Just wondering, how different is developing in DirectX to developing using XNA. I understand XNA is basically a DirectX wrapper but a lot more features and such. But will the code look at all different?
Printable View
Just wondering, how different is developing in DirectX to developing using XNA. I understand XNA is basically a DirectX wrapper but a lot more features and such. But will the code look at all different?
Well. XNA is a wrapper that uses C#, so you dont have much choice about the language. Using the DirectX graphics libraries directly allows you to choose what language you want to use.
Though XNA makes it alot easier to develop windows/xbox360 games.
The only reason i am thinking about reverting back to DirectX is because if i develop a game in XNA then the user will also have to download the XNA framework :(
Don't use XNA. It's a bunch of crap.
- You have to use C#.
- It's just a wrapper of DirectX. Might as well just use DirectX.
- The users of your game need to download the XNA framework, .Net Framework, and a bunch of other crap, whereas if it was DirectX, it would just be .Net framework.
- I think, when using XNA, you need to buy a license for your game or something in order to market or sell your game. Anyways, it's complete crap. With DirectX you don't need this.
- DirectX has a lot more features since it's the core library, whereas XNA is a wrapper and may have left out a lot of possibly useful features. Also, since it is a wrapper, it may be easier to use, but has a lot less functionality.
- People have been using DirectX for a while now so there are a lot of tutorials and code examples where XNA is sort of new and may not have as good as a tutorials index.
- Professional game companies use, and have been using, C++ and DirectX for a long time now. That's how things got done. No professional developer is going to be using a crappy DirectX wrapper.
- Unless you are working for Microsoft in the future, you're not going to be getting jobs using XNA. DirectX on the other hand..
- Since XNA is a wrapper, it runs, even though it may be unnoticeable, a bit slower than the library it wraps.
- Since XNA is a wrapper, you may want to do some obscure thing in your game that XNA doesn't cover since it didn't find it important enough to add, and in that case you can't add to your game. Since DirectX is the core library, none of this could happen.
etc. etc.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fromethius
Do you have any source or facts to support these points?
EDIT: Here goes..
Thats no reason for it to be a bunch of crap is it?Quote:
Originally Posted by Fromethius
What? Thats a silly argument.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fromethius
Im havent read up on this, but what is "a bunch of other crap"? Sounds like you havent read up on this either?Quote:
Originally Posted by Fromethius
Source? "I think" isnt really convincing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fromethius
A lot less functionallity? I'd like to know what.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fromethius
Wrong. MSDN. XNA forum. Books? Im sitting here with a 500 page book on XNA as I type this. I recommend it: Clicky.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fromethius
Yeah thats true, its good to have knowledge of DirectX when looking for employment in the game industry, but who knows, maybe XNA will gain alot of ground the coming years? After all, it is revolutionary to let ordinary people like you and me develop our own games for Windows and Xbox360, think of the chances of becomming recognized and perhaps even hired by a game company;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Fromethius
I dont have any knowledge about this, and you may very well be right, but Ive seen the most spectacular things made in XNA with the same performance you could expect in a professionally created game.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fromethius
What do you mean?Quote:
Originally Posted by Fromethius
Which points in particular? Most of them are just common sense.
Updated;) Now that I look at my post you could almost get the feeling that im trying to...flame you, but thats not the case.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fromethius
Yea, it is.
Fromethius, your arguements have NO base whatsoever. You're setting yourself up to get horribly flamed by anyone who glances at this thread. I haven't played with XNA much, but from what I've seen, it's VERY powerful. And if you really want to use XNA through VB... you need to have your skull examined. C# is more powerful than VB in its' very roots, and with anything graphical, it absolutely destroys VB. Throw DirectX on top of that, and there's no way you can lose.
Oh ok, my aplogoies then.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fromethius
Alright, I didn't feel like pulling up evidence from every point I made. That's so bad isn't it? But really, he bashed every point I made! That was not necessary at all!
My first point, for example. In DirectX you can use many languages, but with XNA you are limited to just one. That makes XNA less superior in that point to DirectX. The fact that you can only use C#. It does not make XNA a bunch of crap, but that is a limiting factor. For example, you could use C++ with DirectX, but not C++ with XNA. That is a limiting factor.
