has no shader support but it is only a couple of years old. |
| ||
| geforce 4 etc does shaders (ok not the newest but still does shaders!) and id like to see support for older versions also not just the newest... |
| ||
| I never cried for pixelshader support for B3D. I just want to have a high compatability for the people buying my game. Thats why I want D3D in the first place. Its seems to me that writing a 3d engine that *Requires* pixelshader support sounds like a major design flaw to me. But only Mark can say what it will be. |
| ||
| Why cant there be option for shaders etc, so it wouldnt rule out cards not supporting those features? |
| ||
| I should point out here that Mark's post implied that he hasn't decided whether or not to make shader hardware a requirement. I'm am just voicing support for the 'compatibility' camp. |
| ||
| Some lower support would be nice ... A minimum of T&L compatible would be ok ( don't see a use of support for 2D only cards in 3D engines ) and should be an enough broad range of support as this includes all ATI since radeon 7500 and all nvidia since GeForce 1 or so. bad for those with SIS or Intel ... on the other side they are no 3D chips so its up to them to buy a 3D card to play 3D games. |
| ||
| I think a GeForce 3 and its ATI equivalent should be the bare minimum of support, it still has support for shaders (granted, not the newest) and is pretty fast. SIS and Intel Extreme ____sets (fill it in with your favorite naughty word) can burn for all I care -- not the users, just the chips. People with those chipsets are usually laptop owners, and they don't have much choice if they don't have about $1000 to spend (my laptop has a 6800 Go, and without the rebate I had it would've costed a little above $1800). Last I heard, the Intel Extreme chips had decent support for OpenGL but were extremely lacking on the Direct3D front. Not sure and I can't confirm this, but I wouldn't bother supporting them. |
| ||
| Problem is that the most used chipset still are GF2 MX / GF4 MX. Both quite acceptable in performance with full T&L support but without shaders. ( 1000$ for a laptop is the total bare minimum here ... an acceptable like mine with mobility 9700 already costs around 2000$ ) |
   |