https://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=48243
Bug ID: 48243 Summary: Could not find any compatible 3D devices in RTPatch sample Product: Wine Version: 4.21 Hardware: x86 OS: Linux Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P2 Component: directx-d3d Assignee: wine-bugs@winehq.org Reporter: yurikazakov9184@gmail.com Distribution: ---
This sample works on Windows, but not working with WineD3D. Error "Could not find any compatible Direct3D devices. This sample will now exit.".
Binary file placed in C++/Direct3D/Bin/RTPatch.exe Source placed in C++/Direct3D/RTPatch
This is Samples folder from other DirectX9 SDK.
https://archive.org/download/dx9sdk
https://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=48243
double55 yurikazakov9184@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- URL| |https://archive.org/downloa | |d/dx9sdk
https://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=48243
double55 yurikazakov9184@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Summary|Could not find any |Could not find any |compatible 3D devices in |compatible 3D devices in |RTPatch sample |RTPatch sample (I use | |mesa's llvmpipe)
https://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=48243
Olivier F. R. Dierick o.dierick@piezo-forte.be changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ever confirmed|0 |1 Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEEDINFO CC| |o.dierick@piezo-forte.be
--- Comment #1 from Olivier F. R. Dierick o.dierick@piezo-forte.be --- Hello,
Are you coming again with some repackaged stuff from a generic filesharing website?
At least, you should do your homework:
1. Don't put download link in the comments, there is an URL field for that, but don't put a link to a generic filesharing website.
2. Attach terminal output.
3. There is an official DirectX 9 SDK download on Microsoft website. Does the issue happen with it?
Regards.
https://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=48243
Olivier F. R. Dierick o.dierick@piezo-forte.be changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- URL|https://archive.org/downloa | |d/dx9sdk |
https://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=48243
Olivier F. R. Dierick o.dierick@piezo-forte.be changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- URL| |https://www.microsoft.com/e | |n-us/download/details.aspx? | |id=6812
https://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=48243
Olivier F. R. Dierick o.dierick@piezo-forte.be changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Summary|Could not find any |DirectX 9 SDK - Could not |compatible 3D devices in |find any compatible 3D |RTPatch sample (I use |devices in RTPatch sample |mesa's llvmpipe) |(I use mesa's llvmpipe)
https://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=48243
--- Comment #2 from double55 yurikazakov9184@gmail.com --- 1. I published a unified normal link, and I don’t understand what a “common site” means.
2. Nothing is output to the terminal, if you need evidence, download and check it yourself.
3. The Microsoft site has only the DirectX11 SDK, but DirectX9 does not.
4. Show respect.
https://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=48243
--- Comment #3 from double55 yurikazakov9184@gmail.com --- Created attachment 65905 --> https://bugs.winehq.org/attachment.cgi?id=65905 Screenshot
https://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=48243
--- Comment #4 from double55 yurikazakov9184@gmail.com --- Created attachment 65906 --> https://bugs.winehq.org/attachment.cgi?id=65906 Log (all these errors appear even in working tests, and are no different)
https://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=48243
Olivier F. R. Dierick o.dierick@piezo-forte.be changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEEDINFO |UNCONFIRMED Ever confirmed|1 |0
--- Comment #5 from Olivier F. R. Dierick o.dierick@piezo-forte.be --- Hello,
A log has been provided, reopening.
(In reply to double55 from comment #2)
- I published a unified normal link, and I don’t understand what a “common
site” means.
Digress and straw man argument.
- Nothing is output to the terminal, if you need evidence, download and
check it yourself.
- The Microsoft site has only the DirectX11 SDK, but DirectX9 does not.
I set the URL field to the DirectX 9 SDK download on Microsoft website and you attached a terminal log.
You're an obvious liar. It's not the first time and you have been marked as such in my mind. If you want that to change, then stop repeating the same things over and over. If you don't care, then it will stay like that and I'll continue to treat you the same.
- Show respect.
You can't demand respect - You have to earn it.
Follow the rules and guidelines and everything will be fine.
Regards.
https://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=48243
Olivier F. R. Dierick o.dierick@piezo-forte.be changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
--- Comment #6 from Olivier F. R. Dierick o.dierick@piezo-forte.be --- Hello,
--- quote from log --- 0032:fixme:d3d:wined3d_guess_card No card selector available for card vendor 0000 (using GL_RENDERER "llvmpipe (LLVM 7.0, 128 bits)"). --- end of quote ---
This is in fact a resurgence of bug 30526.
Marking duplicate.
Regards.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 30526 ***
https://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=48243
Zebediah Figura z.figura12@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Resolution|DUPLICATE |--- CC| |z.figura12@gmail.com Summary|DirectX 9 SDK - Could not |DirectX 9 SDK "rtpatch.exe" |find any compatible 3D |fails (no support for |devices in RTPatch sample |rectangular and triangular |(I use mesa's llvmpipe) |patches) Ever confirmed|0 |1 Status|RESOLVED |REOPENED
--- Comment #7 from Zebediah Figura z.figura12@gmail.com --- Hello all.