As for my second point. It's just a wrapper! Everything you can do in XNA, you can do in DirectX just as easily. I have actually found XNA a bit harder in some aspects to DirectX. Was there really a need for XNA? Everyone was doing fine with DirectX.
As for my third point, XNA DOES require more redistributables to run the creations than DirectX does. Don't even try to argue with that. With C# and DirectX, the end-user would need the .Net Framework and MIGHT need the DirectX end-user runtime depending on whether or not you have certain DLL's installed into your system32 directory. If you are a gamer, you probably had them already. But with XNA! Oh gosh, it was HELL getting my game to run on another computer. The .Net Framework, DirectX Runtime, XNA Runtime, all those service packs, etc etc. It was just complete hell. Again, don't even try to argue with that point.
As for my fourth point. Hold on a second. I will find the source that you so desperately desire.. http://vbforums.com/showpost.php?p=3052150&postcount=5
I can probably find some better source, but I really.. just don't feel like it.
As for my fifth point, isn't it kind of obvious that a wrapper has less functionality than what it is wrapping? Unless it is not actually a wrapper, and some sort of new library. It's just the way the world turns.
6th point already? Yes, DirectX has been out for a LONG time. There are a LOT more books written, tutorials given, and source code examples provided on DirectX. A LOT more. Sure, XNA has a lot too. The amount it has may be enough for some random game developer, but DirectX has more. You may not need the extras, and the amount XNA has may be enough, but DirectX has more. Which may or may not make the difference between a young, aspiring game creator from creating his game or letting it fail.
7th point.. hands.. cramping.. Anyways, XNA might catch on. But do you really think any professional game company is going to be writing their games in XNA? Come on.. Honestly.. Really? Do you? Again, unless you get a job for Microsoft.. No self respecting game company is going to be writing their entire game in XNA.
8th point: Agreed?
9th point: What I mean is, if DirectX had a certain function that no one really used, and was not included in XNA, and some programmer would REALLY want to use this function, what are they going to do? At least if you're writing in DirectX, you know you have access to everything. I just feel so limited when writing in XNA, be it true or not.
My point it that just because XNA is limited to XNA doesnt mean that it is a bunch of crap, which is exactly what you seemed to mean in your first post.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fromethius
You can do the same things in DirectX that you can do in XNA, that is right. But just as easily? Thats where I disagree, XNA was made to simplify the creation of games.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fromethius
DirectX runtime files? Of course you'd need to have that installed if youre planning to run a DirectX game.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fromethius
What are the service packs you speak of? Im curious...
Im sorry but thats defenitly not a reliable source. Not saying chemicalNova would be unreliable, but a post on a public internet forum is never a reliable source for anything.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fromethius
I understand what you're saying, but Ive never said that XNA provides MORE functionallity. I was simply asking what it was lacking, since you seemed to know. I dont.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fromethius
Of course DirectX has more. But I was showing you that the amount of documentation and tutorials for XNA is more than enough. Lets play with the thought that XNA has 5000 tutorials available, and that DirextX has 12000 tutorials available. Do you really think that thats going to make any difference for you when you're coding? Will you notice the lack of 7000 tutorials?Quote:
Originally Posted by Fromethius
I dont see it as an impossibility no.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fromethius
Probably;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Fromethius
Now its my turn ( ;) ): Come on..Honestly? This is just such a strange argument I dont know what to say.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fromethius
This is why im so interested in using it and have been for a little while.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=TgChURF5fQE
And i find having to use C# is a bonus, makes development a lot easier than say using C++ and the game itself will be more powerful then lets say VB.
Pfft.. everything is more powerful than VB...
Nice video, though. Pretty impressive stuff.
So, Paul, have you decided what to use yet?;)
If youre going for XNA, see the book i recommended in my second post:) I havent gotten that far into it yet, but im very happy with it sofar and it seems to cover most areas (XNA Setup, Developer basics, shaders, animation, movement, texture, skies, score tracking, 3d models, collision detection etc etc)
Not 100% sure, for the moment i will stick with XNA it is just the worry of users requiring to download the XNA framework and such.
