PocketMatrix

Hello all.  The idea is being tossed around over on PocketProjects of developing a DirectX-like API for the PocketPC based on top of GAPI.  We're thinking of a couple of API's with much of the functionality we all wish GAPI had, roughly based on DirectX (but only VERY roughly!).  If you might be interested in joining the effort, feel free to contact myself (fzammetti@omnytex.com) or simply check out the thread:<br> http://www.pocketprojects.com/ubb/Forum ... 01837.html<br><br>On PocketProjects.  Thanks all!

EasyCE is pretty cool. I don't know how close it is to DirectDraw, since I haven't yet programmed in DD, but you may want to look at that first, maybe even use a few functions.<br>

I'm curious as to what added value I would get from calling a more DX-like API over using GAPI?  <br><br>Have you guys had a look at Jakko's EasyCE library?

Actually, I'd rather see a more OpenGL type library. I HATE OpenGL mind you, but it does make games like Quake look 100X better assuming you have the hardware.<br><br>Last modification: randall - 07/06/01 at 15:04:57

While the idea of a " DirectX-like" API is not a horrible idea, it will not be that useful. The real goal is to create a DirectX replacement so that games can be easily ported to Windows CE. If a programmer is going to sit down and write a game from scratch, which is where 90% of the good Pocket PC games come from, then the library will not be as valuable. However, if because of its existence, software companies say "it will be very easy to build our existing game for Pocket PC because of this DirectX library", then you will bring games over to Pocket PC.<br><br>Good: We are creating a 100% compatible subset of the DirectX API.<br>Bad: We are creating something VERY roughly like DirectX.<br><br>Dan East<br><br>Friggin smileys caused a Last modification: Dan East - 07/07/01 at 06:46:42

Ya, what Dan said

Interesting thought Dan, and I do agree with it.  I guess the way I would answer it is to say this... <br><br>The idea of porting DirectX to PocketPC was in fact our first thought, but we quickly came to the same conclusion Microsoft itself did: it probahly was not a viable alternative.  So, following from that initial idea we decided that using DirectX as a basis for a library made some sense.  The idea is to create a standard library that anyone can use for graphics programming, games being the obvious big use, that is similar to DirectX in theory and execution, but still different.  Simpler we hope too.<br><br>It's not an original idea by any stretch, but we think the idea of building on top of GAPI may be.  GAPI is a good starting point, and when you think of basically extensions to GAPI giving you some of the same features as DirectX, we think that makes a lot of sense.<br><br>I agree completely, an implementation that is 100% DirectX compatible would be a huge boon for PocketPC game development.  That just doesn't seem possible for a multitude of reasons.  So, the next best thing we think is a standard library that gives you many of the same features but not as expensively.<br><br>I have looked at EasyCE, I think it's excellent.  I suspect we will look at it in more detail as things progress too.  I'm sure we'll look at a lot of graphics libraries for ideas along the way.<br><br>I agree, it won't be the ideal solution, but we do feel it will be a step in the right direction.  Besides, I personally expect Microsoft will port DirectX, likely some specific subset of it, over in due time anyway.  We may just be a stopgap solution, but hopefully it'll be of some use anyway!

Windows CE supports DDraw and DSound already, however the Pocket PC OEMs didn't pick it up.  Probably because they don't see games as being a big enough market for their devices.  Maybe MS charges them less for an OS license without it?<br><br>

Porting a 100% DirectX compatible library would be far too difficult right now.  Though I don't think it should be just "roughly" based on DirectX, I think it should be as close as possible.  Something that would not necessarily make porting automatic, but alot easier.  Even if that means using the same naming convention for commands as DirectX.  Sure we'll skip a command here and there (possibly added later by a team member or the public if it goes open-source).  Subsets of DirectDraw, DirectSound, DirectInput and DirectPlay maybe?  (And if someone dares, make a Direct3d module... yikes).<br><br>

Ya, that's exactly what we need.

I've done some research on the SDL libraries.  This is a GPL'ed, cross-platform DirectX-alike.  It supports a lot of things, and I think writing another wrapper over this that does a lot of DirectX calls would be simple.<br><br>I'd say that it's 90% compilable on EVC++, but there's a lack of low level functions (sempahores - supported in the docs, but the winbase.h as no mention of semaphore calls) that need substitutes on PPC.<br><br>Here's the source to SDL:<br>http://www.libsdl.org/download-1.2.html <br><br>Here's a link the projects status as it relates to Windows CE:<br><br>http://www.libsdl.org/faq/FAQ-Win32.html

What about DirectGameplay? Will the lib support that?

Yes, we will have GAPIPlay, like DirectPlay.<br><br>The problem with comming close to the implimentation of DirectX is the underlying COM+ classes.  It would make the project almost undoable.  However, I can see a need to closely match DirectX.  Need to do some more thinking on this subject.<br><br>By the way, anyone know if the mailing list is down?  Or is it just me?

it was a joke.<br>

Ya, not DirectPlay, DirectGameplay. It's a joke saying that most MS games don't have gameplay, so they should have created DirectGameplay.<br>But DirectPlay over IR would be cool. Too bad I don't know anyone else with a PPC?