SSU Graphics Poll: Default inline graphics client VS D3D9Client

Status
Not open for further replies.

DaveS

Addon Developer
Addon Developer
Donator
Beta Tester
Joined
Feb 4, 2008
Messages
9,429
Reaction score
680
Points
203
I thought I would post this poll to gauge the usage of the default Orbiter.exe D3D7 graphics client is against the more advanced D3D9Client. This is to see if there's any point to keep the default client in mind when developing SSU.
 
Last edited:

Face

Well-known member
Orbiter Contributor
Addon Developer
Beta Tester
Joined
Mar 18, 2008
Messages
4,390
Reaction score
577
Points
153
Location
Vienna
This is to see if there's any point to keep the default client in mind when developing SSU.

If it doesn't work in the default one, it is not Orbiter compatible. Period. I don't know if you would consider keeping it working in the default one also "keeping in mind", though.

If it works in the default one, but looks like crap, a hint in the documentation would be good IMHO. That way casual users that use Orbiter out-of-the-box don't get the wrong impression of your project. Something like "for optimal performance and visual experience, use the D3D9Client in version X from <here> with Orbiter in OVP (server) mode" might suffice.
 

DaveS

Addon Developer
Addon Developer
Donator
Beta Tester
Joined
Feb 4, 2008
Messages
9,429
Reaction score
680
Points
203
If it doesn't work in the default one, it is not Orbiter compatible. Period. I don't know if you would consider keeping it working in the default one also "keeping in mind", though.
Well, the problem being the sheer age of the thing! I believe only WinXP machines can get decent frame rates out of it even on modern hardware. D3D9Client is much more recent and therefore compatible with newer hardware. Even on my 7700K/GeForce GTX 1070 machine, I barely get 30 FPS out of it(and max resolution is 1920x1080)! D3D9Client has no problem spitting out frame rates in 800's with the same settings (or higher!). I guess it can be argued that not even Orbiter is "Orbiter compatible" anymore.

If it works in the default one, but looks like crap, a hint in the documentation would be good IMHO. That way casual users that use Orbiter out-of-the-box don't get the wrong impression of your project. Something like "for optimal performance and visual experience, use the D3D9Client in version X from <here> with Orbiter in OVP (server) mode" might suffice.
This is good solution.
 

Face

Well-known member
Orbiter Contributor
Addon Developer
Beta Tester
Joined
Mar 18, 2008
Messages
4,390
Reaction score
577
Points
153
Location
Vienna
I guess it can be argued that not even Orbiter is "Orbiter compatible" anymore.

Anyone arguing so would disqualify his opinion, because this is not a logical argument. Orbiter is Orbiter and does not need to be compatible to itself.

It would be different if Orbiter comes with no rendering engine out-of-the-box, but this is not the case.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top