If i was to use DirectX or OpenGL i would use C++ anyway. But i am really more interested in furthering my knowledge with C# so XNA is best suited :)
Good plan.Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul M
I'd like to learn OpenGL in the future. C++ is good because (amongst other things) of its cross-platform abilities, and so it would be good to use a graphics library that is cross-platform aswell.
Yes that is a good feature, but i am not sure how spot on this information is but i have been told DirectX is used more frequently in the Game Industry than OpenGL.
Very much so. There are quite a few games that run on DX OR OpenGL, but virtually EVERY game is based on DX.
Aha. I cant say im that sure about this either... but seeing as though DirectX is a microsoft developed technology, it can only be used on PCs running windows or on Xbox360. Developing for Ps3, wii or any other console..I think youd need another library such as OpenGL. Im only 80% sure about this though, so if Im wrong I wouldnt mind being corrected.Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul M
Theres actually a wikipedia article about OpenGL vs DirectX
Benjamin NitschkeQuote:
Originally Posted by Paul M
http://abi.exdream.com/blog/
He's crazy. He even releases the source code to the PUBLIC for some of the games he writes. I'm downloading some now =D
Because people play so many games, the majority of the people already have the DirectX files so all they would need to install would be the .Net Framework, which many may already have due to Windows Updates and/or having Vista. So your game may run stand-alone. MIGHT. However, no one really has the XNA redistributable.. I dunno, it was always an inconvenience when trying to distribute my game.. =/Quote:
DirectX runtime files? Of course you'd need to have that installed if youre planning to run a DirectX game.
What are the service packs you speak of? Im curious...
Yea I know. I am sort of bad at searching for things.. I guess we could wait for chem to jump in and spill his source :DQuote:
Im sorry but thats defenitly not a reliable source. Not saying chemicalNova would be unreliable, but a post on a public internet forum is never a reliable source for anything.
Other than that, I think we're at an agreement.
I recently took a look at XNA,
I didn't like it, XNA seems like a good idea if you want to use an xbox, but not so much for a pc. Examples I saw were mapping keyboard keys to xbox buttons, it is quite clearly designed for xbox, it working on pc too is just an upside so you could port your games on both.
And it does seem a bit bloated (personal opinion), and you will be far better off with experience with DirectX itself, or openGL
But if it is easier than directx, its a good starting point if nothing else, so I wouldn't dismiss it when people ask.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fromethius
There was another package earlier on.. which had an agreement that anything made in the Express and Basic packages, was owned by Microsoft. I'll try and find that.. but the above basically says you have to pay to have the games work on an Xbox..Quote:
XNA Game Studio Express is intended for students, hobbyist, and independent (and by extension, homebrew) game developers.[1] It is available as a free download. Express will provide basic "starter kits" for rapid development of specific genres of games, such as platform, real-time strategy, and first-person shooters. Developers can create Windows games for free with the XNA Framework, but to run their games on the Xbox 360 they will have to pay an annual fee of $99 (or a four-month fee of $49) for admission to the XNA "Creator's Club".
chem
Nope i use to thing the exact same thing, my mate told me that in fact all it was that the code to any game for Xbox360 must be distributed. Because to use it, it must be compiled on the actual machine.
*cough* XNA content pipeline? I am suprised no-one has meantioned it so I will. In order to load models in XNA you need to 'add' them to the project. This means if you want to code something and allow people to mod the models then you need to give them the source?
We (at uni) are going to 'officially' learn XNA next year its actually built into the course!. So when I built my (2D) engine in it I rendered stuff the DirectX way (Textured Quads FTW) and tried not to use any of the helper classes like sprite batch. Luckly there is a DX function that loads into Texture2Ds (Simple Textures) from a file as well as from an asset (added to the project).
I recently did some XNA development for some school projects (it was a requirement, I did SDL last year too). Some of the information here is a little off.
