|
-
Jan 28th, 2001, 09:35 AM
#1
Thread Starter
Good Ol' Platypus
If you are using BitBlt, come to this page.
This is where you will find the Knowledge of BitBlt.
Gurus and good BitBltters are welcome to share their
knowledge.
Knowledge from Me:
Basic Blitting!
Code:
Option Explicit
Public Const SRCCOPY = &HCC0020 ' (DWORD) dest = source
Public Declare Function BitBlt Lib "gdi32" Alias "BitBlt" (ByVal hDestDC As Long, ByVal x As Long, ByVal y As Long, ByVal nWidth As Long, ByVal nHeight As Long, ByVal hSrcDC As Long, ByVal xSrc As Long, ByVal ySrc As Long, ByVal dwRop As Long) As Long
Function RectBlit(Dest as PictureBox, X as Integer, Y as integer, Source as Picturebox) as Long
Dim RetCode
Dim HoldScale1, HoldScale2
HoldScale1=Dest.Scalemode
Dest.Scalemode=3
HoldScale2=Source.Scalemode
Source.Scalemode=3
RectBlit = 0 'for now, we will assume it failed
RetCode = BitBlt(dest.hdc,x,y,source.scalewidth,source.scaleheight,source.hdc,0,0,SrcCopy)
Dest.ScaleMode=HoldScale1
Source.ScaleMode=HoldScale2
RectBlit=RetCode
End Function
'usage:
RC=RectBlit(picture2,0,0,picture1)
All contents of the above post that aren't somebody elses are mine, not the property of some media corporation. 
(Just a heads-up)
-
Jan 28th, 2001, 01:02 PM
#2
I don't really understnad your question...
-
Jan 29th, 2001, 10:36 AM
#3
Frenzied Member
Hm When I look through the code, I really can't see why I should use this function. I have all those lines executet, just because I can't write picturebox.hwnd but I write picturebox??
And what if I want to blt from one rect from the source picbox, instead of the whole thing??
So I am not really sure, if that is a good function.
Sanity is a full time job
Puh das war harter Stoff!
-
Jan 29th, 2001, 08:00 PM
#4
Thread Starter
Good Ol' Platypus
I know that it isn't useful for that, I was just saying that its a function if you have one pic you want to cover with another. Simple. The Basics. Notice how I say BASIC blitting? hmm? HMM?
All contents of the above post that aren't somebody elses are mine, not the property of some media corporation. 
(Just a heads-up)
-
Jan 29th, 2001, 09:27 PM
#5
Frenzied Member
Oh well I really didn't want to offend you, but you know here in this forum I basically, expect questions or some a little more special stuff 
If you felt offended, I am sorry.
Sanity is a full time job
Puh das war harter Stoff!
-
Jan 31st, 2001, 08:28 PM
#6
Thread Starter
Good Ol' Platypus
All contents of the above post that aren't somebody elses are mine, not the property of some media corporation. 
(Just a heads-up)
-
Feb 1st, 2001, 03:19 PM
#7
Originally posted by YoungBuck
WEBSITE HAS BITBLT TUTORIALS COME TO MY WEBSITE COME TO MY WEBSITE!!!!!!!!!1
lol
-
Feb 1st, 2001, 09:33 PM
#8
Thread Starter
Good Ol' Platypus
And now, the most special note to new BitBlitters:
Don't use bitblt, use DirectDraw!
http://www.cason.addr.com/
http://www.ur.co.nz/
[email protected]
All contents of the above post that aren't somebody elses are mine, not the property of some media corporation. 
(Just a heads-up)
-
Feb 1st, 2001, 11:38 PM
#9
Fanatic Member
Originally posted by Sastraxi
Don't use bitblt, use DirectDraw!
Use DirectDraw for games, BitBlt is sufficient for other graphical purposes.
{Insert random techno-babble here}
{Insert quote from some long gone mofo here}
-
Feb 2nd, 2001, 10:13 AM
#10
Retired VBF Adm1nistrator
Well if you think about it, one could actually program an entire 3D game just using bitblt.
Just look at duke nukem 
Stretching the term 3D I know but anyway ... 
- jamie
Microsoft MVP : Visual Developer - Visual Basic [2004-2005]
-
Feb 2nd, 2001, 02:32 PM
#11
Fanatic Member
Damn! You all want to program games with DirectX. Why won't people program a serious GUI app instead of a classic boring and sttttt..tttupid looking applications with a lot of textboxes and grids.
I'm a GUI lover, any one else?
-
Feb 2nd, 2001, 02:58 PM
#12
Because those "boring GUI's" are the ones that most Windows users are familiar with. Image what it would be like if each program had a different GUI. (It would especially affect those who are learning computers).
-
Feb 2nd, 2001, 06:47 PM
#13
transcendental analytic
I think i'm on meg's side, if you have a skin for each app, then it would look terrible,
There's progs like windowblinds that skins the whole environment, and it would look better if the theme matched, instead of having some other apps that have their own skins.
I'm thinking about the DFX plugin for winamp for instance, you can't even change the skin.
Now there's people who don't want skinned apps at all and those who really don't want to waste their resources on skinned apps.
I'm probably one of them, but i still like a colorful theme, and you could get a reasonable compromise because of the very large selection of apps for this purpose.
I still think apps should be kept as simple and purposeful as possible, i'm using ICQ, and i'm stuck with it.
It consumes like 40M ram and 10% resources and startup tales 10 seconds. How great is that? I use a tenth of all the features it has.
Use  
writing software in C++ is like driving rivets into steel beam with a toothpick.
writing haskell makes your life easier:
reverse (p (6*9)) where p x|x==0=""|True=chr (48+z): p y where (y,z)=divMod x 13
To throw away OOP for low level languages is myopia, to keep OOP is hyperopia. To throw away OOP for a high level language is insight.
-
Feb 2nd, 2001, 07:13 PM
#14
Monday Morning Lunatic
It's like the Kai programs...I had a hell of a time using those
I refuse to tie my hands behind my back and hear somebody say "Bend Over, Boy, Because You Have It Coming To You".
-- Linus Torvalds
Posting Permissions
- You may not post new threads
- You may not post replies
- You may not post attachments
- You may not edit your posts
-
Forum Rules
|
Click Here to Expand Forum to Full Width
|