On Fri, Jan 04, 2008 at 01:46:22PM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Hi, > I enjoyed the current wine development of the D3DX libraries and also tried > to implement an interface. > However, while testing it I noticed that Wine seems to fully support > everything when it has a native > d3dx9.dll (though it even was able to run one of my games without any > dll...). So I was asking myself > if there's even a reason to implement anything other than the inlined > functions of D3DX, when we only > lose performance and development time with it. Also, what would we do at > functions like > D3DXCreateTextureFromFile which supports 9 file formats? Would we implement > e.g. a BMP file > loader ourselves or would we use a 3rd party library for that? Are there any > patents regarding the > DX specific file formats (.x/.dds)? Don't misunderstand me, I'd also like to > help out at D3DX, but I > really think we'd be better off by removing everything of D3DX but the > inlined stuff. > Best regards, > Tony Wasserka >
Well, does the d3dx* DLL license permit redistribution and use with Wine? I pretty much doubt so. So this alone would be a reason to implement them. Ciao, Marcus
