> Essentially, they completely broke the rendering engine by hard-coding
> assumptions about where the camera would be into the driver. Move the
> camera slightly (such as in the developer version of 3D Mark), and
> everything is a garbled mess.
OK, I take the optimizations back, I didn't know wha
>
> OpenGL: I don't really know of the windowed opengl state, and the wined3d
> ->
> wgl move. Still planned?
>
OpenGL needs to get proper windowed opengl rendering support. The best route to
that seems to be by using opengl child windows. There's a patch for it but it
needs cleanups and then
On Sun, 2007-03-25 at 18:43 +0200, Stefan Dösinger wrote:
> > Does anyone here know if the NVIDIA Windows drivers are still rigged
> > with regards to the various 3DMark suite of benchmarks? There was a
> > scandal a while back, and the company claimed to pull their special
> > hacks out, but then
From: Stefan Dösinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Scott Ritchie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
CC: Tom Wickline <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, wine-devel@winehq.org
Subject: Re: Game road to 1.0
Date: Sun, 25 Mar 2007 18:43:06 +0200
> Does anyone here know if the NVIDIA Windows drivers ar
> Does anyone here know if the NVIDIA Windows drivers are still rigged
> with regards to the various 3DMark suite of benchmarks? There was a
> scandal a while back, and the company claimed to pull their special
> hacks out, but then they were caught again later doing the same thing.
> It'd be a s
On Sun, 2007-03-25 at 10:17 -0400, Tom Wickline wrote:
> On 3/25/07, H. Verbeet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On 25/03/07, Stefan Dösinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > So which of the following things do we want for 1.0?
> > While nice to have, I don't think d3d10 or some of the more advanced
Actually, something else that affects quite a few games is support for
.ani cursors.
Am Sonntag 25 März 2007 15:13 schrieb H. Verbeet:
> On 25/03/07, Stefan Dösinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > So which of the following things do we want for 1.0?
>
> While nice to have, I don't think d3d10 or some of the more advanced
> SM 3.0 features should block 1.0.
Agreed. Those features wo
On 3/25/07, H. Verbeet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 25/03/07, Stefan Dösinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So which of the following things do we want for 1.0?
While nice to have, I don't think d3d10 or some of the more advanced
SM 3.0 features should block 1.0. You already know my opinion on
br
On 3/25/07, Stefan Dösinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi,
In another thread Alexandre has mentioned to wait for game stuff to stabilize
before the 1.0 freeze. I think its time for another brainstorm of what
features are still missing which we want in 1.0. The DirectX Todo has a long
list but it
Hi,
I'm actually working on DirectPlay implmentation, i'm first fixing a bit of
thing around dplayx, so that we can use native dpwsockx (the dplay service
provider) with builtin dplayx. After that i'm going to reimplement dpwsockx
from scratch using the info from Kai Blins work on the protocol.
On 25/03/07, Stefan Dösinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
So which of the following things do we want for 1.0?
While nice to have, I don't think d3d10 or some of the more advanced
SM 3.0 features should block 1.0. You already know my opinion on
broken drivers.
Things that aren't there, but IMO sh
Hi,
In another thread Alexandre has mentioned to wait for game stuff to stabilize
before the 1.0 freeze. I think its time for another brainstorm of what
features are still missing which we want in 1.0. The DirectX Todo has a long
list but it tends to be useless to me. And I see that it can use s
13 matches
Mail list logo
