Sorry your browser is not supported!

You are using an outdated browser that does not support modern web technologies, in order to use this site please update to a new browser.

Browsers supported include Chrome, FireFox, Safari, Opera, Internet Explorer 10+ or Microsoft Edge.

DarkBASIC Professional Discussion / Dark Basic Pro - is it worth it?

Author
Message
Syntax Terror
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 5th Jan 2004
Location:
Posted: 5th Jan 2004 21:21
Hi

I've been messing around with the dbp demo, but I have some serious
problems with it. The Features page of dbp claims the software is
capable of loading models like x,3ds,mdl,md2,md3. However after alot
of testing I couldn't get anything else than X to work. I need the
MDL format most. Also I've tryed lightmapping wich is unavailable
because of the lack of support for second uv coordinates. Not being
able to light map a level is very bad IMO. Honestly I would like
my levels to have a modern look and not like a doom1 level, as now.
How come the game creators are advertising for features that DBPro
aint capable of? Seems like bad marketing to me.
Are there any other similar programming tools available on the net
wich works as supposed???
Jaze
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 20th Nov 2003
Location: Connecticut, USA
Posted: 5th Jan 2004 21:35 Edited at: 5th Jan 2004 21:37
hehehehehe - Syntax Terror? I love it! Um - sounds like you know 3D - it does have quirks - and they are working on it all the time - so - keep scoping it out - they MIGHT be working on some physics stuff - we know they are working on fixing some file format loading issues - there is a "6.0" patch thats supposed to be out within few monthes I guess - you can get cracking pretty quick with it - there are others to - and quite honestly many choose this one simply cuz the forums are active and the developers are always a click away -

Throwing out a TECHY question - well - it USUALLY gets answered pretty quick.

As everyone knows - I have my gripes - and so do many - yet - we all kinda figure out what works best - talk about it - and make things or try to


-=/Jaze/=-
ReD_eYe
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 9th Mar 2003
Location: United Kingdom
Posted: 5th Jan 2004 23:02
the demo can only load .x models as far as i know, dbp does have some problems with one of the .mdl formats(i forget which number, i don't use them ) i think lightmapping may be possible when update 6 comes out, as the new .dbo format will be introduced then(aswell as a lot of bugfixes), but i'm not totally sure.
i think you'll find that dbpro is the most powerful+up to date games programming language of its type. others include blitz 3d, although i belive that is using an older version of direct x and is no longer being developed...
back to lightmapping, i'm sure i've seen lightmapped levels on dbpro games, its just knowing the right way to go about it.


GO TO THE ETERNAL DESTINY FORUMS!!! http://forums.eternaldestinyonline.com
Do it now!!!
OSX Using Happy Dude
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 21st Aug 2003
Location: At home
Posted: 5th Jan 2004 23:04
Only certain types of .MDL etc could be loaded - they should be making it more general for U6.


The place for all great plug-ins
UnderLord
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 2nd Aug 2003
Location:
Posted: 5th Jan 2004 23:37
BTW a demo never ever has all the options that the full version has hence DEMO if that where the case demo's might as well be full version and or full version games ect...but anyhow

i think its worth it is a easy to learn language plus it has just about anything a low level guy like me could ever learn to use =)

MX46 motherboard 1.7ghz 785mb's DDR ram gforce 4 mx440 se 64mb ddr dual vga gfx card with onboard lan/sound/graphics works great...sometimes
Tapewormz
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 15th Sep 2002
Location: Winnipeg, Mantoba, Canada
Posted: 5th Jan 2004 23:58
DarkBasic Professional is worth the money. Sure it's buggy as all heck, but it has pretty decent support.

The only complaint I have with DBP is the goofy IDE. It looks like a warezy piece of crap (but that's just my opinion). It's no where near as trashy as DarkBasic Classic. I'm used to high end IDE's like Visual Basic 6 and Visual Basic.NET. If the IDE isn't an issue for you, then heck, you can't do any better than DBP for the money.

It's a nifty language if you're a hobbiest. I wouldn't reccomend it for professional applications.
OSX Using Happy Dude
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 21st Aug 2003
Location: At home
Posted: 6th Jan 2004 00:00
Quote: "I wouldn't reccomend it for professional applications."

I certainly would if U6 fixes all the bugs - if it doesn't then maybe not...


The place for all great plug-ins
2 x XP3000+, 1Gb RAM, nVidia FX5600 & Draytec Router.
Tapewormz
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 15th Sep 2002
Location: Winnipeg, Mantoba, Canada
Posted: 6th Jan 2004 00:13
In defence of my last statement, the inherent IDE is crappy. However, there are third party IDE's becomming available. I believe that TGC is releasing a new IDE sometime this year.

Everyone who's feathers are ruffled, can relax now.
zircher
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 27th Dec 2002
Location: Oklahoma
Posted: 6th Jan 2004 00:16
Is it worth it? Hobby-wise, hell yes. Dollar for dollar, I've saved hundreds that I used to spend on games. I've used this program for over a year and it has far out lasted even my favorite computer games.
--
TAZ
Tapewormz
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 15th Sep 2002
Location: Winnipeg, Mantoba, Canada
Posted: 6th Jan 2004 00:22
I don't think that DarkBasic Professional will ever be widely accepted as a professional development and deploy language. Atleast not at this stage of it's development. If TGC can bring DBP to the level of C# or VB, (which is what I'm hoping TGC is striving to achieve) then it'll be a huge success.
OSX Using Happy Dude
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 21st Aug 2003
Location: At home
Posted: 6th Jan 2004 00:27
Well, you can use DBPro in C...


