Useful Programming Languages?
Pages: 12
| I infer that the implication is some bosses make decisions of what means something is to be achieved by, not in the most ideal ways, you could attempt to suggest a more ideal means, correct? |
If you suggest and they accept, that would mean they trusted you to have a proper solution. They don't want to deal with any extra hassle that can be avoided I assume, especially when they aren't the ones coding.
But, you are on a team, and maybe 90% of the team knows X, your suggestion to code it up in Y will likely be rejected. The company is also invested in X, but not Y, and buying new tools etc may not be in the cards. There are many more factors at play in a company than what is the ideal approach as an individual. If the genius that coded it changes jobs and no one remaining knows the language, they are in a bind...
Last edited on
| I just started coding with DirectX |
That is a gateway for creating Xbox games.
https://walbourn.github.io/directx-and-uwp-on-xbox-one/
MS is certainly trying to make cross device programming easier. PC, phone, Xbox, etc. apps don't need a lot of reworking, if any, to work.
coco2dx is a game engine, not a generic graphics API. DirectX works because it is the latter.
Great if someone wants to make a game, but not useful for other graphics uses.
Great if someone wants to make a game, but not useful for other graphics uses.
Last edited on
| Looks like @rascake is back ... |
The excessively wordy title of this topic was a good indication of that:
http://www.cplusplus.com/forum/lounge/262336/
I simply pointed out why I had some suspicions earlier, that I kept close to my vest.
If this is rascake returned, then only time will tell if he's rehabilitated.
Not that I care one way or the other. I deal with things when they happen.
If this is rascake returned, then only time will tell if he's rehabilitated.
Not that I care one way or the other. I deal with things when they happen.
@zapshe,
I wouldn't recommend DirectX for programming games. If you're trying to write game engines, then yes (but you'd need OpenGL/Metal/Vulkan, all at a similar level).
Games require more than DirectX does.
You need physics, for one thing - for most beyond simple arcade games.
If you know DirectX primarily, but your audience is on mobile, you're out of luck.
Then, DirectX, like most of the modern API's, requires shader programming. For all visual effects, for all material definitions, for light, reflection, refraction, water, smoke, fire...you use shaders. That is it's own specialty. While you can find a lot of information, you're basically moving the physics of light and its reaction to various materials into the GPU, by programming the shaders.
In the 21st century a game developer is going to use a game engine. There really isn't any way to "catch up" to half of what the various game engines do at this point. It could be that you aim to work on such a game engine, which assumes you have some specialty of some kind related to the physics of light and materials, of linear algebra and fast GPU programming, or some such feature in your skill set. It is a high bar to pass because of the existing game engine capabilities.
The same goes for physics engines, which are a unique specialty by comparison.
Then, there's music, sound effects, AI...
No one in the industry writes a game engine to make a game, nor does anyone making money write to any API directly. It just doesn't pay (it takes way, way, way too long). If your graphics are very simple (substandard by most consumer expectations), then you can "get away" with DirectX, or OpenGL, or Vulkan, or Metal...but imagine having to support all of those API's, which game engines do.
With your existing skill set (as best I can estimate that from way out here), you could probably start with one of the big two popular game engines, and have a running, simple game in a few weeks or days (depending on available time).
That would run on just about anything from a cheap Android device to a console, with PC's of all 3 major platforms included, plus iOS.
The materials would include realistic looking metals, glass, water, smoke, fog...lots of things "out of the box" or built with minimal effort using examples or components.
Most use the "physically based rendering" technique at this point (or, a real-time simplification of it). This is known to help make rather realistic looking results for a huge array of materials.
Doing that in DirectX would be a year or two of work and study, just to catch up to what you get for free from some of these engines (unless you make big bucks, then they want a small cut).
It is more than worth it, and since you mention, I thought I'd point out what is rather obvious once you make the comparison, so you don't waste time.
Unless, of course, you really want to make game engines, instead of games.
I wouldn't recommend DirectX for programming games. If you're trying to write game engines, then yes (but you'd need OpenGL/Metal/Vulkan, all at a similar level).
Games require more than DirectX does.
You need physics, for one thing - for most beyond simple arcade games.
If you know DirectX primarily, but your audience is on mobile, you're out of luck.
Then, DirectX, like most of the modern API's, requires shader programming. For all visual effects, for all material definitions, for light, reflection, refraction, water, smoke, fire...you use shaders. That is it's own specialty. While you can find a lot of information, you're basically moving the physics of light and its reaction to various materials into the GPU, by programming the shaders.
In the 21st century a game developer is going to use a game engine. There really isn't any way to "catch up" to half of what the various game engines do at this point. It could be that you aim to work on such a game engine, which assumes you have some specialty of some kind related to the physics of light and materials, of linear algebra and fast GPU programming, or some such feature in your skill set. It is a high bar to pass because of the existing game engine capabilities.
The same goes for physics engines, which are a unique specialty by comparison.
Then, there's music, sound effects, AI...
No one in the industry writes a game engine to make a game, nor does anyone making money write to any API directly. It just doesn't pay (it takes way, way, way too long). If your graphics are very simple (substandard by most consumer expectations), then you can "get away" with DirectX, or OpenGL, or Vulkan, or Metal...but imagine having to support all of those API's, which game engines do.
With your existing skill set (as best I can estimate that from way out here), you could probably start with one of the big two popular game engines, and have a running, simple game in a few weeks or days (depending on available time).
That would run on just about anything from a cheap Android device to a console, with PC's of all 3 major platforms included, plus iOS.
The materials would include realistic looking metals, glass, water, smoke, fog...lots of things "out of the box" or built with minimal effort using examples or components.
Most use the "physically based rendering" technique at this point (or, a real-time simplification of it). This is known to help make rather realistic looking results for a huge array of materials.
Doing that in DirectX would be a year or two of work and study, just to catch up to what you get for free from some of these engines (unless you make big bucks, then they want a small cut).
It is more than worth it, and since you mention, I thought I'd point out what is rather obvious once you make the comparison, so you don't waste time.
Unless, of course, you really want to make game engines, instead of games.
| I wouldn't recommend DirectX for programming games. |
Actually, just for my satisfaction of hacking this one particular game. I only need to be familiar with DirectX
However, thanks for that insight. I didn't know this and actually thought I might be able to code generic games with DirectX if I learned it - so this was really useful!
direct draw is very useful. Super fast 2-d work is great for real time data plots etc. I guess you can keep up with anything now that speed is what it is, but it was the stuff when it came out.
closed account (E8A4Nwbp)
| Looks like @rascake is back ... |
the cocos2d-x message was just a joke
Last edited on
Topic archived. No new replies allowed.
Pages: 12