John Carmack reproduce body description dx10

John Carmack reproduce body description dx10

Occasionally, I saw an interview with John Carmack (author of the quake engine, not forgotten) by game informer in August. The paid comrade was already very happy to use DX9 to develop the Xbox game.

"DX9 is really quite a good API level... Microsoft has done a very, very good job of sensibly evolving it at each step -- they're not worried about breaking backwards compatibility -- and it's a pretty clean API, "he said. "I especially like the work I'm doing on the 360, and it's probably the best graphics API as far as a sensibly designed thing that I'm working."

"DX9 is really a good API ...... Microsoft makes every step of improving it reasonably and is doing very well-because they are not worried about disrupting backward compatibility, this API is quite clean, "he said, "I especially like my work on Xbox 360. Among the well-designed APIs I have used, it is the best graphic API."

It is estimated that many of OpenGL's defenders were very frustrated, but this godfather brought many of us into the OpenGL camp. Dx8 and DX9 are indeed well-designed and are a very successful integer. However, it is quite scary to be in this situation.

The dx10 API is actually a step forward to the hardware-do not think you are using it to draw a picture, but you are actually operating the hardware. I heard that some people are developing dx10 before DX9 was released. It seems that this is true, and it was the person before dx8. I am talking about dx10 everywhere on the Internet. I am stupid, but I don't think it is better than DX9. Feature enhancements are true, but they are hardware functions and can be used on XP through OpenGL, while dx10 must be available on Vista.

Old Carmack does not buy Vista's account: "Nothing is going to help a new game by going to a new operating system. there were some clear wins going from Windows 95 to Windows XP for games, but there really aren't any for Vista. they're artificially doing that by tying dx10 so close it, which is really nothing about the OS... they're really grasping at straws for reasons to upgrade the operating system. I suspect I cocould run XP for a great than more years without having a problem with it"
"Switching to a new operating system does not help the game. There are obvious reasons for supporting games from 95 to XP, but not Vista. They artificially tied dx10 and Vista together. In fact, dx10 has nothing to do with the operating system. They are trying to force users to upgrade their systems. I think I can run XP for many years without any problem ."

However, this problem is not so easy to solve. Microsoft will not allow XP to support dx10, and DX9 will not be updated, which means that new graphics card functions will not be available on XP, however, graphics cards are rapidly evolving. In other words, DX9 has no future! Do not mention WPF. Microsoft makes it clear that WPF is used for presentation, mainly for office application & web, and is not suitable for large and high-performance 3D scenarios.Program.

Of course, this is not the last day for game developers. Most game engines have a graphical abstraction layer, and supporting both DX9 and dx10 is not difficult. I just want to say that dx10 is not for humans, as XML is not for humans. You don't have to worry about using OpenGL. OpenGL 2.x and 3.0 also need to be shaping, and Windows does not have OpenGL ICD pre-installed, just like Sun Java VM pre-installed.