|
Socoder -> Off Topic -> Some second hand software |
|
| Wed, 09 May 2007, 12:54 | |
|
f4ktor |
Well, I'll have to get rid of a few discspace wasting programs  AC3D Win = $20 AC3D Mac = $20 Discounts: AC3D (both) = $30 
|
| Wed, 09 May 2007, 13:04 | |
JL235
|
I've heard that PureBasic is more application oriented then Blitz and Dark Basic. How does it compare to say C# with Win32 (and VS's editors) or Java with Swing, apart from the change in paradigm?
|
| Wed, 09 May 2007, 13:12 | |
|
f4ktor |
It's not object oriented (although object orientation can be somewhat faked using interfacing). It's also faster as java for sure (swing has been improved much but no competition for PureBasic). PureBasic also got a lot more than just visual development. There are cipher libraries, networking libraries, etc. You can do multithreading with and without mutex, it got good 2D capabilities and I would rate the 3D support better than Blitz3D. It's basically based on the DX7 renderer of OGRE (Blitz3D is also DX) but you got integrated physics and stuff like stencil shadows. You can also create DLLs with PureBasic, use inline assembler and you got free updates for lifetime (means: either your life, or Freds life or PureBasics life ^^). So how does it compare to C# or Java? Well, for the beginner or the user that doesn't want to mess around with lots of documentation and external libraries PureBasic will be the easier and more feature complete solution.
|
| Wed, 09 May 2007, 13:18 | |
|
dna |
Which graphics format is better OpenGL or DX7? Or would your choice depend upon what you intend to do? -=-=- DNA |
| Wed, 09 May 2007, 13:24 | |
Phoenix
|
It's hard to say which one is better, because they don't do the same things. OpenGL is only for rendering, while DirectX has support for audio, video and input etc. If you want to compare Direct3D and OpenGL, I'm not much help, since I've never used Direct3D. |
| Wed, 09 May 2007, 13:25 | |
|
f4ktor |
It kinda depends. For really low-end cards I'd always go for DX7 because they'll support it better (well, as long as you're on Windows). On high-end cards I'd rather go for OpenGl because of the available features. DirectX 9 isn't bad either. DarkBasicPro uses this and with the shader designer it's really easy to use the shader features of DX9 API. If I just could stand the syntax
|
| Wed, 09 May 2007, 13:34 | |
|
dna |
From what you write it seems as though OpenGL is better for graphics, if you have the graphics capabilities in your machine.
-=-=- DNA |
| Wed, 09 May 2007, 13:38 | |
|
JL235
|
Depends partly on what you wish to accomplish, and what you prefer. DirectX is oriented towards games, OpenGL is oriented towards non-gaming applications (like 3d editors). I've read that as a result a lot of OpenGL's library is typically never used with games. DirectX is also a collection of several libraries which includes Direct3D, OpenGL only makes 3D. I believe you can easily use OpenGL with many of the DirectX libraries (like DirectInput), but not for certain. I don't know about performance, but I'd doubt any of us could make a real judgement with our lack of professional experience of using both, in-depth. Plenty of high-profile games (for the PC, the vast majority) are made with DirectX. Variations of OpenGL are also often used in consoles, such as the PS3. But lets not turn this into a DirectX vs OpenGL debate. About PureBasic, I'm not convinced. Java isn't slow, and I don't see any features listed which I want, which I cannot get already (and more) in other languages. Thanks anyway. |edit| Three posts whilst I'm writing mine! DirectX is also about testing before you use something, which makes it far superior for compatibility then OpenGL. For example you can test for a feature on the persons graphics card, such as how many lights they can support, and implement a compatible 3D scene as appropriate. The reason OpenGL is more for high-end graphics cards, is because it presumes all it's features can be implemented. But I wouldn't say OpenGL does better graphics. Expecting it's features to be implemented is not the same thing as graphical performance. These two variations on how to work with features reflect the types of applications their designed for. If your using 3D Max (I don't know if it uses OpenGL or not, but wouldn't be surprised), you should have a high-end graphics card. If your playing a game, you don't naturally expect a Geforce 8800 GTX in SLI (or whatever their called). |edit| |
| Wed, 09 May 2007, 14:18 | |
|
squeakyduck |
Quick correction to that DD... OpenGL supports full checking of hardware capabilities. At a very granular level, or high level (eg. if it has support for OpenGl2.0, certain features are assumed present, or emulated so you don't need to check lower stuff). You can even check if custom features, specific to a certain supplier are present (eg. nvidea specific extensions) and activate them. |
| Wed, 09 May 2007, 14:24 | |
|
Phoenix
|
I was just about to say that =) Anyway, let's get back to the topic.