The place for all great plug-ins
2 x XP3000+, 1Gb RAM, nVidia FX5600 & Draytec Router.
Syntax Terror
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 5th Jan 2004
Location:
Posted: 6th Jan 2004 03:25
Thanks for all the replys

The reason I would use DBPro is to develop shareware games\appz.
As you all know, shareware software doesn't require top notch
technology or artwork, however they require to work properly and
on as many pc configurations as possible to being able to generate
a resonable amount of sales. IMO it seems dbp is a great tool but with some simple yet serious flaws wich makes it less then
appropriate for shareware developing.

Some examples are:
* dbp crash with screensaver
* dbp quits\crash after minimize or switch
* dbp unstable with many different systems or older systems

those are some of the problems that makes dbp hard to use for
shareware. However if the main purpose of dbp is for hobby only
then yes I agree it's great at that price.
I seems I might have to look elsewere for something more robust and
compatible with older systems\videocards.

... And no, I dont want to use c++

Quote: "
others include blitz 3d, although i belive that is using an older version of direct x and is no longer being developed...
"


Yeah I'm currently trying that one out, seems very promising

Thanks
Jaze
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 20th Nov 2003
Location: Connecticut, USA
Posted: 6th Jan 2004 03:30
Hmm... I thought almost all DirectX apps tend to go screwy more often than not when task switching - minimizing etc - unless in windowed mode - then seems fine.... to me. I dunno. The fact that Blitz MAY NOT be in development anymore kinda makes it less interesting to me.... I dunno. I think dbpro is shareware game material... all out commercial for that matter - just got to plan it right or require a super PC... but do able. I little unconventional... but doable nonetheless.


-=/Jaze/=-
Syntax Terror
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 5th Jan 2004
Location:
Posted: 6th Jan 2004 03:42
Quote: "
I thought almost all DirectX apps tend to go screwy more often than not when task switching
"


I have to disagree Jaze
I've tryed many of todays modern shareware games, and crashes becouse
of minimize/switch/screensaver are very rare.

The compatibility issues is far more important, I test runned dbp
on many different pc configurations, and dbp failed or was to slow
on many of those. This is very bad for shareware you must agree.
Jaze
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 20th Nov 2003
Location: Connecticut, USA
Posted: 6th Jan 2004 03:48
Try Star Wraith before you commit to your findings thus far. It is shareware - and quite impressive


-=/Jaze/=-
the_winch
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 1st Feb 2003
Location: Oxford, UK
Posted: 6th Jan 2004 04:38
I use it as a hobby and it is proberly the best £50 I have spent for a hobby.

For commercial apps and shareware personally I would think about looking elsewhere. Dbpro just has too many problems,
dx9
criptic errors if dx9 isn't there
large exe size
high system requirements, anything under 800mhz age and you can't say for sure the game will even run.

I think the longer and more complex development times of other languages could be worth the reduction in technical support effort and increased potential userbase.

dbpro : 2ghz p4m : 512mb : geforce 4 4200 go
Lonnie
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 28th May 2003
Location:
Posted: 6th Jan 2004 04:48
DBPro is becoming more, and more popular, kids down the street that I know are now buying DBPro.

And as for, is it worth it. Well... I bought it. And I like it. Just remember, it will take practise and time. Some effort to. But you can do some cool things with DBPro(DarkBasicPro).

As I said before, I know the kids that bought DBPro, and they are only 12 years old, and they enjoy it.

Later

Do Print "Hello World"
Wait 2003 loop
Tapewormz
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 15th Sep 2002
Location: Winnipeg, Mantoba, Canada
Posted: 6th Jan 2004 06:35
Quote: "I seems I might have to look elsewere for something more robust and compatible with older systems\videocards."


The only other alternative you really have would be Visual Basic.NET or Visual Basic 6. Those will run you anywhere from 100$ - $1,079 US depending on the license you choose.

For the money you're going to be hard pressed to find anything like DarkBasic Professional. If you don't know how to program in C+ and you only know how to program in basic then I would stick with this product. Blitz is still in development, and the price is listed as 100$ for the download version. It's a good basic programming language with a long long history dating back to the Commodore Amiga.

I think it's going to boil down to a choice between Blitz and DarkBasic Professional. Unless you're made of money and choose to go the Visual Basic.NET path.
BHoltzman
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 29th Aug 2002
Location:
Posted: 6th Jan 2004 09:24 Edited at: 6th Jan 2004 09:39
Syntax Terror, it sounds like you want a language like IBasic. There is a standard edition out for ~$34. And while it's not as easy to program games in as DBPro or Blitz3d, it is extremely stable and will give you exceptional control over DirectX applications. There is also an IBasic Pro version under development. You may want to wait for that to be released. The blurb on the pyxia web site makes it sound like a perfect match for you.

Quote: " IBasic Professionalâ„¢ The next generation of the IBasic line is currently under development. The IBasic Professional line of compilers feature direct compiling to assembly language, multiple source file includes, DLL creation, callbacks, COM, and much much more! "


Also, Paul, the developer, is extremely helpful to users. He's friendly and approachable. He understands IBasic better than anyone and I've never seen him give bad advise.

I'll most likely be using the pro version when it's released. Since it's of great interest to me at the moment.

Take Care,

Ben

EDIT: Oh yeah.. Blitz3d is still under development as well. There is another compiler that's taking up most of the Blitz developer's time. (Blitzmax) I have no idea when it will be released. In a newsletter the developer said it's about 80% completed. He's also shared some impressive sorting times from the compiler.

Anyhow, you've got plenty of options and they are all looking better and better as time moves on.
OSX Using Happy Dude
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 21st Aug 2003
Location: At home
Posted: 6th Jan 2004 11:18
Quote: "dbp crash with screensaver
dbp quits\crash after minimize or switch"

Its due to DX9 and taskswitching in FSEX mode - the idea being you have to detect and reload all graphics etc when your program has been switched out and then back in again.

