We are converting directx9 to directx10 and we are getting an error: Cannot open include file :dplay8.h .
Please provide the solution how to resolve this and also the steps that might required to convert from directx9 to direct10.
DirectPlay is a deprecated legacy component. The last version of the legacy DirectX SDK to include the headers for it was August 2007. See DirectX SDKs of a certain age. It is not available in any Windows SDK.
It exists in the Windows operating system today for appcompat only. There are a number of important limitations to keep in mind:
DirectPlay Voice is not supported on Windows Vista or later operating systems. See KB970978
The NAT helper object is unsupported on Windows Vista or later
On Windows 8.x and Windows 10, DirectPlay is an optional Windows feature so it's not present by default. It has to be enabled by the user.
In short, you shouldn't use it. You should plan to rewrite the multiplayer support for that porting project, or strip it out.
DirectPlay's primary value was back when networking was a complex and evolving world: modem play, head-to-head serial ports, IPX/SPX, TCP/IP over modem, and TCP/IP. At this point TCP/IP is the only network solution that matters so using WinSock directly is far preferable. There's are also a number of security implications around use of UDP (datagram) vs. TCP (virtual circuit) that modern games need to take into account. The lobby mechanism of DirectPlay is also woefully outdated.
There are numerous modern game services (such as Xbox LIVE, Valve's Steam, etc.) that are designed to provide the match-making, NAT-traversal, and other features that are essential to modern multiplayer. You use WinSock in combination with service-specific libraries.
In a related note, there is absolutely no reason to use DirectX 10. DirectX 11 supports much more hardware, is supported on all the same operating systems (Windows Vista SP2+), and has numerous replacements for legacy support libraries that don't exist for Direct3D 10.
Related
I have a macbook air m1. I am developing a projects on Net Core. But i have a problem System.IO.Pipe.
How do I solve this problem ?
I develop this project with my team. My team have Windows 10.
It appears that PipeTransmissionMode.Message is not supported on *nix system.
You'll have to use the stream mode and define message boundary yourself (e.g. prefix the message with length), or use other protocols like UDP for communication.
I am starting to create a QT application with sqlite for a hand held device. My Project Manager asks me to select an operating system (embedded linux) for the device (we are not considering android).
As in Desktop, are there many embedded-Linux distributions for devices?
If so, Which embedded linux I should consider?
You have multiple choices, but I will suggest the easier and - in my opinion - better two.
Buildroot - is a set of makefiles that lets you create your custom embedded distribution. Can take care of building the Linux
kernel, the toolchain and a barebox or U-Boot bootloader, too. Easily expandable and
with a practically zero learning curve. You have a fully working
system in a matter of hours.
Yocto - a fully fledged (and complicated) build system. Suggested over Buildroot when you need a LOT of packages/components
and may need flexibility in expanding the system directly on
premises. What you can do substantially depends on the "layers" (sets of rules for building things) available: you combine layers together to obtain your system. Has a steep learning curve but is used and directly
supported by multiple vendors (e.g.: Atmel, TI).
Anyway, unless you have more than good reasons, I strongly suggest the former.
There are several Linux distros to be used with ARM. Maybe you should consider Fedora ARM https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Architectures/ARM
This is a difficult question to answer not knowing more about the project requirements (not just software requirements, but also non-functional ones as well) and capabilities of the platform.
Angstrom (based on OpenEmbedded) is another possibility for Linux.
I would challenge the assumption that the operating system must be Linux. Why? If time-to-market or having commercial support are important, you might be better off with commercial embedded or RT operations systems such as VxWorks or QNX.
There are also professionally supported Linux distros such as Montavista
Whilst free linux distros are, well, free, you are generally on your own and your team's time isn't free.
You can use Qt for embedded device , it’s fast and compatible with many hardwares and if your hardware is not supported, porting it to a new hardware is not so hard
plus it has special rendering system
I wonder if my standalone application that gui is being made using JavaFX 2.1 would run on a quite old computer with Windows XP, because this app is intended to work on that computer. I'm asking because I'm begginer to JavaFX and it seems like that technology has quite high requirments, last time I've got warning: "bad driver version detected, device disabled. Please update your driver to at least version 8.15.10.2302".
If your machine meets the minimum system hardware requirements and you have a recent graphics driver installed, then JavaFX 2.1 should work on your Windows XP machine.
Whether JavaFX will work on a machine depends on the hardware in the machine as well as the graphics driver installed.
Here are the JavaFX 2.1 system requirements.
The version string you reference would appear to be for an integrated Intel chipset graphics driver. You can download current versions of such drivers from Intel.
Update
If your system does not support hardware acceleration, then JavaFX
uses the Java2D software pipeline" - just to be sure, my program will
still work, but with poorer graphic, right?
At least in some cases with older drivers, it would seem that the app will work by falling back to a software pipeline. While this kind of fallback will work for a large percentage of older hardware and software combinations, I don't think it is fully tested given a wide variety of older hardware and driver combinations and I don't think there is a guarantee that the program will still run as expected.
The below outlines my experience with JavaFX 2.0 and 2.1.
