How big is the Direct3D stuff?
Hello, since it seems that TG is not going to release their D3D stuff, my question is: why is it so difficult to reimplement this? How big is the amount of code? Roland
On Wed, 5 Jun 2002, Roland wrote:
Hello,
since it seems that TG is not going to release their D3D stuff, my question is:
why is it so difficult to reimplement this? How big is the amount of code?
It would be interesting to have tasks concerning DirectX in Bugzilla. especially if things like Direct3D can be broken up into reasonably independent and smaller items. So my questions would be: * What are the tasks for implementing Direct3D? * Can older versions be implemented independently from the newer ones? * Do we have nothing at all or do we have something? What changes need to be done to this something to make it better. * What modifications are necessary to other parts (x11drv, DirectDraw) to implement Direct3D? * Are there other DirectX areas that are lacking and that will prevent games from working even if we get Direct3D working (DirectPlay, DirectInput)? * One item I can suggest is adding support for XVideo to DirectDraw (I believe that's where it fits) to enable hardware scaling and YUV conversion when playing videos. This would be more for media players than games but could be useful anyway. Any expert willing to shed light? -- Francois Gouget fgouget(a)free.fr http://fgouget.free.fr/ 145 = 1! + 4! + 5!
I could be totally wrong here, but if I understand the current situation correctly, I don't think we'll be receiving DirectX 8 anytime soon from Transgaming ... I mean, I read they might be sharing code that helps out InstallShield and sdldrv and that sort of stuff, but ... why don't we pick it up for the winehq.com tree? I think we should develop D3D. The MSDN has excellent docs has to how various DirectX 8 functions work, so it's not like we're in the dark here. Okay, that's my two cents. On Wed, 2002-06-05 at 21:31, Francois Gouget wrote:
On Wed, 5 Jun 2002, Roland wrote:
Hello,
since it seems that TG is not going to release their D3D stuff, my question is:
why is it so difficult to reimplement this? How big is the amount of code?
It would be interesting to have tasks concerning DirectX in Bugzilla. especially if things like Direct3D can be broken up into reasonably independent and smaller items. So my questions would be:
* What are the tasks for implementing Direct3D? * Can older versions be implemented independently from the newer ones? * Do we have nothing at all or do we have something? What changes need to be done to this something to make it better. * What modifications are necessary to other parts (x11drv, DirectDraw) to implement Direct3D? * Are there other DirectX areas that are lacking and that will prevent games from working even if we get Direct3D working (DirectPlay, DirectInput)? * One item I can suggest is adding support for XVideo to DirectDraw (I believe that's where it fits) to enable hardware scaling and YUV conversion when playing videos. This would be more for media players than games but could be useful anyway.
Any expert willing to shed light?
-- Francois Gouget fgouget(a)free.fr http://fgouget.free.fr/ 145 = 1! + 4! + 5!
-- Chris chris(a)luethy.net
On 5 Jun 2002, Chris wrote:
I could be totally wrong here, but if I understand the current situation correctly, I don't think we'll be receiving DirectX 8 anytime soon from Transgaming ... [...]
I agree. This is why it we should start organizing and mapping the work to do. -- Francois Gouget fgouget(a)free.fr http://fgouget.free.fr/ 145 = 1! + 4! + 5!
Hi all, As I once started working on Direct3D in Wine and was one of the contributor to the DDraw code, let me answer some of these questions :-)
* What are the tasks for implementing Direct3D?
It's not easy to separate the tasks. For one, documenting and re-appropriating the DDraw code would be the first thing to do. <start of minor rant> As other people discussed it, the current DDraw code in WineHQ's CVS tree is from TransGaming. I do not say that it's worse than the previous code (it's certainly better and respects the DLL separation stuff), but my biggest problem with it is that it was entirely developped 'in-house' and sumbitted 'as is' to the WineHQ tree without really involving any of the WineHQ DirectX developpers (like Marcus or me). Now don't undertand this wrong, I am certainly also to blame because I found other interests at that time and mostly stopped working on Wine. This means that now that TG does not really contribute back much to WineHQ (even in pure 2D stuff), we have a large piece of code that nobody really bothered to undertand and is largely unmaintained. Now I understand why Linus absolutely refuses big patches doing a lot of stuff in one go and wants small incremental patches :-) Finally, saying 'now let's start working on Direct3D' will not help much if we do not find at least 3 or 4 people interested in working on it. I once submitted some D3D work but nobody ever contributed to it and it was mostly unmaintained once I stopped working on it (and I fear that would be the same for other parts of Wine like Multimedia, the debugger for example, if Eric did take some prolonged vacations :-) ) So the current situation is *not* TransGaming fault, but largely the community's for not doing anything at all and letting things in the state it was (well, not TG's fault except if you consider that they 'bought out' the people who would have worked on it in their free time, but that is just plain good business sense :-) ). <end of minor rant>
* Can older versions be implemented independently from the newer ones?