First off XNA, like previously mentioned, is a wrapper to DirectX. While C# is not the fastest programming language, it still directly wraps to DirectX so it's still very fast (obviously not as fast as C/C++ to DirectX or even C# directly using DirectX). Microsoft has released some XNA demos that have been very impressive (check out "Racing Game" here: http://creators.xna.com/Education/StarterKits.aspx for some great HD racing with, I believe HDR). You can use XNA to develop some very impressive games so don't just write it off.
I also wanted to mention that the argument against using XNA due to it being a wrapper is just silly. If you want to make that argument, then it's dumb to use DirectX because it's just a wrapper itself to the graphics card. It being a wrpper doesn't mean you're losing functionality either as you can easily use DirectX within your XNA poject (though it won't work on the XBox 360). XNA provides quite a few useful objects and methods but you can always drop to a lower level for anything it could be missing.
This is not true and it never has been true. Anything you make/made with XNA you're welcome to distribute it anyway you like for Windows. You can distribute the source of your game if you want others to play it on the XBox 360 but 1.0 was never meant to let you easily distribute XBox 360 games (this will come in the very-soon-to-be-released Game Studio 2.0). Microsoft has NEVER had any kind of agreement like that for any of their express versions of Visual Studio and they encourage students, hobbists and small developers to use it anyway they'd like. ALso, IANAL but I don't believe a EULA like that would even hold up in court anyway.Quote:
Originally Posted by chemicalNova
As or paying for games to run on the XBox 360, yes this is true but to be perfectly honest, $99 a year is a much better deal than the $6k+ development kits for any console and it gives hobbists a chance to actually create something cool on a next geeraion console.
The Pipeline is actually a nice feature but you can still dynamically load models via XNA. You don't have to add them to your project itself unless you're distributing it on the XBox 360 which I think is fine as you're not going to be dynamically loading anything and if you're expanding the game, it's most likely going to be just you.Quote:
Originally Posted by singularis
Dammit if I could've found that EULA I would have.. but I just don't have the patience..
chem
As far as I researched,
You cannot burn a dvd ready to play in an xbox, and then sell it, or even give it away because as far as i read (on v1) you had to connect an xbox to your LAN and compile it accross, that's ridiculous.
If somebody can proove otherwise, i'd gladly give it a try and recommend it as well.
This is correct. You could not easily distribute XBox 360 games with the first version. Game Studio 2 is supposed to change that. Not only are you able to use the Live network but companies will be able to actually create games and get them certified for sale on the XBox Arcade (Microsoft still won't allow burning to a DVD and playing them, as far as I know).Quote:
Originally Posted by Phill64
So it's better but I don't believe Joe Programmer Sixpack can make a game and distribute it without getting the game ceritifed and put in the Arcade.
However, you're free to sell and distribute any Windows games created with XNA.
I've read most of the posts and have opinions on a lot of them, but most of what I would say has already been said, except:
Your main concern seems to be the distribution of your game, and users needing to download runtime files etc. Surely you, the developer, can download the runtimes for .Net and XNA yourself, and ditribute them with the game? I personally wouldn't have a clue how to use one properly, but there are a few tools out there that should let you build the installation of the runtime files into the extraction process of your game, just like professional games check to see what version of DirectX you have, and ask to update it if need be.
If that's too difficult (and this is probably what I would just do), just stick a readme into your game zip that says "If you don't have blah blah blah, then just run blah blah blah.exe before trying to run the game." Easy!
metal
(this is speculation- anyone feel free to back me up or say why this couldn't work)
Quite true, but when you have nearly one hundred megabytes installing just for the necessary frameworks to run a simple arcade game, the user may not be so up to it.Quote:
Originally Posted by metalmidget
100 MB? The .Net framework is, what, 20MB? The XNA Redistributable is about 1MB. It's not that bad.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fromethius
the latest patch to .net 2.0 was 20mb. the framework is MUCH larger. 94.5 mb. evidently 3.0 uses 2.0 for it's core functions because it's "only" 20.4mb and 3.5 adds another 5 mb.