Let's first of all be civil, gracious, and try to be polite to people even if they aren't following directions precisely. Yes, we have directions and we ask people to read them, but it's the height of arrogance to assume that they're completely unambiguous. Everyone's a volunteer here, including bug reporters, and we all benefit from being polite and helping each other.
I don't know if archive.org is a legally safe redistributor of the DirectX 9 SDK installer, but we do link to archived versions of download pages from archive.org in many cases. Since the Microsoft redistributable is still up, I'll leave it as it is, but I wouldn't immediately throw archive.org under the bus as a "generic filesharing website".
(In reply to Olivier F. R. Dierick from comment #6)
--- quote from log --- 0032:fixme:d3d:wined3d_guess_card No card selector available for card vendor 0000 (using GL_RENDERER "llvmpipe (LLVM 7.0, 128 bits)"). --- end of quote ---
This is in fact a resurgence of bug 30526.
Well, no, not really. The bug happens no matter what graphics driver is used. And bug 30526 isn't a particularly valid or useful bug in the first place.
The bug is actually that we just don't have support for drawing triangular and rectangular patches in wined3d. The message box gets thrown up because the caps returned from IDirect3D9::GetDeviceCaps() don't include D3DDEVCAPS_RTPATCHES, but even with that hacked into wined3d_get_device_caps(), it fails to actually draw anything, because d3d9_device_DrawRectPatch() is a stub.
https://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=48243
Zebediah Figura z.figura12@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|REOPENED |NEW Keywords| |download, source
--- Comment #8 from Zebediah Figura z.figura12@gmail.com --- And marking confirmed.
https://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=48243
--- Comment #9 from Olivier F. R. Dierick o.dierick@piezo-forte.be --- Hello,
Bugzilla is no place for discussion and I'm not open to debate, but since you would like me to be polite I'll reply.
1. My position toward the reporter is not without reasons.
He's an adept of filing bugs against cracked or repackaged software, and have been repeatedly disrespectful and rude towards those who referred to the rules and guidelines (bug 47113, bug 48127, bug 48128).
Other than that I don't have anything personal against him. I tried to help him with his issues nonetheless. I would treat anyone who repeatedly breaks the rules the same.
Rules and policies have to be enforced or they loose their meaning. Someone has to do it and if it means being rude to offenders, then so be it.
If you're too nice some people will think they can do it again and get away with it. You have to be firm and show determination when you tell them to stop. Some people don't listen if you don't yell at them.
It would be great if everyone was nice and only did innocent mistakes, but that's not the world I live in.
2. Excerpt from https://archive.org/about/:
"Anyone with a free account can upload media to the Internet Archive. We work with thousands of partners globally to save copies of their work into special collections."
Anyone can upload anything and make it available to the public, so it's equivalent to a generic filesharing website.
When it's the only way to get the software, generic filesharing websites are acceptable (copyright matters aside), however, the problem is more that the authenticity of files on a generic filesharing website can't be verified without comparing them with a 'known-good' copy.
In this case the redistributable can easily be found on the publisher's website. I'll not loose time verifying whether the redistributable on archive.org is repackaged or not. I was nice enough to put the link to the publisher's website myself and tell the reporter to test the official redistributable. The reporter could have put the link himself instead of making up blatant lies.
3. At first look, the two bugs looked the same to me - No crash, same fixmes.
I was only triaging the bug and had no intention of testing the application.
Thanks for digging into the issue and disambiguate the bugs.
Regards.
https://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=48243
--- Comment #10 from Austin English austinenglish@gmail.com --- (In reply to Olivier F. R. Dierick from comment #9)
- Excerpt from https://archive.org/about/:
"Anyone with a free account can upload media to the Internet Archive. We work with thousands of partners globally to save copies of their work into special collections."
Anyone can upload anything and make it available to the public, so it's equivalent to a generic filesharing website.
AFAIK the main use is mirroring things that are already public. Do you have evidence that a random person can replace a binary from http://example.com with their own? That's the first I've heard such an allegation.
They allow other uploads as well, but that's a separate feature from the wayback machine. As far as I'm concerned, however, the first case it's legitimate, same as, e.g. Google cache
Anyway, if you're suggesting a change/discussion of that policy, please start a thread on wine-devel.
https://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=48243
--- Comment #11 from Olivier F. R. Dierick o.dierick@piezo-forte.be --- Hello,
I don't know why you people insist on breaking the rules, but whatever, since you're questioning me publicly here, I'll reply by the same means, until you cease.
(In reply to Austin English from comment #10)
(In reply to Olivier F. R. Dierick from comment #9)
- Excerpt from https://archive.org/about/:
"Anyone with a free account can upload media to the Internet Archive. We work with thousands of partners globally to save copies of their work into special collections."
Anyone can upload anything and make it available to the public, so it's equivalent to a generic filesharing website.
AFAIK the main use is mirroring things that are already public. Do you have evidence that a random person can replace a binary from http://example.com with their own? That's the first I've heard such an allegation.
I've never heard such an allegation either, except from you, right now.
The excerpt is taken from the archive.org website itself. Are you denying facts to make a point?
Nowhere did I say, or for the matter is written on archive.org, that anyone can replace a binary from http://example.com with their own.