Quote: "dx9"

Not a problem - more games now require DX9 anyway.

Quote: "criptic errors if dx9 isn't there"

Hopefully that be improved in U6

Quote: "large exe size
high system requirements, anything under 800mhz age and you can't say for sure the game will even run."

Ditto - besides


The place for all great plug-ins
2 x XP3000+, 1Gb RAM, nVidia FX5600. 1 Draytec Router and me.
Syntax Terror
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 5th Jan 2004
Location:
Posted: 6th Jan 2004 14:39
Quote: "
Try Star Wraith before you commit to your findings thus far
"


I've tryed it and must say its very good. But if this game is made
with dbp how come it doesn't suffer from the problems I mentioned
above?

Quote: "
it sounds like you want a language like IBasic
"


Thanks for the tip I'll check that one out.

Quote: "
Not a problem - more games now require DX9 anyway
"


For shareware games I firmly belive that the support of a lower
dx version is more preferable, becouse a lot of pc users out there
dont bother upgrading to the latest version. Lets say I wanted
to make a simple solitarie game in 2D, IMO it would be kind of
silly to expect those people to upgrade to the very latest
dx version.

However I'll keep my eyes on dbp in the future, it seems like an
excellent language thats "almoust" there. IMO it's not fit for
shareware developing as per now, but I really hope the developers
will sort those problems out, it would for sure be my language of
choice if they do.

Also thanks for all the help and opinion, I must say I'm really
impressed with the level of support the user of this forum is
showing. Keep up the good work !
zircher
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 27th Dec 2002
Location: Oklahoma
Posted: 6th Jan 2004 16:37
Just to play the devil's advocate... If I could not use DBP or VB for game development, my next choice would be Java or Delphi. Most likely Delphi since it can crank out some pretty fast code while still using a high level language.

Eventually, I'd like to see a Dark Basic Pro installation program that will check the user's machine and give them plain English answers to any problems (such as a lack or resources or wrong version of DirrectX, etc.)
--
TAZ
Jaze
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 20th Nov 2003
Location: Connecticut, USA
Posted: 6th Jan 2004 19:59
HERE HERE Zircher! (On both DELPHI and the what ya'd like to see thing)


-=/Jaze/=-
dark coder
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 6th Oct 2002
Location: Japan
Posted: 6th Jan 2004 21:20
Quote: "I've tryed it and must say its very good. But if this game is made
with dbp how come it doesn't suffer from the problems I mentioned
above?"


it was made in darkbasic classic

goto my website for tutorials, demo`s downloads and more
http://www.darkcoder.co.uk
Ralen
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 22nd Jul 2003
Location:
Posted: 6th Jan 2004 22:21
I think a lot of people complain about DBP based on thier vast knowledge of other game engines...

I've done my research...The engines that runs games like DAoC, MarrowWind, and the Quake cost in the niehborhood of 10k to 50k dollars US.

I Think people are silly when they want similar results for 100 bucks.

Another thing just because it says Basic in the name of the software doesn't mean its easy.

Personally, I've gottin .X, and .3DS models to load.

And the Trial Version does not have all of the toys that the full version has.

After seeing what some people have made I personally think DBP can do a lot more than peopile give it credit for. Seems a lot of people want to hit the 'bake' button and pop a game a week out.

If I could ask for one thing is it would be a C++ Based Engine churned out for the game makers that want a little more control.


Oh well...

Ralen
DrakeX
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 26th Aug 2002
Location:
Posted: 7th Jan 2004 05:12 Edited at: 7th Jan 2004 05:15
"dbp does have some problems with one of the .mdl formats"

"some" is an understatement i've yet to create an MDx that DBP likes!

"lightmapping may be possible when update 6 comes out"

lightmapping was supposed to be possible when DBP came out. so were a lot of other things that are now supposedly in P6. and were supposedly in P5, and before that, P4, and P3..

"Sure it's buggy as all heck, but it has pretty decent support"

a buggy language with "decent" support. ..umm, ok, whatever floats your boat.

"If TGC can bring DBP to the level of C# or VB"

will never happen.

"I've tryed many of todays modern shareware games, and crashes becouse of minimize/switch/screensaver are very rare"

as was explained before, you have to reload all resources. however in DX9 (which DBP not-so-recently switched to) there is a "managed" resource type for meshes and most textures that allows you to skip having to reload everything every time your program loses focus. of course this hasn't been implemented in DBP..

"For shareware games I firmly belive that the support of a lower dx version is more preferable"

you sound like a blitz user.

"it seems like an excellent language thats "almoust" there"

THERE, my friend, is why i have left DBP. it was "almost" there when i bought it 15 months ago; it was "almost" there when i left for blitz3d 7 months ago last may; and it's still "almost" there. it is in a perpetual state of being worked on and in beta and never seems to get to where it's going. by now i'm not even real sure WHERE it's going, and from the amount of information we get about it ("we" meaning those of us not in an elite paying "club" called DBDN) the developers do not know where it's going either; just that it's going.

people praise DBP for the fact that it's always being patched and updated, but really; does that show that it's being supported, or does it show that it's not improving? 6 patches and 15 months later and we're still not a whole lot further than where we started. the sad thing was i was using the same argument 7 months ago, so obviously things are not changing. people keep saying "things are looking up for DBP" but those same people were saying the same things 7 months ago, and a year ago, and when it was released and was so buggy it was unuseable.

