I know this is probably just going to get a lot of troll replies, but I honestly want to know some good resources on learning Direct X programming. I already know C++ pretty well, and can find my way around a Windows program, but I have no access to classes or any irl lesson of any kind.
My only real options are books and online resources. Anyone willing to point me in the right direction?
>>1
This is a bad move. In a few years you'll be good enough with DirectX to make a real game... and the graphics community will have dumped that shit for software rendering.
The gist is that back in the day, as I hope you know, 3d graphics were done all in software. Then graphics accelerators were introduced to do basically one thing: paint textured triangles on the screen. They could do it a lot faster than the CPUs of the time. Later generations got ever more flexible, until you've got today's situation: GPUs just parallel-processing optimized CPUs with a really bad interface, and even regular CPUs with multiple cores are competitive with low-end DX10 hardware. In coming years (very soon) the triangles and textures graphics APIs are going to be dropped in favor of running regular code on the GPU and/or CPU.
Name:
Anonymous2008-12-03 4:19
>>8
I suppose one migjt say that, it's triangles all the way down
Name:
Anonymous2008-12-03 6:04
>>8
That's a really, really, really, really, really bad thing to recommend to an absolute beginner.
Name:
Anonymous2008-12-03 10:14
>>10
Better than recommending a beginner invest in dead-end technology, right?
Name:
Anonymous2008-12-03 11:16
>>8
So, instead of two competing APIs we'll have no rendering APIs at all?
>>12
Not everyone is going to write a software rasterizer from scratch to draw some triangles on the screen. Once software rendering takes off there will be probably lots of rendering libraries available. Also, there is no reason why DirectX and OpenGL couldn't be implemented in software.
Name:
Anonymous2008-12-03 12:18
Just like DirectSound was obsoleted by moving sound processing to the CPU, right?
Name:
Anonymous2008-12-03 12:21
>>7
Just start with learning DirectX first. A good book is Introduction to 3D Game Programming with Direct 3D 10: A Shader Approach by Frank Luna. Once we have processors with 64 or more cores, you can worry about software rendering.
Name:
Anonymous2008-12-03 12:22
DirectX is a waste of time. Windows is dying.
Name:
Anonymous2008-12-03 13:09
Good old wheel of reincarnation.
Name:
Anonymous2008-12-03 13:14
>>15 Once software rendering takes off
It already did in the 80s. It was, is and will be a fallback for a very long time. Power efficiency is a big issue now because most people want a notebook and an iPhone nowadays, not a 1,5 kW desktop. Software rendering won't sell until Intel's going to integrate a GPGPU into the CPU and we all know how great Intel's graphic chipsets are. I hear AMD is already trying to do that with a simple GPU for starters but it isn't for notebooks yet.
Name:
Anonymous2008-12-03 15:32
>>15 Not everyone is going to write a software rasterizer from scratch to draw some triangles on the screen.
Well, duh. But someone will, and OP is ostensibly interested in rendering.
Once software rendering takes off there will be probably lots of rendering libraries available.
There will be engines, for sure. I doubt there will be many loltriangles APIs like OpenGL or DirectX.
Also, there is no reason why DirectX and OpenGL couldn't be implemented in software.
They both already are. Windows 7 will ship with a software renderer for DirectX 10.
As soon as someone writes a C compiler for the GPU, software rendering is going to take off. And I can't see things swinging back to fixed-function hardware in a couple of decades either. What would the benefit be?
Name:
Anonymous2008-12-03 15:58
Is openGL and DirectX really just about triangles? So for example, when I'm playing Team Fortress 2, I'm gazing into an endless sea of triangles? Please respond, this is really important to me.
Name:
Anonymous2008-12-03 15:59
Or what about, if you were rendering an ocean with triangles, you would literally be gazing into an endless sea created from an endless sea of triangles.
Name:
Anonymous2008-12-03 16:00
Is Lisp and Haskell really just about lists? So for example, when I'm coding in emacs, I'm gazing into an endless sea of cudders? Please respond, this is really important to me.
Name:
Anonymous2008-12-03 16:35
>>11
You're a dead-end. >>15
If I'm going through the trouble of writing a software renderer from the ground-up, it would be something more interesting or exotic, a raytracer, radiosity, voxels, assmaps or something. I wouldn't be writing another god damned triangle renderer. We already have really really really really really really really really really really really really fast GPUs and related APIs for them. Even considering what #8 posted, there'd still be plenty-fast OpenGL/DX implementations running on top of this hardware assuming they have their shit together. It smacks of e-peen measuring contest more-l33t-than-you faggotry to recommend this promising but currently nonexistent, nebulous, very overwhelming next-big-thing technology to a rank beginner.
>>25 If I'm going through the trouble of writing a software renderer from the ground-up, it would be something more interesting or exotic, a raytracer, radiosity, voxels, assmaps or something.
That's kind of the point. These half-retarded triangle pushers are the wave of the past. And now learning the well-established fundamentals of computer graphics is nebulous? Lol, sir, lol.
Name:
Anonymous2008-12-03 18:07
>>27
Yeah you're probably the same kind of fag who advocates complete beginners start off with assembly.
Name:
Anonymous2008-12-03 19:13
>>28
On the contrary, easy is what you want to avoid when teaching people. They have time to become jaded and satisfy their comfort-seeking weakling needs later in their careers (if any).
Therefore assembly is the best language to teach to newbies. Teaching implies guidance, which combined with something supposedly scary like pointers or complete lack of typing besides "byte, word, longword, quadword" will produce a kind of confidence that Java programmers can only dream of. Once "bare to the C library" assembly has been used to study the basic concepts of computer programming, higher-level languages may be taught with the promise of the compiler catching type-safety errors and not having to do function calls and register spills by hand.
Contrast the end product of a survivor of such a course with the sort who's ever been taught "heavy gloves so you don't hurt yourself" languages like Java and (as some in this thread propose) Python. Which one would you rather hire? The old-school guy who's got confidence out the arse, or the scaredy-cat Java grinder who has nightmares about the big bad NullPointerException and who doesn't understand why the garbage collector won't catch his file descriptor leak?
Name:
Anonymous2008-12-03 19:29
>>29
I've heard this exact same argument before.
You're a faggot. Go choke on Richard Stallman's dick and die please.
http://c2.com/cgi-bin/wiki/posts?SmugCeeWeenie
Jesus christ you faggots won't ever fucking disappear I've heard this same exact argument on usenet for decades. Shut the fuck up. You suck. You're the reason why I switched to engineering. God I fucking hate you cunts.
>>35
Idles on IRC.
Is 16.
Doesn't actually program, but talks about doing so.
Posts to Slashdot.
Name:
Anonymous2008-12-03 20:39
>>29
Spoken like someone who thinks manual memory management is the toughest challenge in computer science.
Java is a terrible language (for teaching as well as using), and you're welcome to look down on people who've been taught it all you like, but you aren't very good at hiding the fact that you haven't been taught anything at all yet.
It's actually a funny story. I work at a construction site, and sometimes I'll breath in fumes of granite, or some of my co-workers would put shavings of granite in my lunch. Anyway, after work, I went to /v/ to check out Yume Nikki. I started playing it, and because of the granite I had digested, I was literally, ``shitting bricks.''