Future of DirectX

Esenthel

I'm starting to get worried about DirectX, because mostly it becomes deprecated, first there was DirectPlay, and now it is the same thing for DirectInput and DirectSound, I've recently read that they are becoming deprecated in favor of XACT and XInput. Could you tell me why is this happening What will become of DirectX in the future Will be there only Direct3D, or will it disappear either

I'd like to give you my opinion that deprecating good API's like DirectInput and DirectSound is a bad idea. Take a look at XInput- it allows only xbox controllers, and what about mice, keyboards, or other joypads

And mostly I'm concerned about DirectSound, In Vista there is no hardware support for it, does that mean I have to stop working with DirectSound and go to XACT Why are you cutting DirectSound to something that isn't finished yet I mean XACT doesn't have the main feature that most of programmers use - Custom sound buffers, with the ability to lock, read and write your own data to it. It's just like you were forcing us, to abandon "c++" and move to some kind of "visual basic". I don't like it, XACT allows only wav and adpcm files, which is not enough. Buffer locking is needed for many aplications, like the ones using their own compression formats, or voice synthesizers, or the ones that generate sound out of mathematical functions. How do I do that in XACT I can't! So I'm asking why are you deprecating the API's that can do it

Please leave DirectX alone, don't deprecate it, don't replace it, don't kill it. DirectX gives you very big control of the programming aspects. If DirectSound is too old for Vista, then either update DirectSound, or deprecate it to something that has the key features like DirectSound.

redshock

I have been arguing this for two years now, among other deprecations in the past. Good to see a twin of mine around. The truth is game companies don't really use Microsoft's technologies other than Direct3D. They use Rad Game Tools (http://www.radgametools.com/) for video, sound, and more although fairly expensive to use legally. I would assume it just comes down to better flexibility and portability. All you have left is 3D which is where Microsoft and Khronos Group comes in these days. I agree, I miss the suite of free and supported tools, but I'm guessing Microsoft realizes that they only excel in the graphics area.

The ZMan

Esenthel wrote:

I'm starting to get worried about DirectX, because mostly it becomes deprecated, first there was DirectPlay, and now it is the same thing for DirectInput and DirectSound, I've recently read that they are becoming deprecated in favor of XACT and XInput. Could you tell me why is this happening What will become of DirectX in the future Will be there only Direct3D, or will it disappear either

Other than what is in DX10 there really is nothing public about the future of DirectX. In general though remember that DirectX is an API for professional game developers. The indie guys and the hobby guys have to live with whatever we get - do we always like it No. So DirectMusic, DirectShow, DirectDraw, DirectPlay... well there are no big companies using those so they are either deprecated, or they are just supported without any new features.

Esenthel wrote:

I'd like to give you my opinion that deprecating good API's like DirectInput and DirectSound is a bad idea. Take a look at XInput- it allows only xbox controllers, and what about mice, keyboards, or other joypads

I'm not sure that either of those are considered deprecated. Yes XInput looks like a replacement in the making but DirectInput is still there and works just fine.

Esenthel wrote:

And mostly I'm concerned about DirectSound, In Vista there is no hardware support for it, does that mean I have to stop working with DirectSound and go to XACT Why are you cutting DirectSound to something that isn't finished yet

Have you noticed any sound issues on the xbox 360 Guess what there is no hardware sound on there either. Fact is that multi core CPUs are more than capable of handling the things that hardware sound used to cover. I believe the 3d sound stuff is still an issue so there may well be a valid point there (sorry I am not up to speed enugh on that aspect to really comment)

Esenthel wrote:

I mean XACT doesn't have the main feature that most of programmers use - Custom sound buffers, with the ability to lock, read and write your own data to it. It's just like you were forcing us, to abandon "c++" and move to some kind of "visual basic". I don't like it, XACT allows only wav and adpcm files, which is not enough. Buffer locking is needed for many aplications, like the ones using their own compression formats, or voice synthesizers, or the ones that generate sound out of mathematical functions. How do I do that in XACT I can't! So I'm asking why are you deprecating the API's that can do it

Which is probably why DirectSound is still a part of the SDK.

Please leave DirectX alone, don't deprecate it, don't replace it, don't kill it. DirectX gives you very big control of the programming aspects. If DirectSound is too old for Vista, then either update DirectSound, or deprecate it to something that has the key features like DirectSound.

In reality its pretty cool how backward compatible DirectX and windows is - its surprising how many 8 year old games will install and run just fine considering how games are the apps that almost always push the envelope.

Everything comes and goes in cycles... and there are always some people that don't agree with the decisions. Not everything in these forums gets read by Microsoft so you should pass your opinions on to directx@microsoft.com to be sure they are heard. However "I am developing a 30 million dollar title and need feature X" will get heard much more than "i don't like this and you shouldn't change it"

Esenthel

To be honest, I don't care much about "DirectMusic, DirectShow, DirectDraw, DirectPlay", because everything what was there can be done in other way, music playing through-directsound, displaying graphics is better in direct3d than directdraw, and network functionality can be done by using sockets (altough i haven't tried that yet).