if you'd like an explanation for the tone of my reply, please look in my signature. DBP HAS made me bitter. i am now very wary of "too-good-to-be-true" promises. i suppose that's a good thing tho

i'm a blitz3d user myself, but i'm not saying it's a paradise either. the language itself is much more stable, complete, compatible, and useful than DBP is or ever has been (and at this rate, ever will be), but blitz really does not seem to be being developed anymore, and the reclusive developer gives almost no info on the state of the mysterious "BlitzMax" that was rumored to be out a year or two ago. TGC is sure present in the development of their language (as long as you pay them for the info..), i'll give them that, but quite frankly, their business practices are a bit sketchy and DBP is about the most lopsided language i've ever seen.

athlon xp 2000+ | radeon 9500 pro 128mb | 512MB DDR | winXP pro | DBP 5.1b | B3D 1.85 | VC++ 6
predicted DBP P6 release date: March 28, 2004
DBP has made me bitter.
Krush
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 22nd Dec 2003
Location: New York City
Posted: 7th Jan 2004 05:16
Quote: "The engines that runs games like DAoC, MarrowWind, and the Quake cost in the niehborhood of 10k to 50k dollars US.
"


That is mostly true. There is, however, another game engine that has been used for a AAA title, Tribes2. This is the Torque game engine. Price: $100 US

http://www.garagegames.com/
entwood2
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 31st Dec 2003
Location:
Posted: 7th Jan 2004 07:18
Wow. This thread has totally intimidated me! I actually just ordered Pro this evening and just now cancelled it (in favor of the inexpensive Classic). It seems one can't go wrong buying Classic
and being a totally new user. One can at least then learn the basics and then see what 'happens' with PRO.

Thanks at least for the honest dialogue. I have been on these forums for the past week trying to decide IF I should buy something and then WHAT I should buy.

The forum opinions seem to range from 'this is the greatest programming language product in the world' to some of the more
critical ones here but these forums are BY FAR the best I have seen for any product...
heartbone
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 9th Nov 2002
Location:
Posted: 7th Jan 2004 10:01 Edited at: 7th Jan 2004 10:07
entwood2 great post.

Maybe if enough of this type of thinking is communicated to TGC they may focus on different priorities.

My personal three biggest wishlist for a better DBPro:
1) DirectX 7, 8 or 9 based compiles
2) pixel level sprite collisions (like DBClassic)
3) Elseif (example below)

Case is not flexible enough.
Multiple Else statements yield massive indentations.
This is a standard BASIC construct that was present in the ancestor of DarkBASIC.

Why aren't BASIC things like these a big priority? Every DBP programmer would use all three features if they were available. Talk about misplaced priorities, what percentage of BASIC programmers will ever use 'shaders'?

DrakeX I hear you buddy.

Peace, the anti-Bush.
OSX Using Happy Dude
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 21st Aug 2003
Location: At home
Posted: 7th Jan 2004 10:33
Quote: "1) DirectX 7, 8 or 9 based compiles"

How many times does thia come up ? Theres no chance of that.


The place for all great plug-ins
2 x XP3000+, 1Gb RAM, nVidia FX5600. 1 Draytec Router and me.
Neophyte
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 23rd Feb 2003
Location: United States
Posted: 7th Jan 2004 13:02
@The Coding Area

"How many times does thia come up ? Theres no chance of that."

I was thinking the same thing. It boggles my mind why this gets mentioned over and over and over again. I can't count how many times
its comeup and someone explained why it can't be done then someone asks for it again like 7 posts later.

@Heartbone

"1) DirectX 7, 8 or 9 based compiles "

You know why this won't happen. Its been explained before.

"2) pixel level sprite collisions (like DBClassic)"

If I'm not mistaken, there is a snippet in the codebase that demonstrates this.

http://darkbasicpro.thegamecreators.com/?m=codebase_view&i=a782de0e5d9531c9442b9509feac3329

"3) Elseif (example below) "

? Isn't you example equivalent to this:


I can't see how that is any different other than the fact that I indented it.

"Case is not flexible enough."

How so?

"Multiple Else statements yield massive indentations."

Huh? Isn't that a problem with the IDE and not the language? I don't follow.

"Why aren't BASIC things like these a big priority?"

Because they are easily worked around or incredibly difficult to implement(DX7,8,and 9 compilers).

"Every DBP programmer would use all three features if they were available."

I doubt it. I wouldn't use the multiple version thing either because that would severely limit the command set and make debuging a chore(is this feature in DX 7, or DX 8 compiler? Hmmmmmm.)

I wouldn't use the pixel perfect sprite collision thing either and the games I'm currently working on are entirely 2D.

The only thing I might use is the elseif but, really, I can live without it.

Having said all of that DrakeX does have some points. There is a lot in the language that needs to be done to bring it up to spec, like actual lightmapping and not the 2-copies-of-a-.x-landscape trick. It cuts frame rate in half and takes double the memory. Not good. I can think of several others, like the ability to load all of the model formats that it says it can, and a decent debugger wouldn't hurt either.

None of those things is a new feature but that should work and doesn't. I think these, as well as the bugs reported in the bug report forum should take a hell of a lot of preference over new features any day of the week.

Its not like I'm being greedy here or anything either. I don't use lightmapping nor do I intend to for quite a while. I'm working entirely in 2D at the moment so the whole model format issue doesn't effect me. The Debugger? I personally haven't had a problem with it, but many people have complained about it crashing constantly everytime they try to use the variable watcher, or use the CLI. All of these things don't effect me but I know that they need to be sorted out and pronto.

Its not like I can't think of several features I would personally like as well. Pass by reference, arrays with in types, and multiple return values from a function would be some very usefull things that I could personally use that I can think of off the top of my head. I can come up with a lot more, but that isn't necessary.

