Jump to content

Brent Taylor

Members
  • Content Count

    215
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

9 Neutral

About Brent Taylor

  • Rank
    Advanced Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Bay Area, California
  • Interests
    Hacking at code, Airsoft and art.
  1. Of course I'm not. Nor was I ever doing so to begin with. I was talking about DirectDraw which has been stated ENDLESSLY throughout this thread. Does anyone else see the problem here? He's arguing about a system in DirectX that is completely irrelevant to the conversation. He insults me, mocks me or otherwise baits me in every post he makes. I have documented proof FROM THE SDK, and I'm the fool. I'm the one he constantly insults. I've insulted him ONE time, after watching him start in on rick in another thread. I love coming here, but this is not worth the frustration. Am I supposed to just let it go? We have a lot of people on these forums who are just beginning in their programming career. Am i supposed to just let them stumble on information like this and let them think it's legit/correct? I argue because I care. However, this is just ridiculous. He's now twisting my words and transplanting anything I say into a different context. I'm tired of being insulted. I'm tired of being mocked. I'm tired of being belittled and treated like an imbocile. I'm not trying to be dramatic, but why should I put up with this?
  2. ... You are aware that DirectDraw and Direct3D are two completely different things, right? At least as far as DirectX 7 is concerned. He walks into a conversation about DirectDraw, starts arguing about Direct3D without letting anyone know, and I'm the one on a tangent. I'm the foolish one here. Keep throwing the insults.
  3. ... Wait wait wait. All this time you insult me, and you're taking a post that was in the context of a DirectDraw conversation and applying it to mean DirectX 7 as a whole? Are you serious? All those childish remarks from you. All the insults. And you take something from one context and supplant it into another? Are you kidding me? Of course Direct3D doesn't have a GDI fallback renderer! I have never said such and I never will. You took what I said COMPLETELY out of context.
  4. That isn't what I said. I said that GDI is a fallback for DirectDraw, not DirectX. In fact I've never indicated otherwise at any point. The HEL (Hardware Emulation Layer) emulates most if not all features of a video card in software (Windows' software drawing API is GDI). You've just admitted that DirectDraw drops the the HEL if a proper video card isn't found.
  5. I did. It's pretty clear. It drops to the HEL for any feature the HAL can't support. I'm not sure what else we're supposed to get out of that man.
  6. Considering the rapid posting in this thread, I think you probably just missed the post. You can find it: Here And I'll repost it here for convenience: And for information on the HEL (Hardware Emulation Layer) (found on the Software Emulation page): Still a little vague and doesn't mention GDI. This chart however is relatively clear (found on the System Integration page): So there you have it. If a proper video card is not found, it did in fact drop down to GDI for rendering.
  7. I stand corrected! This is the 2k XDDM driver. My mistake entirely. However the DirectX 7 documentation does pretty clearly indicate GDI as a backend. That said, I see no reason that GDI couldn't use DirectDraw as a backend if a proper video card is found. Though that much is just guesswork on my part. It wouldn't surprise me if there is a mention of this in Windows Internals somewhere. In addition, that's the 2k XDDM driver. DirectX 7 ran on Windows 95, 98 and 2k. It's very possible it's a 2k specific change.
  8. I would conclude that DirectDraw under DirectX 8 and higher do not have a GDI backend. Then again, you already know for a fact that I said this before this whole argument. Afterall, in the initial post that you replied to that started this whole argument I had already said this. However, as the DirectX 7 documentation has proven, it did in fact drop down to GDI if a suitable video card was not found. Must we go on? EDIT: As indicated a few posts down from here, that is documentation for Win2k's XDDM driver so Dx7 is potentially used. This however is not the case for Win95 and Win98.
  9. The problem with a lot of info on DirectDraw is that most of it pertains to DirectDraw under DirectX 8 and higher. With the release of DirectX 8, DirectDraw was completely rewritten to run on top of Direct3D. In addition, a lot of other systems ended up being written to take advantage of DirectDraw under XP with the release of DirectX 9 (which is what your snippet is refering to I believe). The whole argument was about DirectDraw before the rewrite.
  10. Woohoo! Found the DX 7 documentation. Anyone interested can find it here: http://dl.dropbox.co...ads/dx7docs.exe Here's a few choice bits from the DirectX 7 documentation on the subject. It first hints at software emulation here (found on the Architectural Overview for DirectDraw): And for information on the HEL (Hardware Emulation Layer) (found on the Software Emulation page): Still a little vague and doesn't mention GDI. This chart however is relatively clear (found on the System Integration page): So there you have it. If a proper video card is not found, it did in fact drop down to GDI for rendering.
  11. Keep in mind, this would make a lot of games fairly unplayable. In an FPS, one second is enough time to circle around a player and shoot him from behind. If all clients are potentially one second behind you're going to have very frustrated players.
  12. I haven't actually taken the time to actually time any of this so excuse what may be ignorance on my part. We send data pretty quick these days, especially when sending via localhost. Is it possible you're just sending too little information to actually measure a time difference? It's possible the queue is just empty before the next bit of data is loaded and sent along to the queue. In addition, how are you timing this exactly? Post code if you could.
  13. So there is no logic to GDI being used as a fallback renderer? Keeping in mind it's the only thing I've been arguing about. And you haven't shown any proof otherwise. Uh, great. With the exception of not being able to find the proof (seeing as the DX7 documentation is nowhere to be found), I'd say I fit that definition just fine. In either case, rather than explain why I'm being illogical you seem bound and determined to simply belittle me. Until proven that I'm wrong, I see no real reason to stop. Why would I? Peer pressure? That wouldn't be logical. I'm sure that's great information on using DirectX 7. I'm interested in it's implementation. That is not the DirectX 7 documentation. (I'm also pretty against piracy in general.) As a side note: Linking a piracy site on here is probably not a good idea. EDIT: Honestly, I give up. This is a meaningless argument. I can't argue my point as I can't find the documentation. All that is being accomplished is allowing Red to attack my character despite not having any proof or documentation himself. In addition we've hijacked a thread on a completely different topic. If I can find the DX7 documentation somewhere, I'll add one last post on the subject indicating whether I was right or wrong. Otherwise, I'll stay on topic.
  14. I'd be greatful for a link to the old DirectX 7 documentation. I've found several links to it on the MSDN, all of which are dead. And I have no issue with being proven wrong in those instances. However, I find it interesting that you portray this as a common event. This is why I think you're still upset about the events from our previous argument. I'm certainly wrong on ocassion (it's healthy), it's not often however. It's very rare that I'll argue a point without some sort of documentation to back me up. And that "conclusion" would have much more validity as an authority on the subject if DirectX 9 was not already in common use at the point of his post. In regaurds to DirectX 8 and 9 he's absolutely correct. This I would think would be fairly obvious. Remember, I said it defaults to GDI if a proper video card is not found. It's a fallback. Hence why I said: Also note me pointing out my mistake. Just for good measure. I think I've presented a fairly logical argument here. As I said, this is unfortunately very difficult for me to argue seeing as I can't find the DirectX 7 documentation anywhere. If you happen to have a link handy, by all means send it my way (and to be clear, I'm not putting the search on you. I'm looking for it as well). EDIT: @Everyone else My bad. It's pretty clear we're hijacking the thread here.
×
×
  • Create New...