This is the big problem when doing DDraw work, designing stuff that : a) can work accross multiple DDraw versions (ie find the common stuff and implement hardware acceleration here and then doing the rest in some 'emulation' layer). b) can work accross multiple object 'types' (for example, a surface can be the front / back buffer, a texture, a ZBuffer, a compressed texture, some random buffer, an overlay, ...). c) respects the DLL separation (ie puts all 'hardware' related stuff like X11 calls or OpenGL in the X11drv).
* Do we have nothing at all or do we have something? What changes need to be done to this something to make it better.
We still have the old Direct3D code that I wrote to support DirectX 5 / 6 in CVS (not functionnal, but enough to see the ideas :-) ).
* What modifications are necessary to other parts (x11drv, DirectDraw) to implement Direct3D?
As said before, a lot of X11drv work and a DDraw rework :-)
* Are there other DirectX areas that are lacking and that will prevent games from working even if we get Direct3D working (DirectPlay, DirectInput)?
Mostly all the DirectX 8 (Dinput and DSound 8) if we want to support Direct3D 3. Otherwise, we should have almost everything needed in the other DirectX stuff to implement Direct3D.
* One item I can suggest is adding support for XVideo to DirectDraw (I believe that's where it fits) to enable hardware scaling and YUV conversion when playing videos. This would be more for media players than games but could be useful anyway.
I have a patch than I am slowly working on to re-add the Xv support to DDraw (it's based on some work that Marcus did). But as explained before, it's not that easy to do :-) Lionel -- Lionel Ulmer - http://www.bbrox.org/
At 06:00 PM 6/6/02 +0200, Lionel Ulmer wrote:
community's for not doing anything at all and letting things in the state it was (well, not TG's fault except if you consider that they 'bought out' the people who would have worked on it in their free time, but that is just plain good business sense :-) ).
What do you mean by 'bought out'? I suppose there where WINE contributors who now work for TG, right? If this is the case it is another point in favour of the LGPL... Roland
On Thu, Jun 06, 2002 at 01:33:28PM -0300, Roland wrote:
What do you mean by 'bought out'? I suppose there where WINE contributors who now work for TG, right? If this is the case it is another point in favour of the LGPL...
The LGPL would not have changed anything here, as they are free to change the license of the *new* code they write whenever they want. Anyway, the 'bought out' was to be meant as a joke and not to be taken pejoratively. If people prefer to be paid to do stuff they like, it's their choice. And we should stop here before needing to follow-up to wine-flame^H^H^H^Hlicense :-) Lionel -- Lionel Ulmer - http://www.bbrox.org/
Lionel Ulmer wrote:
Hi all,
As I once started working on Direct3D in Wine and was one of the contributor to the DDraw code, let me answer some of these questions :-)
* What are the tasks for implementing Direct3D?
It's not easy to separate the tasks. For one, documenting and re-appropriating the DDraw code would be the first thing to do.
<start of minor rant>
As other people discussed it, the current DDraw code in WineHQ's CVS tree is from TransGaming. I do not say that it's worse than the previous code (it's certainly better and respects the DLL separation stuff), but my biggest problem with it is that it was entirely developped 'in-house' and sumbitted 'as is' to the WineHQ tree without really involving any of the WineHQ DirectX developpers (like Marcus or me). Now don't undertand this wrong, I am certainly also to blame because I found other interests at that time and mostly stopped working on Wine.
This means that now that TG does not really contribute back much to WineHQ (even in pure 2D stuff), we have a large piece of code that nobody really bothered to undertand and is largely unmaintained.
Now I understand why Linus absolutely refuses big patches doing a lot of stuff in one go and wants small incremental patches :-)
Finally, saying 'now let's start working on Direct3D' will not help much if we do not find at least 3 or 4 people interested in working on it. I once submitted some D3D work but nobody ever contributed to it and it was mostly unmaintained once I stopped working on it (and I fear that would be the same for other parts of Wine like Multimedia, the debugger for example, if Eric did take some prolonged vacations :-) )
I'm planning to do some work, but it's a matter of priorities, as always. /Johan Gill, johane(a)lysator.liu.se
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Thu, 6 Jun 2002, Johan Gill wrote:
I'm planning to do some work, but it's a matter of priorities, as always.