My point is even though there are some really cool features I would love to have implemented, and that would really help the language, bugs and already promised features take precedence over these new things any day of the week, however painfull that is to admit. I hope that TGC listens to us and focuses on these things, paticularly the compiler.
OSX Using Happy Dude
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 21st Aug 2003
Location: At home
Posted: 7th Jan 2004 13:48 Edited at: 7th Jan 2004 13:49
Indeed, DrakeX does have a lot of points - I brought most of them up when DBPro came out (and it got rather interesting). However, even now it is usable (as can be seen from the various demos around) - aside from workarounds there also plug-ins to aid development as well. People do need to start using those more.

However, the next patch should be made publically availiable, so those who moan about bugs later on (and didn't test the betas) can be poked with a sharp fork until they shut up.

And people, dont keep on about wanting U6 now - I want all the bugs from the bugs forum fixed, and so it will take time.


The place for all great plug-ins
2 x XP3000+, 1Gb RAM, nVidia FX5600. 1 Draytec Router and me.
zircher
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 27th Dec 2002
Location: Oklahoma
Posted: 7th Jan 2004 18:41
>> 1) DirectX 7, 8 or 9 based compiles
>
> How many times does this come up? Theres no chance of that.

I must have missed that thread. I would consider the trade off between features and user acceptance to be quite acceptable. How many of the developers here are actually using features that require DirectX 9?
--
TAZ
heartbone
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 9th Nov 2002
Location:
Posted: 7th Jan 2004 19:02
"How many of the developers here are actually using features that require DirectX 9?"
What specific features does DX9 provide to a DarkBASIC Professional programmer?

"How many of the developers here are actually using features that require DirectX 9?"
A better question is what percentage of the developers are using the features.

"How many of the developers here are actually using features that require DirectX 9?"
Don't expect any decent answer.

Peace, the anti-Bush.
OSX Using Happy Dude
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 21st Aug 2003
Location: At home
Posted: 7th Jan 2004 19:42
Shaders, improved network systems and music/sound.


The place for all great plug-ins
2 x XP3000+, 1Gb RAM, nVidia FX5600. 1 Draytec Router and me.
heartbone
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 9th Nov 2002
Location:
Posted: 7th Jan 2004 19:51 Edited at: 7th Jan 2004 19:53
As far as I've seen I'm the only one who has actually released a finished network multiplayer game written in DarkBASIC Professional. Is this not correct?

So network systems, DX9 needed and used NOT.

DX9 for music/sound? NOT- they are derived from codecs.

Ah yes those wonderful shaders again....
1 of 3 is bad. Anything else? If not, then the forced DX9 requirement is just a gift from TGC to Microsoft.

Peace, the anti-Bush.
JHA
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 30th Dec 2003
Location: Massachusetts, USA
Posted: 7th Jan 2004 20:03
Hello All,

This is my first post since purchasing DBPro.

I certainly didn't want to do this, but there is another DirectX based site that might interest some of you. I have only seen biased comparisons of it to DBPro, so that is why I am here. To see what the actual differences, pros and cons might be between the two.

The site is for Truevision 3D. I won't post a link to it but you should be able to find it with a quick search.

This allows you to easily program your DirectX programs in any language you choose, including C++, VB6, VB.NET, C#, Delphi and pretty much any other language that can access a DLL file. The forums there are about as active as this one and the developers answer questions all the time.

Has anyone here ever seen it?

Do you have any opinions or comparisons between TrueVision 3D and DBPro?

I am not trying to start anything by posting this here, I truly want to find the best 3D programming tool and have so far narrowed it down to these two as the best available. I am way more familiar with TrueVision 3D at this point, but I have been learning allot from all of you.

Thank you
JHAustin
heartbone
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 9th Nov 2002
Location:
Posted: 7th Jan 2004 20:10
Here's the most important comparison.

***DBP
Unlimited License - under $100


***TrueVision 3D
Freeware License
Watermark displayed at all times during rendering.
Distribution of an unlimited number of free products.
No fees can be charged for distribution or use of your products.

Shareware License $50.00 USD
Must display the Truevision3D Logo for 3 seconds during loading.
Allows distribution of a single software product.
Product must be freely available, with a registration cost of less than $25.00 USD.

Single Commercial License $150.00 USD
No watermark or loading screen required.
Allows distribution of a single software product.
No limitations on charges for your product.
Priority support telephone number. (Long distance charges may apply.)

Multi-Product Commercial License $500.00 USD
No watermark or loading screen required.
Allows distribution of an unlimited number of software products.
No limitations on charges for your product.
Priority support telephone number. (Long distance charges may apply.)

Compared to DarkBASIC Pro they are asking for too much.

Peace, the anti-Bush.
heartbone
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 9th Nov 2002
Location:
Posted: 7th Jan 2004 20:18
In addition to the above is the cost and maintenance of a seperate development language environment that you must integrate this functionality into.

This product is great for people who already have invested in a Windows development infrastructure and need to expand their 3D capabilities. This product might be just the thing for a Visual Studio based enterprise, but as a solitary bedroom coder I'd stick with a BASIC like Dark that has it all combined in one box.

Peace, the anti-Bush.
OSX Using Happy Dude
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 21st Aug 2003
Location: At home
Posted: 7th Jan 2004 20:34
I said improved access - do try to read text properly.
Or would you like the whole text on the improvements made in DX9?


The place for all great plug-ins
2 x XP3000+, 1Gb RAM, nVidia FX5600. 1 Draytec Router and me.
Krush
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 22nd Dec 2003
Location: New York City
Posted: 7th Jan 2004 20:42
Quote: "Do you have any opinions or comparisons between TrueVision 3D and DBPro?"


The Torque Game Engine is a far better value than TrueVision3D, and it has actually been used in major game releases (Tribes, Tribes2, Starseige, etc.). $100 per programmer, unlimited games, no royalties, good community support, and still under development. You don't even need to program in C++ (although it helps). You can also set it up to use MinGW, so you don't need to buy an expensive compiler.

