Direct3D 9 Comes To Linux, Implemented Over Mesa/Gallium3D 138
An anonymous reader writes "Picking up the code from a failed Direct3D 10/11 implementation for Linux, a working Direct3D 9 state tracker has been implemented for Linux. The Direct3D 9 support works with open-source Linux GPU hardware drivers via Mesa's Gallium3D and can run games for the open-source Radeon and Nouveau drivers without simply converting the Direct3D commands into OpenGL. Unlike the experimental D3D10/11 code from the past, this D3D9 state tracker is already running games like Skyrim, Civilization 5, Anno 1404, and StarCraft 2. With Linux games not natively targeting D3D, Wine was modified for using this native Direct3D implementation."
simply... (Score:5, Interesting)
can run games for the open-source Radeon and Nouveau drivers without simply converting the Direct3D commands into OpenGL.
Presumably "simply" isn't the right adjective, because it implies that converting from Direct3D to OpenGL is the better way of doing things - what's the problem with converting Direct3D commands to OpenGL? Slow?
Re:Welcome to 2002! (Score:2, Interesting)
Which nobody gives a damn about because it requires Windows version Whatever to run, and offers no real benefits besides some tweaks to tessellation, which engine writers don't require anyway because they don't want to shoot themselves in the foot by requiring clients to run Windows version Whatever. Unless the 2002 you came from had Skyrim and SC2, I think you're missing the point.
Re:Welcome to 2002! (Score:5, Interesting)
We're on D3D11 now people.
We're de-facto still stuck on DirectX9 due to the current console generation. Most games are half-arsed ports. And if they tack on new features for the PC version then it is bound to go horribly wrong likeit did for Rage and Arkham City.
But we are relatively safe since in most cases they don't even bother with proper mouse control in menu screens and leave us stuck with an FOV that's suitable for a TV screen that's a couple of meters away.
Yesteryears games brought to you today by the same people who invented safe points, two-weapon-limits and platform exclusives.
Re:Welcome to 2002! (Score:4, Interesting)
Do you not play games that are even vaguely modern? Some games offer both DX9 and DX10/11 renderers. The 10/11 renderer generally looks a lot nicer.
And the 11 renderer is usually faster than the 9 renderer. So since DX11 games - or the same game with a DX11 engine as well as a DX9 engine - both look better and run faster than DX9 games, I give a damn about it.
'Windows version whatever'? Let's look at the latest Steam Hardware/Software Survey. Granted, that only reflects Steam users but that's a huge sample size.
49.52% are running DirectX 11 hardware on a Windows that supports it.
25.04% are running DirectX 10 hardware on a Windows that would support 11 if their hardware did.
21.08% are running DirectX 10 capable hardware on Windows XP.
And the rest are running DirectX 9 or 8 hardware.
The only people who would need 'windows version whatever' are those with DX10 hardware and Windows XP. Sure, 20% of the market isn't nothing, and there ARE games that require DirectX 10/11.
Quite a few upcoming games only support DirectX 10 and 11 - ARMA 3, Battlefield 4, Dragon Age Inquisiton, Mirror's Edge 2, the next Need for Speed. and so one. A number of releases in the last year or two only support 10/11 also.
Presumably Activision, 2K Games, EA, and Sega don't feel dropping DirectX 9 support is 'shooting themselves in the foot' because they've all done it in recent big releases.