We're only concerned with download size which is still only 20mb (with the latest patches). Also, 3.5 is only 2.7MB
you evidently didn't notice that the 2.7 mb file is a bootstrap loader. the 3.5 setup package is 197 megabytes. Not only that, but temp files during the install will require up to half a GIGABYTE of hard-drive space. You may not be "concerned" about 1/2 a gig of hd space, but that just so happens to be all i have left on my system drive.
here's a link: http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/d...displaylang=en
I don't want to be rude, but it clearly states that the 3.5 install also includes patches for 2.0 and 1.1, so how could you POSSIBLY EVER think it would only be 2 mb? Microsoft would never make a program that small. It's against corporate policy.
And not only are these sizes huge, but that's the 32-bit version. For unclear reasons, the 64-bit version (which i have to use personally) is 610 mb. I think an end-user might balk at a 610mb download? This is why games are going to dvd format now.
You do realize the "full package" of 3.5 includes 32-bit and 64-bit of both the 2.0 and 3.0 frameworks as well as the 3.5 updates, right? That's why it's so large. It's not actually that big when it downloads it from either Windows update or through the smaller, 2.7MB installer.
Also, even though .Net 2.0 has had patches, the latest redistributable is sitll only a little over 20MB.
Naturally the .Net framework is a little big but it's not as bad as it was made out to be earlier in the thread 9which was my only point).
you can check your own directories if you doubt their size. 2.0 is 94 mb installed. And i don't think the "full package" contains both 32 and 64 bit versions since i had to go to a different site to get the 64-bit one, and the system requirements for 32 and 64 in download size are totally different.
But i was aware that it contained the patches for the earlier versions and i mentioned this in my post.
Now let's say that your project uses net 3.5 and the user is using xp and has only got .net 1.1 installed (and that's only if they installed if off their install disk). 3.5 will force them to install 2.0 first, which on my system is the equivalent of about 6 days of continuous downloading thanks to my dial-up connection. I've been downloading ubuntu linux 7 for 4 days straight now, and still have 15 hours left.
We've been discussing the download size, not installed size (which can become fairly large). Also, the link you sent me to has a link to the full version and a read me for it at well where it mentioned that the full 197MB packages includes 32 and 64 bit versions of both 2.0 and 3.0 plus 3.5's updates.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord Orwell
6 days? 2.0 is only 20+ MB.... once that's installed, 3.5 doesn't need to download that much more (go through Windows update to make sure you get everything you need).Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord Orwell
You mentioned that Ubuntu is taking you 4 days and still has 15 hours to go (possibly making it take a total of 5 days). An ISO of an OS is most certaintly larger than the framework by many magnitudes so I don't understand where you got your 6 day figure from.
We already know the .Net framework is an issue for dial-up users, which is why Microsoft is looking into a way for users to install the application, plus only components they need from the framework.
i told you that the 2.0 framework is not 20 mb. The latest patch alone for 2.0 is 20mb. Also i said i use the 64-bit framework, which is twice as large because it contains 64-bit code as well as 32-bit code. When you total the frameworks all together for my system, they are larger than the ubuntu image i am downloading. But don't take my word for it. Here's a screenshot from my mac mini running xp32. This system already contains all frameworks, and just the latest 3.0 framework service pack is over 50mb. A fresh install of 3.0 will require the 56mb original download, this 50 mb download, and a 50mb patch for 2.0 that is required for 3.0 to function. The point is the frameworks are huge and the downloads are huge. You just have to deal with that fact.
also notice on the link i gave earlier, that it clearly states that the stub installer will install the service packs as well. I can also attest that the stub installers actually just download a msi install package that is placed in a temp directory and deleted after the install is done. I managed to copy the msdn and c# install files before they were deleted.
Erm, sorry, you're correct. I had assumed Microsoft combined the full download with the latest patch (which would make sense to me; why download the full thing and still need a patch) but looking at the dates at the downloads, you're right, you need everything.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord Orwell
Sorry about that. Jesus, that really is huge in that case. That seems stupid.
in some cases it would make sense. Let's say you already downloaded the framework before the patch came out? Would you rather download a 20mb patch or 94 mb again? then there's hosting. If you are hosting the patch, why would you want to host a full version too?