If the graphics hardware is not listed in the JavaFX system requirements as being supported for hardware acceleration, then JavaFX will fall back to the software renderer and the app will work (albeit with potentially reduced performance and lack of access to some conditional features such as (perhaps) effects or 3D rendering). This scenario should be pretty uncommon as JavaFX supports a wide variety of hardware acceleration hardware.
If the graphics hardware is listed in the JavaFX system requirements as being supported for hardware acceleration and the drivers are up to date, then JavaFX will use the hardware renderer and your app will work. This is by far the most common scenario - any desktop purchased in the last few years should meet the minimum JavaFX hardware acceleration specifications and driver requirements.
If the graphics hardware is listed in the JavaFX system requirements as being supported for hardware acceleration and the drivers are not at a level required for JavaFX to function correctly, then the app may not work (the app may fallback to the software pipeline and continue running or you may get a message stating that the drivers need updating) or the app will just start experiencing rendering errors and possibly freezing or crashing. This scenario should only occur on a very low percentage of possible runtime targets.
If you have instances of hardware and driver combinations where JavaFX is not behaving as you would wish (i.e. not correctly executing your program, logging spurious exceptions or freezing and crashing), then file a jira issue with the hardware and software specifications to get the JavaFX team to look into providing support for that combination.
We have a application which integrates a 3rd party scanning component - Dynam .NET TWAIN. It's working well with my HP scanjet 5700. Recently, we got Cannon LiDE210 but it doesn't work. I finally noticed that our application needs to work with TWAIN compatible drivers.
How can I verify if my scanner driver supports TWAIN? We are going to send the application to other customers. I am looking for a easy way to find out if my clients' scanners support TWAIN.
Thank you.
There is a handy tools called TWACKER...Make sure you run it as admin. Choose File->Select Source, and see if your scanner is listed there. If your scanner is listed, it means you are using a TWAIN driver, in which you can have a further scanning with different scanning settings to check your scanner's TWAIN compatibility. Otherwise, you need to find a TWAIN drvier for your scanner.
You can download TWACKER on http://www.twain.org/scannerdriverdevelopers/specification-and-tools.html .
Cheers.
Inspector Twain could be what you're looking for.
http://inspectortwain.com/
I'm sure the Canon LiDE 210 is TWAIN compatible, or rather, has a TWAIN driver. If it isn't working with your Dynamsoft software, they (Dynamsoft) would be the first place to go for support.
But before you contact Dynamsoft, you should check that you have the correct Canon TWAIN driver installed for your version of Windows, and that it can scan from your scanner.
For some reason, Canon Asia has a better page on this driver than Canon USA:
http://support-asia.canon-asia.com/contents/ASIA/EN/0100294501.html
I hope I don't need to say this: You should only download and install drivers from the scanner vendor's website(s)!
To verify that a TWAIN driver is working, I & my colleagues often scan from IrfanView - it's free, millions of copies in use, and has code that works with pretty much any TWAIN driver. If IrfanView can't scan from your scanner, the TWAIN drive either isn't installed or isn't working - at that point you should look to the scanner vendor for support, in this case, Canon.
PS I admire Irfan Skiljan's work, but have no other connection with IrfanView.
PPS As you may have figured out by now (especially if you played with Twacker or Inspector Twain), "TWAIN Compatibility" isn't an all-or-nothing thing. Different scanners support different sets of TWAIN features, and nearly every TWAIN driver violates the TWAIN standard in SOME way. But don't get me started on that. ;-)
I would like to develop a media player/recorder.
The primary target platform is Windows, support for other OSs would be nice, but that's not a high priority. It should be able to play formats like wav, mp3, avi. It should also be able to record audio (microphone) and video (webcam or capture card).
As I have some experience with QT and C++, I looked at QT (4.7.2) phonon with DS backend. But unfortunately I was unable to play a simple AVI, even with the MediaPlayer sample that comes with the QT demos. I could only hear sound, but saw no video.
The developer machine is a 64-bit Vista. I also tried it on another 64-bit Vista without any luck. On a 32-bit Win7 (QT MinGW) it then finally worked. But when I copied that MediaPlayer executable and its dlls to the 64bit machines and tried to run it, it again failed.
Is there a known problem with QT phonon on 64 bit machines? I also heard of a VLC phonon backend. Could that be solution? Is QT phonon mature enough to develop a commercial application on top of it? Or is it maybe more wise to access directshow directly?
Thanks
Directshow is just a programming framework or API, it does not guarantee that you will be able to play every possible video format on every computer, since it relies on codecs installed on the system to decompress the audio/video streams. A codec for one specific format might be available in one system an not in anotherone. On top of that, 64 bits architecture adds even more complexity, since codecs built in 64 bits mode cannot be used from 32 bits applications and vice-versa. The issue you are facing on the 32 bits Phonon player is very likelly to be caused by a missing or "not 32 bits compatible" codec.
VLC on the other hand is a self contained application, it does not depend on DirectShow or in any codec installed on the system, so it might be a good idea to use it instead of DirectShow, however you will need to read VLC legal terms and decide if you can still use it for your purposes.