It's just directinput and directsound that are important to me (and of course direct3d). Yes I agree that hardware backward compatibility is superb, i thought so until I have read that in Windows Vista there are problems with games using DirectSound3d/EAX, saying that they can even drop to stereo output, with no 3d positioning, that's what concerns me. Creative has released a patch for the application but it works only for X-Fi audio cards.

In fact I am developing a game, maybe not 30mln dollars, but still aiming high ;) Thanks for the respond, I'll send my thoughts to that e-mail address you gave me.

The ZMan

My point is that people complained about DirectMusic, DirectShow, DirectDraw, DirectPlay in exactly the same way as you did. In fact there are still plenty of folk out there who would love DirectDraw to be supported and part of the API. There is also actually no repalcement way for doing the things DirectMusic did unless you go and buy a 3rd party library or write it yourself - DirectMusic was not a way to play sounds like DirectSound. See http://msdn.microsoft.com/archive/default.asp url=/archive/en-us/directx9_c/directx/htm/introductiontodirectmusic.asp

I certainly didn't intend to imply that you were not writing a game, just that Microsoft responds most to large publishers.

Slow

well lets be honest da Z-man is right...

direct X is not for indies never meant to be (tell me about an SDK out there whose tutorials or samples would compile out of the box Not dirext X you bet)

no it was never meant for indies, yes it might be a big mistake but not yet. look at the first support that vb had in direct X (i still use the com direct X for visual basic to use v b well)

Games are getting easier to create and frankly speaking the only reason direct X could survive to DX10 is cos games run on MS technologies. once tools like tourque increase in use and popularity what indie would use DX why is Jave popular with games on mobiles cos its easier to learn hell no!

look at it this way i have installed the feb DX sdk tried samples from the book managed direct X kick start by sams (i love VB..beautiful language), spent a fourtune on VS2005. tried coding (lost a monitor.. :) spent three hours trying not to use C# instead of VB ended up craking my LCD) i was begining to think games was just not my thing

well i have read a book on tourque and Killa Jave for games.... all i can say is stuff DX for indies. use something else (even truevision 3d works beautifully- mind you their dev team is less than .25 of the DX team.)

so does Microsoft give a damn about us .....NAAAAA

or u could use, whats it called XNA learn C# its pretty good too.

MS forgets how volatile the Dev society is always leave options open, you have the resources get the job done cos when a substitute pops up from no where, i don't want to be the one calling MS and saying told u so big Daddy...

Jim Perry

Slow wrote:

direct X is not for indies never meant to be (tell me about an SDK out there whose tutorials or samples would compile out of the box Not dirext X you bet)

Huh I haven't had problems with them that I can remember. Maybe it's a PEBKAC issue.

Slow wrote:

so does Microsoft give a damn about us .....NAAAAA or u could use, whats it called XNA learn C# its pretty good too.

You just contradicted yourself. XNA is MS's attempt at getting new, fresh ideas into the industry by bringing in the indies and hobbyists.

Slow

Huh I haven't had problems with them that I can remember. Maybe it's a PEBKAC issue

oh yeah try a VB sample (you would get the version Conflict error. then you have to re-reference...that is not my idea of working from the BOX and please no lectures on managed version 2 and 1.0 or .5 or ...)

You just contradicted yourself. XNA is MS's attempt at getting new, fresh ideas into the industry by bringing in the Indies and hobbyists.

You don't get it... lets look back a bit "C# is a new language that would be better than C++..." from MS " ...it even gets rid of the mother of all evil, Pointers....blah blah blah" DX is still based on C++

My idea and the above quote you claim to be a contradiction is merely stating (albeit sarcastically) that instead of creating more functionality in DX, MS has opted for a new tech. XNA. does this make Direct X more accessible to Indies why create two different frameworks

ProfEclipse

Slow wrote:

Huh I haven't had problems with them that I can remember. Maybe it's a PEBKAC issue oh yeah try a VB sample (you would get the version Conflict error. then you have to re-reference...that is not my idea of working from the BOX and please no lectures on managed version 2 and 1.0 or .5 or ...)

The Managed DX tutorials compile just fine out of the box with VC# and VB.NET. Although there are no VB source files provided for the tutorials, so you have to type them in yourself. But they do work.

Slow wrote:

You just contradicted yourself. XNA is MS's attempt at getting new, fresh ideas into the industry by bringing in the Indies and hobbyists. You don't get it... lets look back a bit "C# is a new language that would be better than C++..." from MS " ...it even gets rid of the mother of all evil, Pointers....blah blah blah" DX is still based on C++

I'm not sure there's a point there. A lot of things are still based on C++. You don't just decide that C# is better and stop providing support for C++.

Slow wrote:

My idea and the above quote you claim to be a contradiction is merely stating (albeit sarcastically) that instead of creating more functionality in DX, MS has opted for a new tech. XNA. does this make Direct X more accessible to Indies why create two different frameworks

DirectX is a set of APIs. XNA is a framework built on the DirectX APIs. There aren't two different frameworks. And, yes, XNA and GSE do make DirectX more accessible. As for more functionality in DX, MS has opted for D3D10, the next logical step from D3D9.