I'm not knocking DarkBASIC, since I own both DBPro and Torque. Each has it's uses IMO. DarkBASIC is probably better for the individual developer, and Torque is better for teams. For those who don't know, the Torque engine is capable of hosting servers of up to 128 players, so if you need something that will support that, you simply have no other logical choice.
heartbone
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 9th Nov 2002
Location:
Posted: 7th Jan 2004 21:23
TCA: "I said improved access - do try to read text properly. Or would you like the whole text on the improvements made in DX9?"

Not the whole text. Just the ones that specifically apply to DarkBASIC programming.

The DB interface to DirectPlay remains the same between DX7/DX8/DX9. i.e. Set Net Connection commands etc. What "improved access" are you referring to?

Hype Hype Hype. Have you no shame?

Peace, the anti-Bush.
OSX Using Happy Dude
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 21st Aug 2003
Location: At home
Posted: 7th Jan 2004 21:43 Edited at: 7th Jan 2004 21:45
The functions more or less stay the same, its the interfaces that change (or can change) - one reason why you cant have a choice of DX7,8 and/or 9 in DBPro. You can blame Microsoft for that.

Quote: "Hype Hype Hype. Have you no shame?"

Nope.

I'm not going to pick & choose the bits out of the DX9 SDK (takes too much effort), so here's everything :

DirectX
What's New in DirectX Graphics

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This section describes Microsoft® DirectX® graphics features that are new in the DirectX 9.0 SDK Update (Summer 2003).

HLSL Flow Control
The high-level shader language (HLSL) shader model has been extended to cover static and dynamic flow control and predication. This support will allow more complex shaders to be developed in HLSL. For more information, see Flow Control.

Precomputed Radiance Transfer
Precomputed radiance transfer (PRT) implemented with low-order spherical harmonic (SH) basis functions is a technique for rendering lighting environments with global effects such as interreflections, self shadowing, and subsurface scattering. For more information, see Precomputed Radiance Transfer or Precomputed Radiance Transfer Functions.

Tone Mapping for HDR Lighting
The real world has high dynamic range (HDR) lighting. You can now take advantage of a tone mapping algorithm that delivers a perceptually correct HDR lighting in a rendered scene. For more information, see HDR Lighting.

Effects Framework
The Effects framework has now been extended to help manage state changes across effects with the ID3DXEffectStateManager.

Animation
Many enhancements have been made to the ability to animate meshes. For more information, see the following:

ID3DXAnimationCallbackHandler
ID3DXAnimationController
ID3DXCompressedAnimationSet
ID3DXKeyframedAnimationSet
D3DXCreateCompressedAnimationSet
D3DXCreateKeyframedAnimationSet
D3DXCALLBACK_SEARCH_FLAGS
D3DXCOMPRESSION_FLAGS
D3DXEVENT_TYPE
D3DXPLAYBACK_TYPE
D3DXPRIORITY_TYPE
D3DXEVENT_DESC
D3DXKEY_CALLBACK
D3DXTRACK_DESC

Art Tools
The software development kit (SDK) includes new tools to view and convert texture files, and updated plug-ins to export .x files to 3ds max or Maya applications. For more information, see the following:

Texture Viewer
Texture File Converter
X-File Exporters

Samples
New samples are described in Graphics Samples.

Other Improvements
The ID3DXFont and ID3DXSprite interfaces now have more options to improve font rendering performance and to control sprite buffer storage and transformations. Also see available sprite rendering options in D3DXSPRITE.
The assembly-language shader reference section has been completely revised. It includes the instructions and registers in the table of contents. Each shader version has summary pages for the instructions and registers supported. For more information, see Assembly Shader Language.
The const keyword was added to many function (and method) parameters that are used by the function as an input only. This indicates that the parameter will not be changed when the function returns. There are too many instances of this change to list here. If you are having trouble compiling your existing application for DirectX 9.0, check the reference page documentation to determine whether you need to add the const keyword to your input parameter description.

DirectInput
What's New in DirectInput

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Version 9.0 primarily includes compatibility improvements for Microsoft® DirectInput®. There are no application programming interface (API) changes.

To learn more about new features in Microsoft DirectX®, see What's New in DirectX 9.0 SDK Update (Summer 2003).

Note For important information about using IDirectInput8::ConfigureDevices within a Microsoft Direct3D® 9.0 environment, see the IDirectInput8::ConfigureDevices Remarks.

DirectPlay
What's New in DirectPlay

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This section introduces new features for Microsoft® DirectPlay® 9.0.

