back to list

DirectX Dekany?

🔗AMiltonF@aol.com

2/18/2001 8:35:56 PM

I don't know how much everybody knows about DirectX but it could be the
easiest way to implement the new Dekany thoughts going around. It was
designed for high end video games and has all the bells and whistles. Here's
some of the things that it can do that relate to the idea:
+Full 3d engine programming interface for graphics and audio (doppler
effects, too).
+High speed user input from any input device.
+Has interfaces for audio files including wave, midi and DirectMusic files.
+DirectMusic files can be composed to be interactive/dynamic and use the DLS
standard put forth by the MMA.
+Based on the Component Object Model and is very fast.
+Boatload of soundcards and video adapters with DirectX hardware accelerators
built in
+Currently up to release 8 and well established in the MS-Windows OS.

Microsoft is doing great things with the DirectX programming interface.
DirectMusic for example is blowing me away and that is only a small
subsection of the whole kit)

A really good program could be written using DirectX.

regards,
Andy

🔗JSZANTO@ADNC.COM

2/18/2001 10:27:19 PM

--- In tuning@y..., AMiltonF@a... wrote:
> I don't know how much everybody knows about DirectX but it could be
the
> easiest way to implement the new Dekany thoughts going around.

I think this is a great idea. The only drag is the bias towards
Wintel platforms, but for something this complex to come out remotely
graceful and "on budget" (i.e. pro bono), I think cross-platform
compatibility may be out of the question.

Therefore, leaving out Mac, *nix, and other OS's...

But far better than locked in a spreadsheet!

Cheers,
Jon

🔗Dave Keenan <D.KEENAN@UQ.NET.AU>

2/19/2001 3:14:12 PM

DirectX sounds great for 3D lattices. But what about 4D? That was the
problem with MatLab and VRML. They allowed motion in a single 3D
projection of the 4D world, rather than motion in the 4D
world projected down to 3D on a frame-by-frame basis.

🔗AMiltonF@aol.com

2/19/2001 7:12:38 PM

Dave Keenan wrote:

>DirectX sounds great for 3D lattices. But what about 4D? That was the
>problem with MatLab and VRML. They allowed motion in a single 3D
>projection of the 4D world, rather than motion in the 4D
>world projected down to 3D on a frame-by-frame basis.

DirectX has that covered. It gives you super fast access to the video card.
Fast enough to to do this flipping thing where you have image A on the screen
and you've got image B being prepared, then, faster than the refresh rate, it
swaps the two. All controlled with a high level coding interface. If I
understand you correctly it's ideal!

regards,
Andy