Robert Lettan

Something I have liked about DirectX for years over the alternatives is namely everything was basically under the same roof. Rather than having to know and try to get several api's to communicate, everything that was needed for developing games was there.

Nowadays however it appears that the DirectX api appears to be getting stripped down more and more, which to me during a time where development is getting far more timely and involving due to much more complex technologies that although allowing more freedom also require more backbone code just to run and much longer technology learning cycles; all seems daft.

Not sure about others, but I'd love to have a Windows edition of the XDK.

Rather than needing the Platform/Windows SDK, DirectX SDK, Avalon SDK, and Windows Live SDK.

It should all be cut-down in to a development kit that basically has what we need.

I'm still waiting for Live, Achiements, Game Networking, and XUI to be released for Windows use. I still have no idea why DirectInput hasn't been superceeded by XInput despite it obviously having the features to do it. Something that can be downloaded and used on Visual Studio Express as a single download that is all combined systems rather than several SDKs that in-turn contain several SDKs.

Sure for Windows more SDKs are available to provide more depth to what you can develop, but personally I find there's just too much. They should be building on smaller core functions than the rest should be a layer built on-top of the main api in order to provided that extended functionality people like. So that everything is needs be could be cut-down the essencials.

Something else I'd like to see is Vista has terrible game performance. OpenGL runs roughly the same speeds as it does on XP, but it gets that early Dx issue of jump rendering. Where sometimes it'll hang for a second then catch up real quickly. DirectX8/9 itself is just appauling performance. Games I could play on XP (Half-Life 2) are now completely unplayable even on the lowest settings.

Futhermore is DirectX10 only support DirectX10 card, which is a pain cause while this means 100% compatibility for everyone using Dx10 features; reality is that in order to use Dx10 we have to go out and get a ¡ê300 card, oh and only one type of card for it is currently on the market. To me that seems just down-right stupid.

I want to be able to develop on DirectX10 and experience these "performance" benefits that have been talked about so much over a good DirectX 9 card on Windows XP. So far there are only a handful of aspects that Dx10 actually seems to have over Dx9 and some of those can actually be achieved in Dx9 (as I've had to on the 360) .. so realistically the main difference is performance. If i does perform better how come only these supercharged cards can use it

It's like comming out with a new car, saying it's design allows it to perform much better than anything else; but then only having the chassis support the best performance engine on the market. Quite simply anything will appear better on the best card on the market, I want to see what it can do on the the cards that everyone has and will have until the Dx10 card generation actually hits the market.

And while I'm on the subject, where the heck is Live for Windows!! I'm not talking about these silly internet systems.. I'm talking about the system that let's us play and interact with xbox users. There's a few games comming out (Halo 2 is due out within the month for crying out loud) which supports Live, yet there's no SDK available nor is Live Anywhere out for Vista which is actually one of the major reasons I upgraded!!



Re: Game Technologies: General Complete game development kit?

Jim Perry

Robert Lettan wrote:
Something that can be downloaded and used on Visual Studio Express as a single download that is all combined systems rather than several SDKs that in-turn contain several SDKs.

Clicky

Robert Lettan wrote:
And while I'm on the subject, where the heck is Live for Windows!! I'm not talking about these silly internet systems.. I'm talking about the system that let's us play and interact with xbox users. There's a few games comming out (Halo 2 is due out within the month for crying out loud) which supports Live, yet there's no SDK available nor is Live Anywhere out for Vista which is actually one of the major reasons I upgraded!!

Well, there's obviously an SDK available since there's games in the works, but unless you're a registered developer you probably won't see it.

It sounds like you want every that a registered developer has access to without being one. Why would you expect that






Re: Game Technologies: General Complete game development kit?

Robert Lettan

Jim Perry wrote:

Robert Lettan wrote:
Something that can be downloaded and used on Visual Studio Express as a single download that is all combined systems rather than several SDKs that in-turn contain several SDKs.

Clicky

XNA is a nice idea, however realistically it doesn't actually provide anything towards a "complete game development kit" than Managed DirectX does. In-fact I'm fairly sure that Xna framework is just Managed Dx 2.0 with some upgrades that were released to Native Dx a year ago. The only real aspect that makes it stand out as a development package is the ability to utilise XNA Build, which allows developers to put all their media in and it'll output it into a format compatible with x86 and PowerPC.