New Features in DirectPlay
The DirectPlay application programming interfaces (APIs) are available for the Microsoft Windows® Powered Pocket PC 2002. See DirectPlay for Pocket PC 2002 for more information.
The DPN_MSGID_SEND_COMPLETE message structure has two new members that allow you to calculate the round-trip travel time of messages.
DirectPlay has a new service provider for network simulation. You can use the IDP8SimControl methods to test applications under a variety of network conditions.
DirectPlay has a new interface, IDirectPlay8ThreadPool, that allows you to manage threads in your application.
Applications can cancel all messages sent by a particular player using the DPNCANCEL_PLAYER_SENDS flag when calling IDirectPlay8Peer::CancelAsyncOperation, IDirectPlay8Server::CancelAsyncOperation, and IDirectPlay8Client::CancelAsyncOperation.
Players can receive their local player identifier (ID) in the DPN_MSGID_CONNECT_COMPLETE message.
Hosts can prevent DirectPlay from processing enumeration queries by setting the DPNSESSION_NOENUMS flag in the DPN_APPLICATION_DESC structure when calling IDirectPlay8Peer::Host and IDirectPlay8Server::Host.
Messages sent to a group with no players in it will now return DPNSUCCESS_NOPLAYERSINGROUP instead of DPNERR_GENERIC.
Packet signing is available for all DirectPlay traffic.
Applications can close immediately by setting the DPNCLOSE_IMMEDIATE flag when calling IDirectPlay8Peer::Close, IDirectPlay8Client::Close, and IDirectPlay8Server::Close.
DirectPlay 9.0 has improved defense against connection spoofing.
Use the DPNINITIALIZE_HINT_LANSESSION flag when calling IDirectPlay8Peer::Initialize, IDirectPlay8Client::Initialize, and IDirectPlay8Server::Initialize.
Packet coalescence is available by setting the DPNSEND_COALESCE flag when calling IDirectPlay8Peer::SendTo, IDirectPlay8Client::Send, and IDirectPlay8Server::SendTo.
Applications can tune the DirectPlay protocol using the DPN_CAPS_EX structure used when calling IDirectPlay8Peer::GetCaps, IDirectPlay8Client::GetCaps, and IDirectPlay8Server::GetCaps or IDirectPlay8Peer::SetCaps, IDirectPlay8Client::SetCaps, and IDirectPlay8Server::SetCaps.
A group owner's context value has been added to the DPNMSG_CREATE_GROUP structure.
If the DPNSESSION_NODPNSVR flag is not set in the DPN_APPLICATION_DESC structure when calling IDirectPlay8Peer::Host or IDirectPlay8Server::Host and dpnsvr.exe does not start, the call to Host will fail and return DPNERR_DPNSVRNOTAVAILABLE.
Less reliable connections should now perform better with improved DirectPlay protocol behavior.
Network Address Translation (NAT) support has improved. This includes the new IDirectPlay8NATResolver interface, which allows you to create a NAT resolver application.
DirectPlay now supports Internet Protocol (IP) v6.

DirectSound
What's New in DirectSound
The DirectSound application programming interface (API) has not been significantly revised for DirectX 9.0. However, many performance enhancements have been implemented.

In addition, the following changes have been made:

The maximum frequency of sound buffers has been increased from 100 kHz to 200 kHz, where supported by the operating system. (These higher frequencies are not supported by DirectShow.)
Frequency and effects controls (DSBCAPS_CTRLFREQUENCY and DSBCAPS_CRTLFX) can now be combined on buffers. Combining these flags makes it possible to have Doppler shift on buffers with effects.
Audio formats described by the WAVEFORMATEXTENSIBLE structure are fully supported throughout DirectSound.
The standard effect DMOs can process audio data in WAVE_FORMAT_IEEE_FLOAT format.
The standard effects support parameter curves (when hosted outside of DirectSound) without having to call IMediaObjectInPlace:: Process on them repeatedly in very small increments.

DirectMusic
What's New in DirectMusic
The DirectMusic application programming interface (API) has not been significantly revised for DirectX 9.0. However, many performance enhancements have been made. The most significant of these is a new low-latency DirectSound sink, which enables DirectMusic to attain much quicker response when using audiopaths that play through the software synthesizer. This enhancement is of particular interest to sound designers and composers who want to take advantage of the rich DirectMusic feature set but who also require low latency for sound effects. For more information, see Reducing Latency.

Several new features have been added to content created in DirectMusic Producer. For example, streamed waves in wave tracks can now be looped for the easier creation of ambient sounds, and looping can be done in clock time so that looping waves are not affected by tempo changes. For more information, see What's New in This Release in the DirectMusic Producer Help.

A large library of DirectMusic styles has been added to the SDK, along with an application for auditioning them.

In addition, two new tools have been made available in the binDXUtilsAppWizard folder of the SDK installation:

DMToolWizard.awx is a wizard for creating DirectMusic tools.
AEDMOWiz.awx is a wizard for creating effect DMOs.


Quote: "The Torque Game Engine is a far better value than TrueVision3D"

And almost impossible to try and program with.


The place for all great plug-ins
2 x XP3000+, 1Gb RAM, nVidia FX5600. 1 Draytec Router and me.
heartbone
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 9th Nov 2002
Location:
Posted: 7th Jan 2004 22:56
Thanks TCA.

<sarcasm>
Now I understand why I should want to embrace it. How could I have ever questioned the wisdom of Microsoft?
</sarcasm>

Peace, the anti-Bush.
DrakeX
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 26th Aug 2002
Location:
Posted: 7th Jan 2004 23:12
and after all, everything MS does is terrible, crap, and should not be touched with a ten foot pole.

you can't make sweeping generalizations about a company as large as MS HB. do you realize how many "sub-companies" there are in MS? the people who make the OS are completely different from the people who make DX and the XBOX team is almost a separate company in itself.

you need to take off your crap-colored glasses when looking at MS products and see what's good that they've done. one good thing is DirectX. without DX, do you know how hard it'd be for developers, hardware manufacturers, and end users? DX enforces a set of standards under which media hardware is manufactured; without these standards, we would be where we were back in the early 90s -- everyone writing a game having to write a driver for every sound and video card that they wanted to support. not to mention without these standards there would be such an array of independent and proprietary devices that no one would be able to "keep up" with anything, because it would all be going in different directions.

personally i think the IBM PC architecture is seriously outdated and could use a total rehaul, making things more standardized and compatible, but that's just me, and until that happens, we're going to have to be happy with DX. which is not a bad thing.

athlon xp 2000+ | radeon 9500 pro 128mb | 512MB DDR | winXP pro | DBP 5.1b | B3D 1.85 | VC++ 6
predicted DBP P6 release date: March 28, 2004
DBP has made me bitter.
heartbone
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 9th Nov 2002
Location:
Posted: 7th Jan 2004 23:32
I'm extremely happy with DirectX DrakeX. (Yay, I finally got to do that! ) I'm downloading DX9.0b as I type. What makes you think that I'm not happy with DirectX dude? Show me. However as you know I am unhappy with forced obsolescence.

