SDL and 3D

["Brandon J. Van Every" <vanevery at indiegamedesign dot com>]

Hans Ronne
> >Hans Ronne wrote:
> >>
> >> In fact, the SDL Win32 libraries are now based on DirectX. So
> >> we already have that in the SDL interface.
> >
> >Do you mean DirectDraw, which ceased development with DirectX 7, and
> >doesn't do HW accelerated alpha blending?  Whoopie doo.
>
> If you want Direct3D, it's not built-in, but I understand
> there are ways to use it together with SDL.

Which would be pretty silly, since SDL is an OpenGL-centric developer
community.

> There have been some posts on the SDL developers
> list about how to integrate SDL with Direct3DRM from DX9.
> Haven't paid much
> attention to this stuff, though, so I don't know how far it
> will take you.

Wow, clearly!  By your language, you must not have looked at Direct3D
since before DirectX 5.0.  People haven't referred to "Retained Mode"
for a looooong time.  This is like when I automatically say "Merced"
about Intel's 64-bit CPUs.  :-)

> The key question here is: what would we use 3D support for,
> and how is it
> best implemented? Xconq is a 2D program. It could be
> transformed into a 3D
> program, and I think it's an exciting possibility. However, that if
> anything would require a major rewrite of the kernel. It's
> not enough to
> have 3D support in the interfaces, the games must also be able to do
> something useful with it!

No, Xconq does not have to be a 3D game design to have a 3D interface.
3D can be just a form of eye candy for an essentially 2D game.  For
instance, instead of tediously implementing a 2D isometric display
engine, you could just make a 3D one.  Instead of creating bitmaps of
units in different orientations, you could render the units directly
from 3D models.

I want to emphasize that I have no interest whatsoever in implementing
3D versions of Xconq.  I'm interested in game design, UI efficiency, and
AI.  If anyone *else* wants to implement 3D stuff and take on the major
burden of such efforts, I can lend a helping hand though.  3D is after
all my core skillset.  It's also IMO a big waste of time, which is why
I'm currently interested in the other things, not 3D.

If someone were to implement a 3D version of Xconq, I would strongly
suggest using The Nebula Device.
http://nebuladevice.sourceforge.net/cgi-bin/twiki/view/Nebula/WebHome
You'd want to use Version 1, as Version 2 is under construction, not
portable, DX9 centric, and missing lotsa stuff like Python bindings etc.
Nebula 1 has been used in several commercial titles, most notably
Project Nomads, a very good looking game.
http://www.project-nomads.de/

The Nebula license is MIT/BSD style, do what you want with it.  Fair
warning: I will refuse to help people who try to GPL any modifications
they make to Nebula, or otherwise de-contribute / restrict Nebula.  I'm
on the BSD side of the Open Source debate, mostly.  I think GPL is valid
for game projects, as otherwise someone would just turn around and sell
the game project commercially.  But I think languages, engines, and
libraries should be completely free for anybody's use, whether open
source or proprietary.  If you're going to give something away, give it
away completely.  If you're worried about something falling into "the
wrong hands," then don't give it away, keep it proprietary.  I do not
generally believe in the GPL "everything must be open" business model.
I believe "sane" SW development should be a mixture of open source and
proprietary source, and the open source components should not get in the
way of the proprietary needs.

> The there is the question of what kind of 3D support. I don't think we
> should start a D3D-OpenGL flame thread, but the latter does
> have advantages
> if you are dealing with a cross-platform project like Xconq. And it is
> supported (also the most recent version) in SDL.

You should not bicker about 3D APIs.  You should not implement 3D
engines from scratch.  You should avail yourselves of the complete open
source 3D engines readily available.  Nebula is merely the best of the
bunch, there are several others out there.  Personally I think Nebula is
better by a wide margin.  I don't see that any of the other ones have
shipped 10 commercial titles, or even 1 commercial title.


Cheers,                     www.indiegamedesign.com
Brandon Van Every           Seattle, WA

Taking risk where others will not.