For additional stuff you're given the .NET Framework 2.0 Compat edition for Windows or Xbox 360.

While this all does give some support, it still doesn't provide everything in the SDKs that you would use for development means. Also if there is something, let's say you want to hook in a 3rd party physics engine.. this on C# is still a fairly difficult and/or lengthy process to attach from native code. Especially if you want to be able to use it seemlessly in C#.

Don't get me wrong Managed development is a good idea, just don't think that it's really at that stage yet for it to be used for anything more than hobbyist or independant developer needs. Where taking that "leap of faith" idea is alright.

It also doesn't help unify development platforms or api useability very much as it's so irritatingly different to native directx.

Plus I don't fancy forking out the cost of 2 games just to be able to test my latest creation on the 360, that to me seems silly in itself.

They really need a much better system for developers and gamers to create and share. I know one is on it's way, but for now the current system just means it's really nothing more than something you can boot up and play with on a weekend.


[quote user = "Jim Perry"]

Robert Lettan wrote:
And while I'm on the subject, where the heck is Live for Windows!! I'm not talking about these silly internet systems.. I'm talking about the system that let's us play and interact with xbox users. There's a few games comming out (Halo 2 is due out within the month for crying out loud) which supports Live, yet there's no SDK available nor is Live Anywhere out for Vista which is actually one of the major reasons I upgraded!!

Well, there's obviously an SDK available since there's games in the works, but unless you're a registered developer you probably won't see it.

It sounds like you want every that a registered developer has access to without being one. Why would you expect that

Technically speaking I already have Games for Windows Live, as it's part of the XDK. So while it's there more to develop live test servers and clients in-house, I have no idea if it's going to work the same as the official sdk that will be released for it.

Not yet asked my account manager if I could have access to it, because for the moment it's not an "important" issue for me personally. This said I am quite confused over why Live Anywhere isn't in beta at the very least on http://ideas.live.com , just seems a little odd given when they showed it off at a Vista presentation it appeared to be working alright and they claimed it would be available to those who bought Vista Ultimate. (I was most annoyed neither Live Anywhere OR Uno were released with Ultimate)

In-fact more shockingly was the Xbox 360 Controller for Windows drivers were v1.0 rather than v1.1 which provides the status bar and Xbox 360 Wireless Controller support.

So really my point is aimed less at being a "registered developer working on a title" and more as an end-user wondering why Vista Ultimate seemed to only have a couple of real goodies, none that are realistically useful on a daily basis like Live Anywhere would've been. Seriously what did justify that huge price-tag





Re: Game Technologies: General Complete game development kit?

Jim Perry

Robert Lettan wrote:
XNA is a nice idea, however realistically it doesn't actually provide anything towards a "complete game development kit" than Managed DirectX does. In-fact I'm fairly sure that Xna framework is just Managed Dx 2.0 with some upgrades that were released to Native Dx a year ago. The only real aspect that makes it stand out as a development package is the ability to utilise XNA Build, which allows developers to put all their media in and it'll output it into a format compatible with x86 and PowerPC.

Do you want something more like TorqueX

Robert Lettan wrote:
They really need a much better system for developers and gamers to create and share. I know one is on it's way, but for now the current system just means it's really nothing more than something you can boot up and play with on a weekend.

Really ! Have you seen the games people are coming up with using XNA

Robert Lettan wrote:
Technically speaking I already have Games for Windows Live, as it's part of the XDK. So while it's there more to develop live test servers and clients in-house, I have no idea if it's going to work the same as the official sdk that will be released for it.

Not yet asked my account manager if I could have access to it, because for the moment it's not an "important" issue for me personally. This said I am quite confused over why Live Anywhere isn't in beta at the very least on http://ideas.live.com , just seems a little odd given when they showed it off at a Vista presentation it appeared to be working alright and they claimed it would be available to those who bought Vista Ultimate. (I was most annoyed neither Live Anywhere OR Uno were released with Ultimate)

Live Anywhere is a service, not just a piece of software. Games hook into the service, it doesn't just get installed on your PC.

Robert Lettan wrote:
So really my point is aimed less at being a "registered developer working on a title" and more as an end-user wondering why Vista Ultimate seemed to only have a couple of real goodies, none that are realistically useful on a daily basis like Live Anywhere would've been. Seriously what did justify that huge price-tag

This is a whole separate issue unrelated to game development so should be asked in a different forum.