Thread: Direct3d, Windows, and Free Software...

I've been considering learning to use Direct3d, but after a bit of browsing at the bookstore, I've come to realise that very one of these books instructs me to go out and buy MSVC++ 6.

Now, this is something of a problem, since I've really grown quite attached to both my DJGPP compiler and my money.

My first question, and I realise that it's not likely, but is there any way for me to mess around with these neato libraries without leaving my beloved DJGPP on the side of the road? If not, then is it just impossible to do fast graphics in DOS?

Also, since half of the problem is just that I really would like to not buy my compiler, what is a good free compiler for Windows? Will Borland work?

www.bloodshed.net

I've really grown quite attached to both my DJGPP compiler and my money

1 - The compiler : I've used both, and I believe MSVC++ is much much better. Have you tried using it before?
2 - The money : I totally agree. It costs a little bit too high.

then is it just impossible to do fast graphics in DOS?

It's possible to do fast graphics in DOS. Not as fast as D3D/GL on a hardware accelerated card, but fast enough.
Yet, who are you going to write graphics for? Nobody uses DOS anymore.

Who am I gonna make graphics for? Well... myself. I mean it shouldn't really be a problem distributing a program compiled with it. Although I really did mean 'Hardware Accelerated' when I said 'fast'.

Still, nothing wrong with using DOS graphics. I mean, if I were a professional gaming company, them yea, maybe it wouldn't be such a hot idea, but I'm a hobbiest, like most of the people here, and noone really should have trouble running a DOS-box application.

Still, I've tried DevC and... well, I suppose I'm happy with it, it's just Win32 programming that's getting on my nerves.

1. MSVC is crap.
2. Direct-3D is Crap!
3. use OpenGL you get the headers and the libs with most compilers.

Still, nothing wrong with using DOS graphics. I mean, if I were a professional gaming company, them yea, maybe it wouldn't be such a hot idea, but I'm a hobbiest, like most of the people here, and noone really should have trouble running a DOS-box application.

True. But what I meant was that : People use DOS graphics to learn rasterization. However, there are better ways to do it. You can learn rasterization in DirectDraw, or even in DirectX Graphics (which happens to be much easier to handle than DirectDraw, at least to me)

Although you'll need some Win32 Concepts + some DXG concepts to start, it'll be of use later.

1. MSVC is crap.

You didn't provide any arguments. As far as I know (and have seen) microsoft visual C++ is used by most professionals when it comes to developing apps in C++.

I'm afraid that this accusation is a result of being allergic to microsoft. Many people hate microsoft's products just because they're microsoft's. I find them the best products available, actually.

2. Direct-3D is Crap!

Pre D3D7 is, DirectX Graphics is plain cool. I won't go through the often-encountered DXG-Is-Better-Than-OGL discussion or anything.
I'll just say it's plain simple to initialize DirectX Graphics, it uses object oriented design as well as COM. Which is very cool.
It's got all I need from a graphics APi, what's bad about that?
In addition it comes with an amazing helper library (D3DX) that boosts development time. Did you really give it a serious try?

About the OS portability :
I think that since almost all ordinary home users (non coders) have windows & games are developed for windows, it's OK to use DXG.

Additionally, when I develop a game using OpenGL I'll use DI for input, DXA for sound, DP for multiplayer. That means I'm bound to windows, until someone develops a quality game dev library that's better than DirectX.

Thanks a lot y'all. I'm now using DevC and my learning graphics has been put on hold for a bit, since I kinda need to learn Win32 in a hurry.

About Win32
You can go to www.tpu.org , I think they have a link to some good Win32 Tutorial series. Also, don't forget to get the win32 BC help (which is a 20 MB help file, 8 MB compressed) if you don't have (can't afford) MSDN CD.
I believe Chemanuel's corner has a link to the file. (Chemanuel's site is in the directory)