Link: Copy link
It is no problem to use Visual Studio to create applications, which do not require any .net version at all.Eanbro wrote:That's why I don't like Visual C, because of the reliance on the .Net framework. There shouldn't be such a overwhelming dependancy on software that can only install on very few operating systems. My legal copy of Windows XP will not upgrade to Service Pack 2 without a complete system failure (the only way to reverse the effect is through a system recovery.)benny wrote:@Eanbro - Code::Blocks doesn't really appeal to me personally. I understand however that it is a choice. But to use Havok for instance, you have to use the microsoft C++ compiler ( yes, Code::Blocks can use it, as I have gotten it to before, as it natively supports it ).
And it is platform independent I believe, seeing as it does not rely on a certain compiler ( however I believe you can download Code::Blocks with the MinGW compiler if you like ). But I personally prefer Visual Studio, as I like to keep everything constant ( For example, I'm wrapping Havok to .NET languages, and I test in C# ).
And why do you not like any windows software? Just curious
I think I am going to create my own opinion on this first before scraping the idea completely. Else I will just go back to Delphi. C++ is just not that appealing to me. Thanks for information.benny wrote:@Despellanion - Many things are wrong with it in my opinion. Its tremendously slow compared to other engines ( that are FREE and OPEN SOURCE ), it has poor functionality, some functions do not actually have a use, the shader support is poor, meshes are limited to *.x and *.dbo ( very poor implementation of *.3ds ), impossibly hard to access vertices through faster methods, as they hide it in many parent structures ( that the SObject struct inherits ), so that in turn makes it hard to implement physics. And on the top of physics, their "Dark Physics" implementation is terrible, and they haven't supplied much support for it. They still have features missing from PhysX, and as well, charge for an otherwise free sdk ( PhysX is free ). Really, everything they do is to get money, and to scam people who are otherwise not educated in that area. And yes, Dark GDK being free is not a move of a money hungry company, but if you dissect why they would do such a thing, I believe it would come down to they want more people using, therefore more people to be tricked into buying their "easy to use" "plugins" for gdk, however easy it is to implement one of the countless physics engines available ( Havok, PhysX, Bullet, Newton, ODE, Tokomak ( however I believe work on this has been halted ). The company just provides very poor support, and overall I have had a very bad experience with them. The only good thing that ever came out of me using their products was realizing if you want something done correctly and fast, you must do it yourself in C++. Or buy a $10,000 sdk. Your choice.
I understand. I did notice that it wasn't very much faster than U3D with GM when I tried some sample demos made with DGDK. I won't waste my time with it so I will go back to Delphi instead, which is equally easy to learn and understand and much more faster.benny wrote:@Despellanion - Fair enough. I do feel it is rather stupid not to try something, so by all means try. I feel you will notice that it is faster than Game Maker, but do realize you can accomplish much more with something else