On 07/04/2010 12:05, Michael Menegakis wrote:
On the contrary, Microsoft itself discourages DirectInput or WM_MOUSEMOVE:
"Summary
Overall, the best method to receive high-definition mouse movement
data is WM_INPUT. If your users are just moving a mouse pointer, then
consider using WM_MOUSEMOVE to avoid needing to perform pointer
ballistics. Both of these window messages will work well even if the
mouse isn't a high-definition mouse. By supporting high definition,
Windows games can offer more precise control to users."
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ee418864%28v=VS.85%29.aspx
"Internally, DirectInput creates a second thread to read WM_INPUT data,
and using the DirectInput APIs will add more overhead than simply
reading WM_INPUT directly."
Hmm OK, that's the extremely fucked part.
Furthermore, such a wrapper would have to be
extremely fucked up to introduce any software latency compared to WM_INPUT.
_______________________________________________
ioquake3 mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.ioquake.org/listinfo.cgi/ioquake3-ioquake.org
By sending this message I agree to love ioquake3 and libsdl.