|
| Wed, 09 May 2007, 16:44 | |
power mousey
|
hey, f4ktor never heard of Cheetah 3d. I'll check into this. whoa!!, you really serious about selling all these. If I would have known and didn't have some of them... at least I would pick up Pure Basic and perhaps Cheetah 3d. All this...or some of it...to purchase that LeadWerks engine? Maybe other stufff too. cheers,  power mousey |
| Wed, 09 May 2007, 17:10 | |
|
f4ktor |
No, to purchase Cobra. I already own Leadwerks engine and will use it to build up my Guild Wars like RPG engine. But for everything else I want some kind of "modern Blitz3D" and since DBPro is not my cup of tea Cobra seems to be a reasonable choice with the 3D module right around the corner =)
|
| Wed, 09 May 2007, 17:19 | |
|
power mousey
|
I see... yeah, I'm waiting for Cobra 3d. And after seeing that screenshot of the 3d program and the accompanying source code in Cobra 3d that Steve made. whoa!! But I'm still using Blitz3d. Yet, I have to check into this Cheetah3d. Perhaps....we shall see. Maybe, maybe will get back to you. No guarantees. yet, I shall see. Give me time to check it out. I may or may not buy it. I want to try it out first. |
| Wed, 09 May 2007, 17:21 | |
|
f4ktor |
Well, withou a Mac you won't be able to do something with it I fear It's Mac OS X only.
|
| Wed, 09 May 2007, 17:32 | |
|
power mousey
|
haha well, that takes care of that. But the day that I ever get a Mac.... |
| Fri, 11 May 2007, 03:32 | |
|
f4ktor |
I have changed the price a bit. I really need the money just for Cobra, so no need to put the prices to high. Edit: Cheetah3D has been sold. Edit2: DarkBasicPro + DarkShader has been sold.
|
| Sun, 13 May 2007, 08:45 | |
|
f4ktor |
Last price drop, if you don't buy now, you won't buy ever! =)
|
| Sun, 13 May 2007, 17:18 | |
|
power mousey
|
thats a good price Sebe er um I mean f4ktor. I probably would...but I have PureBasic. So anyone who wants to buy PureBasic go for it! whoaaaa!! DarkBasicPro and DarkShader has been sold!?? And before PureBasic. I thought the Pure would be sold before the Dark. Come on you want and need the Pure..Pure Basic. True
|
| Mon, 14 May 2007, 03:51 | |
|
f4ktor |
Well, I don't sell PB anymore. I had some problems with the PB officials and it seems I've been forced to keep it But nevermind, I will sell a few of my German programing books.
|
| Mon, 14 May 2007, 04:41 | |
Jayenkai
|
So, what.. You're not allowed to sell your PB license? That sucks.. But I suppose they've got to protect themselves. If everyone bought a cheap second hand license, they'd never get any real sales! -=-=- ''Load, Next List!''
|
| Mon, 14 May 2007, 04:46 | |
|
f4ktor |
Well, I think they just don't want me to go because then nobody would do the includefile for the Leadwerks engine letting PB without a decent 3D engine for another 1-2 years =)
|
| Mon, 14 May 2007, 04:48 | |
|
JL235
|
Can they really stop you selling your licence? Fight the power!
|
| Mon, 14 May 2007, 07:45 | |
flying_cucco
|
Yes they can - software is licenced not sold. If the T&C state that the licence agreement is not transferable then it cannot be sold. The Cobra licence, for example, does this. IANAL, but I am led to believe it is quite legal. On the other hand, if it doesn't say anything about such restrictions you probably can. |
| Mon, 14 May 2007, 08:10 | |
|
power mousey
|
f4ktor, what are some of those German Programming books? and a translation please  ..if the titles are in German.
|
| Mon, 14 May 2007, 16:05 | |
|
f4ktor |
Visual Basic 2005 Masterclass Now I learn C C programing from the beginning C++ object oriented programing from the beginning Windows programing Visual C# Step for step Java is also an island
|
| Mon, 14 May 2007, 16:53 | |
|
JL235
|
There is a great book on C++ called 'Accelerated C++'. You might want to check it out, but out of them I'd learn Java first. It's probably as easy to learn as C#, but with better resources. Because C# is also the same, the transition is piss easy. Having never used C# before, I tried it myself a few weeks ago and having learnt Java first. C# feels like I know it off by heart. For my course we used 'Object First with Java', and although it is aimed for complete programming beginners, it teaches a lot about how to program properly in an object-oriented language. Responsibility driven design, de-coupling, all the buzz words. |
|
|
| |||
|
| ||||