I would like to start some work on directx/direct3d too, but first I need to complete the ALSA driver. Right now I'm studying the internals of the dsound.dll, to correct the interaction between the ALSA driver and the DSOUND_* functions used to mix the primary buffer. I hope to complete it soon, so I can start to study the other parts of the DirectX / Direct3D dlls. bye, /pietrobo - -- Stud. Marco Pietrobono | Murphy's Law: if something could v. del Calice, 39 - 00178 ROMA | go wrong, it does. Tel. +39.6.7186329 0339.7410893 | Legge di Murphy: se qualcosa può http://www.pietrobo.com | andar male, lo farà. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Strange game. The only winning move is not to play. What about a nice play of chess ? -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.4 (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iD8DBQE8/7NYJdpOg6vRQxoRAgnRAJ9Vr4CFzPdHa7B1enVjGzuyimTfzgCfSUN5 c2r41U+i1/AC3M7flIwwJss= =7kgl -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Alright, so, are there any people out there that would like to work on a Direct3D implementation for the winehq.com tree? I'd love to contribute but I don't know D3D well enough (I'll read up on it). I'm hoping there're a few people out there that would like to, yes? On Thu, 2002-06-06 at 09:00, Lionel Ulmer wrote:
Hi all,
As I once started working on Direct3D in Wine and was one of the contributor to the DDraw code, let me answer some of these questions :-)
* What are the tasks for implementing Direct3D?
It's not easy to separate the tasks. For one, documenting and re-appropriating the DDraw code would be the first thing to do.
<start of minor rant>
As other people discussed it, the current DDraw code in WineHQ's CVS tree is from TransGaming. I do not say that it's worse than the previous code (it's certainly better and respects the DLL separation stuff), but my biggest problem with it is that it was entirely developped 'in-house' and sumbitted 'as is' to the WineHQ tree without really involving any of the WineHQ DirectX developpers (like Marcus or me). Now don't undertand this wrong, I am certainly also to blame because I found other interests at that time and mostly stopped working on Wine.
This means that now that TG does not really contribute back much to WineHQ (even in pure 2D stuff), we have a large piece of code that nobody really bothered to undertand and is largely unmaintained.
Now I understand why Linus absolutely refuses big patches doing a lot of stuff in one go and wants small incremental patches :-)
Finally, saying 'now let's start working on Direct3D' will not help much if we do not find at least 3 or 4 people interested in working on it. I once submitted some D3D work but nobody ever contributed to it and it was mostly unmaintained once I stopped working on it (and I fear that would be the same for other parts of Wine like Multimedia, the debugger for example, if Eric did take some prolonged vacations :-) )
So the current situation is *not* TransGaming fault, but largely the community's for not doing anything at all and letting things in the state it was (well, not TG's fault except if you consider that they 'bought out' the people who would have worked on it in their free time, but that is just plain good business sense :-) ).
<end of minor rant>
* Can older versions be implemented independently from the newer ones?
This is the big problem when doing DDraw work, designing stuff that :
a) can work accross multiple DDraw versions (ie find the common stuff and implement hardware acceleration here and then doing the rest in some 'emulation' layer).
b) can work accross multiple object 'types' (for example, a surface can be the front / back buffer, a texture, a ZBuffer, a compressed texture, some random buffer, an overlay, ...).
c) respects the DLL separation (ie puts all 'hardware' related stuff like X11 calls or OpenGL in the X11drv).
* Do we have nothing at all or do we have something? What changes need to be done to this something to make it better.
We still have the old Direct3D code that I wrote to support DirectX 5 / 6 in CVS (not functionnal, but enough to see the ideas :-) ).
* What modifications are necessary to other parts (x11drv, DirectDraw) to implement Direct3D?
As said before, a lot of X11drv work and a DDraw rework :-)
* Are there other DirectX areas that are lacking and that will prevent games from working even if we get Direct3D working (DirectPlay, DirectInput)?
Mostly all the DirectX 8 (Dinput and DSound 8) if we want to support Direct3D 3. Otherwise, we should have almost everything needed in the other DirectX stuff to implement Direct3D.
* One item I can suggest is adding support for XVideo to DirectDraw (I believe that's where it fits) to enable hardware scaling and YUV conversion when playing videos. This would be more for media players than games but could be useful anyway.
I have a patch than I am slowly working on to re-add the Xv support to DDraw (it's based on some work that Marcus did). But as explained before, it's not that easy to do :-)
Lionel
-- Lionel Ulmer - http://www.bbrox.org/
-- Chris chris(a)luethy.net
participants (6)
-
Chris -
Francois Gouget -
Johan Gill -
Lionel Ulmer -
Marco Pietrobono -
Roland