DirectX11 and Windows XP
by ZeroFault · in Torque 3D Professional · 06/19/2013 (10:43 pm) · 13 replies
Hey all. I've been working on a Direct3d 11 renderer for Torque 3d and as I have been trying to maintain compatibility with the current direct3d 9 code it got me thinking. Do we still need to maintain support for it and windows XP?
Based on the Steam Hardware Survey most people have at least a DirectX 10 GPU. Although, about 20% of Steam users still use Windows XP and DirectX 10/11 GPU. I don't have anything against using Windows XP, but I just think its about time to move to windows vista/7 by now. What do you all think?
Based on the Steam Hardware Survey most people have at least a DirectX 10 GPU. Although, about 20% of Steam users still use Windows XP and DirectX 10/11 GPU. I don't have anything against using Windows XP, but I just think its about time to move to windows vista/7 by now. What do you all think?
About the author
Recent Threads
#2
And DirectX11 does not work anyway with WindowsXP, so there cannot be a support for this, just a switch to turn it off, to maintain downward compatibility would be enough I think.
06/20/2013 (4:55 am)
DirectX11 would be nice, but going straight to OpenGl would be nicer, since it would be more compatible with open source and would run on any system.And DirectX11 does not work anyway with WindowsXP, so there cannot be a support for this, just a switch to turn it off, to maintain downward compatibility would be enough I think.
#3
Of course, I should be able to leave in the Direct 3D 9 as a renderer as well. The issue is in the future when we have to maintain them both. I was just wondering if it was still worth it to keep support that's all.
@Duion
Yeah OpenGL would be nice, but I believe someone was already working on one. We can have both Directx11 and OpenGL in the engine for those who'd rather use one over the other.
Unfortunately, just having a switch is not enough in this case. Some parts of the engine in which I want to take advantage of multithreaded rendering need to change quite a bit.
06/20/2013 (9:37 am)
@Edward Of course, I should be able to leave in the Direct 3D 9 as a renderer as well. The issue is in the future when we have to maintain them both. I was just wondering if it was still worth it to keep support that's all.
@Duion
Yeah OpenGL would be nice, but I believe someone was already working on one. We can have both Directx11 and OpenGL in the engine for those who'd rather use one over the other.
Quote: And DirectX11 does not work anyway with WindowsXP, so there cannot be a support for this, just a switch to turn it off, to maintain downward compatibility would be enough I think.
Unfortunately, just having a switch is not enough in this case. Some parts of the engine in which I want to take advantage of multithreaded rendering need to change quite a bit.
#4
06/20/2013 (10:21 am)
I agree I think openGl and direct x 11 should be supported as well. I believe someone said that I guess the idea is to get the best direct x 9 open source engine with and great tool set, then work on openGl and direct x 11.
#5
06/20/2013 (10:58 am)
@Kory T3D is already by far the best directx9 open source engine so you can check that off the list ;) 
#6
Actually, the entire engine needs a great deal of work to make it thread safe.
06/20/2013 (11:01 am)
Extend the features you need instead of replacing them - your renderer calls the version of the interface it needs and the others call the version they need.Actually, the entire engine needs a great deal of work to make it thread safe.
#7
I still believe the more platforms there is to develop games on the more others would want to use the engine.
If that include bringing the engine up to modern renderer tech then we should go that way. It not like anything new is being developed for Dx9.
06/20/2013 (12:13 pm)
@Lukas I was just paraphrasing something I heard from someone else. I agree, that's why I've been saying we should push the engine into DirectX 11 and openGL for a while now.I still believe the more platforms there is to develop games on the more others would want to use the engine.
If that include bringing the engine up to modern renderer tech then we should go that way. It not like anything new is being developed for Dx9.
#8
thx for taking that step
about maintaining dx9 - it wouldn`t be wrong
and am glad to see that there is more input commin from the community
lookin forward to dx11
cheers mate
06/20/2013 (12:20 pm)
@ZeroFaultthx for taking that step
about maintaining dx9 - it wouldn`t be wrong
and am glad to see that there is more input commin from the community
lookin forward to dx11
cheers mate
#9
06/20/2013 (4:30 pm)
I think that getting an OpenGL render inside the engine should be the first priority, if we want to go down the DX11 road, you need to maintain compatibility with the older OS's and having a OpenGL portion of the engine will cover that. 
#10
@Robert, I really think OpenGL is the way to go too, however MacOS only supports OpenGL 3.2 still (lazy bastards), so we need OpenGL 4.x and OpenGL 3.2.
And I am guessing for the existing bells and whistles Direct3D 9 to 11 is an easier path atm?
06/20/2013 (11:28 pm)
@Kory, I agree we need T3D to be able to easily be on Windows, Linux and MacOS. They are easy to distribute to platforms. But we also need the bells and whistles, but I'd say overall cross compatiblity is more important.@Robert, I really think OpenGL is the way to go too, however MacOS only supports OpenGL 3.2 still (lazy bastards), so we need OpenGL 4.x and OpenGL 3.2.
And I am guessing for the existing bells and whistles Direct3D 9 to 11 is an easier path atm?
#11
My opinion on the matter is yes, we should try and maintain as much compatibility as possible. Maybe if the interface was just so bananas different that there's no way we could maintain DX9 and DX11 modes alongside each other I wouldn't mind, but I think if it's at all feasible there's no reason to ditch DX9.
06/21/2013 (3:50 am)
Just a meta point: whether or not adding an OGL renderer is a better idea for the engine as a whole, ZeroFault is clearly interested in implementing DX11. I agree that OGL should be first priority for the community... but not for ZeroFault. :)My opinion on the matter is yes, we should try and maintain as much compatibility as possible. Maybe if the interface was just so bananas different that there's no way we could maintain DX9 and DX11 modes alongside each other I wouldn't mind, but I think if it's at all feasible there's no reason to ditch DX9.
#12
Maybe a good idea to start with that and see what happens?
06/21/2013 (3:26 pm)
@Daniel: Isn't DX10 pretty compatible? From what I understand going from DX10 to DX11 is a whole lot easier than DX9 to DX11.Maybe a good idea to start with that and see what happens?
#13
06/21/2013 (4:18 pm)
@Robert: Actually, porting to DX10 from DX9 is just as hard as going from DX9 to DX11. Most of the API changes actually came from DX10. DX11 basically added a couple pipeline stages and few other minor things. Most of the changes were just changing the classes and functions names from ID3D10 to ID3D11. DX11 contains all of the features of DX10 so it's better to just go to straight to DX11. 
Torque Owner Edward Smith
Silencersoft
With that said I don't think anyone would expect them to have the same feature set.
I suppose it comes down to if anything stops that from being possible? Does supporting Windows XP/Direct3D 9 limit any of the engines capabilities? Or for it able to have a Direct3D 11 renderer?