Re: Managed VC++

From: Jarred Nicholls (
Date: 10/04/04

Date: Mon, 4 Oct 2004 07:34:01 -0400

Well, you're right. Tom Miller's examples had to be changed *slightly*.
Little things like a CustomVertex's SetPosition method was changed to a
Position property, Lights.Commit() was changed to Lights.Update(), and
various of other little changes to the MDX library. I would just compile,
find the error positions, and change them in bulk w/ Find/Replace :-) But I
know what you mean. I think MDX is far superior to UMDX as far as RAD goes,
so anything that MDX can possibly do, I'd do it w/ it. If I had to do any
DirectShow things, I could easily integrate UMDX w/ a managed C++
application that wrapped it so that the MDX C# application could interface
with it. Easy cheesy. Which is why I love .NET.


"Vas" <> wrote in message
>I had the same problem a while back, everything seemed private and
> non-managed, C3377 and C3635 errors. I gather you have to define the types
> or
> something, I couldn't be bothered to research it. I also tried adding a C#
> project and wrapping the device in a class, this way I was able to
> actually
> create the device in the C++ project, but trying to access any of its
> functions resulted in the same error output.
> I gave up with managed DX in the end and went back to unmanaged DX. I
> still
> use it as managed though, for the form stuff basically, I prefer it to MFC
> and with VC.NET it's easy to mix the two, hard code the form if you give
> it a
> try, forget the designer. I'm currently reading Jim Adams book on advanced
> animation, thanks for the book Jim I'm really enjoying it, and
> everything's
> working great using this method.
> Although I was disappointed to start with, I'm now very happy it turned
> out
> this way, the DX functions / classes I create can be used with my Win32,
> and Managed C++ projects. Plus you have access to everything, like
> DirectShow
> and all these books.
> Also, next years managed VS stuff is going have things like generics, so
> all
> this code you're writing now may not compile then without a major
> overhaul.
> This was one of the things that annoyed me about changing from managed
> DX9b
> to DX9c, all of Tom Miller's examples had to be reworked, the unmanaged
> stuff
> compiled without a problem.
> Sorry, I know this is no help to your situations.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: MDX with VS2005 Beta2
    ... Tom has said there will be a Whidbey version but no dates have been ... Right now the official position is that MDX is not supported under the beta ... > release will support VS2005. ... >> debugger setting to improve this or is this something that will go away ...
  • Re: Allocation of a meassure in a dimension
    ... Nigel and Tom: ... Thank you for your quick answer, we will proceed to do a MDX script, but if ... > One big difference to Essbase is that these calcs are likely to be done ...