Re: making a generic high level 3DAPI on top of mdx
From: Minh Truong ("mtruong2)
Date: 10/26/04
- Next message: Xwire: "Re: Game overlay"
- Previous message: Alex Gray: "Microsoft.DirectX.dll not installed with Directx 9.0c and .NET Framework 1.1?"
- In reply to: Robert Ludewig: "making a generic high level 3DAPI on top of mdx"
- Next in thread: ZMan: "Re: making a generic high level 3DAPI on top of mdx"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2004 01:16:46 -0400
Robert Ludewig wrote:
>...
> Would you think there would be a public "need" for such an API that would
> justify to put the development on a larger scale ?
I don't know if there's currently a "need". It's entirely up to the MDX
community. I don't feel like there's enough critical mass yet. If you
look at unmanaged DX, there are scores of higher up-level API -- of
course unmanaged DX has amassed many more followers.
Regarding performance loss, I don't think you'd notice that significant
of a performance difference. If you have:
C# code -> MDX -> DX
it's very similar to:
C# code -> Your API -> MDX -> DX
I'd bet there won't even be any difference.
-----
http://1DudeGames.com
- Next message: Xwire: "Re: Game overlay"
- Previous message: Alex Gray: "Microsoft.DirectX.dll not installed with Directx 9.0c and .NET Framework 1.1?"
- In reply to: Robert Ludewig: "making a generic high level 3DAPI on top of mdx"
- Next in thread: ZMan: "Re: making a generic high level 3DAPI on top of mdx"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]