Direct3D sprites

I am using .NET 2003 and the December 2005 version of Direct X SDK.

I started a basic window, and I would like to know how to start intializing 2d sprites to show up in my window. I am a total newb, so help me real well.

You are using D3D, correct?

I'd like to direct you to the game programming wiki; it has an article about this...

http://gpwiki.org

It doesn't tell anything on how to load a bitmap.

I tried using Drunken Hyena, but they got no bitmap loader.

Jew I have a whole engine setup... Look at my game source.

What language are you using?

If its C++ get an image library (if its C++ don't use DX use SDL).
If its VB.NET or another then...there is some object that will do it for you (look it up).

If I'm being retarded, let me know.

I'm using C++.net.

Dave strongly advised me not to use SDL, and to use DirectX. I know for a fact that SDL doesn't look that good, but I don't want to copy-and-paste Daves code. I want to learn what I am doing. 3D is way too complicated for a C++ beginner like me, with no DirectX experience.

I tried SDL before, it's ok, but I rather use DirectX, it's more "professional".
Heh, would look good on a resume. ^^

Well, why don't you work up from SDL? It's a lot simpler and the code produced is cleaner.
"I know for a fact that SDL doesn't look that good"
What do you mean by that?
SDL has many sprite manipulation functions and would be great for a noob like yourself.
Just my opinion.

I thought that was a joke, until halfway I realized you were serious.

What gave you the idea SDL is less professional/more stupid then DirectX??????

SDL supports everything DirectX does, such as 3D, 2D, color keying, alpha blending, sprites, networking, sound, shading, etc. You better believe SDL looks just as good as DirectX.

But really there is no contest between the two...they are about the same in the way of performance and functionality. I'm not saying don't go with DirectX...certainly DX looks very good on a resume (ok, I take that back...it does look a little better...but if you work on open source that cancels the goodness out most of the time) but don't assume that SDL isn't as good as it.

So pretty much, its a matter of opinion. Choose whatever, but my personal experience has told me SDL is better...because I've actually written something in it (I gave up on DX after I got like 200 errors for something I copied out of a book).

Well, Direct-X is way better, considering it is a standard, and that the 3d has support for 16-pipe graphics, trillinear flip flopping, dynamic volumetric shadows, bump mapping, etc...

The only way SDL can compare to Direct X is in 2d.

Direct-X > SDL. SDL is newbie, its just like someone trying to write an full end app like Photoshop or 3ds Max in VB, granted your expectations are high. If you set a high goal for yourself, your product will be just as good if you aim and work toward that goal.

Like you said its up to your opinion, I had problems like everyone who has used Direct-X when starting, but once your in it is like flowing current of a lake. Calm... Usually.

I've seen examples of SDL and almost threw up after seeing them. SDL is just another excuse for total newbs to make a game.

any easy way to transfer a gif into a bmp sprite sheet? i hate doing it manually in PS

but so far i actually got the Diablo 2 Baal and Hell Lord movement, standing, and dying animations successfully transfered into sprite sheets (and i also added them into Infantry...i ran around as the Hell Lord with a super fast axe and chased after people...it was fun till i made the baal vehicle work :P)

Well, SDL is good for C++ game programming newbies.

Umm... SDL does 3D through OpenGL - you should stop believing things noobs have told you Arun.
Also, SDL is portable (portable full-stop, DirectX isnt) SDL works on PC (every OS) Xbox, PS2, PSP, DS (AFAIK) and many other things.
In recent times it would seem that DirectX has gained some ground over OpenGL, but OpenGL is also friendlier than DX.

There is no loss in performance when using SDL over DirectX, and SDL is very powerful, so I don't see the parallel between SDL and VB.

Portable to every OS? So? Open-Gl is also fully portable, Direct-X isn't, but here is the point... Who goes to another computer based os to play a game? Windows is generally the operating system people use to play video games. Besides that clock a simple app with a sprite shown. Direct-X runs easily at 250 FPS, SDL however I clocked at 80 FPS. Direct-X sprites are more powerful because you can either choose from using straight up Direct3d or DirectShow. Using SDL is a little like using DirectShow to make a game now days. However I believe using DirectShow to make a game would be 10x better then using SDL.

The parrallel, gets back to my point, SDL is too simple, too newbish for my likings. I don't know about how you feel but there are too many games, and most of the newer games coming out on PC are CRAP.

Actually, I could get around 150 FPS on my Pentium-II with a TNT2 in a game made with SDL - not a simple game either. Also I think that the frame-rate on a modern computer would be much higher, don't you?

"I don't know about how you feel but there are too many games, and most of the newer games coming out on PC are CRAP."
I agree, I like BF2 though, COD2 sucks as does CSS.

Direct3D sprites

Tags for this Thread