Hint: I'd pay $39.99 for an upgrade to DBPro that allows it to build executables under versions of DX 8 OR 9. It's that important.
If there was a DX8 DBP and now there is a DX9 DBP, intuitively it must be possible to make a compiler that supports both.

I am sure that you understand that DrakeX.

Peace, the anti-Bush.
heartbone
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 9th Nov 2002
Location:
Posted: 7th Jan 2004 23:37
"you can't make sweeping generalizations about a company as large as MS HB. "
Any corporation as huge as M$ itself makes such generalizations about it's own character. Of course they are self serving ones. Why shouldn't individuals?

Peace, the anti-Bush.
DrakeX
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 26th Aug 2002
Location:
Posted: 7th Jan 2004 23:38 Edited at: 7th Jan 2004 23:40
"Yay, I finally got to do that!"

how long have you been waiting? lol

technically it's not microsoft that's forcing the obsolescence (i never knew the noun form of "obsolete", thanks ) on you, but TGC. not to sound like an idiot but there's nothing stopping you from using C++ to make a DX7 or 8 game. of course no one wants to use C++ to make a game, especially when we've already got DBP but it is more TGC's fault in forcing you to use DX9.

but no one can question the wisdom of TGC.



"they are self serving ones. Why shouldn't individuals?"

huh?

athlon xp 2000+ | radeon 9500 pro 128mb | 512MB DDR | winXP pro | DBP 5.1b | B3D 1.85 | VC++ 6
predicted DBP P6 release date: March 28, 2004
DBP has made me bitter.
Krush
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 22nd Dec 2003
Location: New York City
Posted: 7th Jan 2004 23:38 Edited at: 7th Jan 2004 23:40
Quote: "The Torque Game Engine is a far better value than TrueVision3D"

Quote: "And almost impossible to try and program with."


You know this firsthand? Quite frankly, I've been just messing about with it and I find it to be difficult to work with, but very powerful. Certainly not impossible. [sarcasm]And, of course, it's competition (I don't consider DB to be competition) is far easier to work with [/sarcasm]
Neophyte
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 23rd Feb 2003
Location: United States
Posted: 7th Jan 2004 23:39
@zircher

"I must have missed that thread. I would consider the trade off between features and user acceptance to be quite acceptable."

The trick of coarse is implementing this. DX 7 is waaaayyy different than DX 8 or 9. Its not a simple matter of switching from ID3DDevice7::CreateVertexBuffer to ID3DDevice9::CreateVertexBuffer. There are major differences between the APIs, most noticiably DirectDraw, that just can't be solved with a simple ifdef. Also, what may be fast in one is dog slow in the other. I remember Rich talking about the difficulties Lee had in trying to write a DX 8.1 engine with only DX 7 experience. A lot of code had to be completely rewritten or just plain thrown out as it was either incompatiable with the current API or just too slow.

Not to mention the fact that it is going to be a nightmare to debug. Can you imagine what it would be like if Lee had to work on three compilers and Mike had to work on three engines? We're lucky that we get updates every three months with current setup but if they had to do three times the work and coordinate it all, we would be lucky to get an update a year if that.

Its just way too much work to saddle them with and all for what? Some sort of percieved "compatiablity" bonus? I keep hearing people say that DX 9 just isn't a "shareware" thing, but I have yet to see some hard facts that suggest that people who buy shareware don't have or aren't willing to get DX 9.

The whole concept of DX 9 not being a shareware thing is really weak. I mean, how many people here are honestly planning on selling what they make? Sure, we all entertain the fantasy but I bet that less than one percent here have actually made the effort.

Even if you do, about only 1%(I'm not making this figuare up) of the people who view your game will actually pay for it. You'll barely be lucky to pay your server costs with that profit margin and this is assuming that you have a fairly popular game. Selling games via internet just isn't a profitable business. You might make some spare cash, but unless you have an unbelivable game with great advertising your aren't going to make anything more than pocket change.

The real money, is in getting published by an indie developer like garage games. You can get substantially more through getting your game published because it makes sales much easier.

Allow me to explain. When you sell things on-line you are just one fish out of millions. One you publish and get your product into a store you are just one of 50 at most. The likelyhood of you getting noticed has just increased exponentially.

Of coarse, you may be wondering why I'm having this little diatribe about getting published. Well, the main argument against DX 9 seems to be that people aren't willing to download it. When you publish you can include the DX 9 redistributable, free from Microsoft, with your game on the CD. The redistributable is just 20 mb so unless you have a colossal 681 mb game, you have plenty of room to spare for it. With the whole "people won't d/l DX 9 so DX 9 is bad" argument summarily taken care of, I'd say that there is little reason to desire DX 7 or 8 capablity, with all of the debugging woes that it will cause Mike and Lee.

" How many of the developers here are actually using features that require DirectX 9?"

I can't vouch for the others but I know Bulleyes does and so do I. In fact, I just sent an email out to Lee to sort out an issue I was having with using Cube Maps with my shaders. There are probably more out there and that number will only continue to grow once a soild tutorial I'm planning on writing can get finished.

Oh, and I'm sorry if I sounded hostile in some of the above paragraphs. This whole DX 7(and 8 for that matter. God, did I ever hate trying to use shaders with that interface) compatibility thing just gets my dander up. Its entirely unnecessary.

Login to post a reply

Server time is: 2025-06-05 19:33:17
Your offset time is: 2025-06-05 19:33:17