Straw man argument.
They allow other uploads as well, but that's a separate feature from the wayback machine. As far as I'm concerned, however, the first case it's legitimate, same as, e.g. Google cache
Nobody is discussing the wayback machine feature here.
Had you checked the linked download on archive.org, you would have seen that it is an upload by a user 'wobajk', or maybe you did, and are deliberately missing the point.
Do you know who user 'wobajk' is or where he got is redistributables from? I don't.
Anyway, if you're suggesting a change/discussion of that policy, please start a thread on wine-devel.
Nobody is discussing a change/discussion of a WineHQ policy here.
You may find me stubborn, rude or whatever, but I'm only trying to enforce the already existing rules and policies in the face of people breaking them, and you people nit pick and question that.
I don't know what's wrong with you. Am I somehow undesirable to you? Do you think I'm doing it wrong? You can tell me privately. Remember that these pages are public and my identity is visible. You make your arguments public at your own risk, as I do mine.
There is no matter that I want to discuss with you, but if anyone has something to say to me not related with this bug, there is a button to send me an email. Please, use it.
Regards.
https://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=48243
--- Comment #12 from double55 yurikazakov9184@gmail.com --- (In reply to Olivier F. R. Dierick from comment #5)
Hello,
A log has been provided, reopening.
(In reply to double55 from comment #2)
- I published a unified normal link, and I don’t understand what a “common
site” means.
Digress and straw man argument.
- Nothing is output to the terminal, if you need evidence, download and
check it yourself.
- The Microsoft site has only the DirectX11 SDK, but DirectX9 does not.
I set the URL field to the DirectX 9 SDK download on Microsoft website and you attached a terminal log.
You're an obvious liar. It's not the first time and you have been marked as such in my mind. If you want that to change, then stop repeating the same things over and over. If you don't care, then it will stay like that and I'll continue to treat you the same.
- Show respect.
You can't demand respect - You have to earn it.
Follow the rules and guidelines and everything will be fine.
Regards.
This is DirectX11, and this not contains DirectX9 Samples. Return my url.
https://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=48243
--- Comment #13 from Olivier F. R. Dierick o.dierick@piezo-forte.be --- (In reply to double55 from comment #12)
This is DirectX11, and this not contains DirectX9 Samples. Return my url.
Hello,
1. The download from Microsoft is DirectX SDK build 9.29.1962. It's the latest and last version of DirectX 9 SDK.
It provides D3D9, D3D10 and D3D11 runtime dlls.
The D3D9 samples are in "C:\Program Files\Microsoft DirectX SDK (June 2010)\Samples\C++\Direct3D" directory (default install path). There are distinct directories for DirectX 10 and 11 feature samples: Direct3D10 and Direct3D11.
2. The download from archive.org claim to be DirectX 9.0 SDK from 2002-12-19. The closest other source I could find is DirectX 9.0b SDK on fileplanet.com:
https://www.fileplanet.com/archive/p-16004/DirectX-9-0-Software-Development-...
Both installers claim to be DirectX 9 SDK build 9.00.0900, but they are different. The difference lies in the DXDiag.lnk, dxreadme.htm and CAB files in "Redist" directory. All the other installed files are identical.
There is no way for me to disambiguate or attest the authenticity of them, but fileplanet.com has a point for not allowing uploads from random users.
3. No one stated that the issue is specific to the SDK from 2002 yet.
If the issue can be reproduced with the june 2010 SDK, there is no reason to change the URL back. It would serve no purpose. People who want to test older versions can find the links in the comments.
Zebediah Figura already diagnosed the issue in comment 7, so the developers knows what has to be done. There is nothing more to say until the issue gets worked on.
I respectfully ask you to show patience.
Regards.
https://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=48243
--- Comment #14 from double55 yurikazakov9184@gmail.com --- You seem to answer only based on your hypotheses. When you find in these folders the tests "StencilMirror", "DolphinVS" and "RTPatch" in your link, then answer. I didn’t just add the older version, because in 9.29 d3d9 tests as RTPatch, StencilMirror, DolphinVS DO NOT EXIST. The problem with RTPatch cannot be reproduced with SDK 9.29, because it simply is not there.
https://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=48243
--- Comment #15 from double55 yurikazakov9184@gmail.com --- So, do you return the URL voluntarily and admit the miss? Or should I ask someone?
https://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=48243
Olivier F. R. Dierick o.dierick@piezo-forte.be changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- URL|https://www.microsoft.com/e |https://archive.org/downloa |n-us/download/details.aspx? |d/dx9sdk |id=6812 |
--- Comment #16 from Olivier F. R. Dierick o.dierick@piezo-forte.be --- Hello,
(In reply to Olivier F. R. Dierick from comment #1)
- There is an official DirectX 9 SDK download on Microsoft website. Does
the issue happen with it?
(In reply to double55 from comment #14)
as RTPatch, StencilMirror, DolphinVS DO NOT EXIST. The problem with RTPatch cannot be reproduced with SDK 9.29, because it simply is not there.
There was no miss on my part.
Thanks for doing your homework.
Regards.
-
WineHQ Bugzilla