+- XBMC Community Forum (http://forum.xbmc.org)
+-- Forum: Help and Support (/forumdisplay.php?fid=33)
+--- Forum: XBMC General Help and Support (/forumdisplay.php?fid=111)
+---- Forum: Windows support (/forumdisplay.php?fid=59)
+---- Thread: User experiences so far with the dx builds of xbmc - share them here.. (/showthread.php?tid=57681)
- azido - 2009-09-29 13:23
another interesting thing:
xbmc reports my main screen is running at 1680x1050 @59hz in xbmc.log, upon screen resolution selection it says 1680x1050 @59.94 Full Screen, whereas resolution for screen #2 is offered as 1360x768 @60.00 Full Screen #2.
Windows 7 reports screen #1 to be at 59hz. 60hz is available on dropdown, but when selected and applied, it drops back to 59hz. The Ati driver application report both screens to be running at 60hz. There i cannot set screen#1 to 59hz - goes back to 60hz. Also my monitor settings OSD reports screen #1 to be at 60hz.
As i use extend mode to extend my desktop across both screens: this might be the reason of that right/down shift issue?
- kricker - 2009-09-29 17:53
mcage Wrote:That's what I previously reported. To 'fix' this for now: in the properties of the xbmc executable or shortcut in Windows (no it's not an xbmc setting!) set the window size property to maximized!For me I simply removed the -fs from the shortcut. Once the res is set, it will launch full screen from then on without any window title bar.
- joshuass - 2009-09-29 18:00
I went back to SVN 22516.
I could not for the life of me get the DX version of 23196 to display subtitles. I used to dependency walker to look at libass.dll's dependencies and found it found some implicit imports that were screwing up.
The black vertical bar phenomenon was also screwing with me (looked like the normal screen ratio wasn't really defaulting to 1080x1920, so the screen looked squished during video playback).
As side note, no luck with the GL version either, as I couldn't get any video playback, but the subtitles worked
- natew - 2009-09-29 20:56
If I have just all around decreased performance--everything just runs a bit slower--is that an issue with the build or does my computer just not handle dx as well as opengl?
- dj_gerbil - 2009-09-30 12:09
natew Wrote:If I have just all around decreased performance--everything just runs a bit slower--is that an issue with the build or does my computer just not handle dx as well as opengl?
To be honest it could be either and without some more information i.e. machine specs it would be unwise to make a sweeping judgement. However if, for example, you PC runs normally doing normal things like surfing the net and using the GL builds but runs slow in say the DX build then you may find that either your graphics card or its driver have been optimised for OpenGL rather then DirectX and therefore will give you a poor performance. I may be wrong, but this is how I understand it.
- mitul103 - 2009-09-30 18:50
dj_gerbil Wrote:To be honest it could be either and without some more information i.e. machine specs it would be unwise to make a sweeping judgement. However if, for example, you PC runs normally doing normal things like surfing the net and using the GL builds but runs slow in say the DX build then you may find that either your graphics card or its driver have been optimised for OpenGL rather then DirectX and therefore will give you a poor performance. I may be wrong, but this is how I understand it.
I would think it would be far more likely that the directx port isn't nearly as optimized as the much older opengl branch. I can't imagine Nvidia or ATI (or anybody else) have worse directx drivers than opengl given that most of their customers care about directx more than opengl.
For the record I get worse performance with the directx branch, but only in menus. FPS hovers at around 58 whereas in the opengl version it is always at 60. This is with a 9400GT and a E8500 C2D.
- dj_gerbil - 2009-09-30 19:02
mitul103 Wrote:I would think it would be far more likely that the directx port isn't nearly as optimized as the much older opengl branch. I can't imagine Nvidia or ATI (or anybody else) have worse directx drivers than opengl given that most of their customers care about directx more than opengl.
For the record I get worse performance with the directx branch, but only in menus. FPS hovers at around 58 whereas in the opengl version it is always at 60. This is with a 9400GT and a E8500 C2D.
Good point, I forgot about that lol. However my original point is still valid, without further information it makes it hard to comment.
DirectX Runtimes - AnalogKid - 2009-09-30 19:36
hummm
I'm a little curious about this, but using recent DX builds has resulted in a warning message about missing directx dll's. This is on brand new installations of 7 and Vista....
I was under the impression that since XP, directx was already installed with the OS, but perhaps I am wrong.
Either way, the DX builds fail to run unless I explicitly install the DirectX end user runtimes.
This is fine for ME, but for your everyday user, it's not a good experience. Creating a sexy installer to install DirectX would be nice, but a very low priority I'd say...
I'm just curious... what IS the end user experience expected to be in the longer term?
I've taken a portable openGL version to many PC's without ever once having trouble (other than having to reconfigure for specific SPDIF audio out for user who have it)... but I get the feeling the DirectX version isn't going to run 'out of the box'
- ezhik - 2009-09-30 20:38
I've been trying out the DX builds in W7 (64bit). I got the message to the effect that D3DX9_41.dll was missing. I just found that dll on-line, downloaded it and copied it to the XBMC installation folder. After that the DX builds load, no need to install anything else for me, seemed fairly straightforward.
What are others doing who get this error message?
- AnalogKid - 2009-09-30 20:40
ezhik Wrote:I've been trying out the DX builds in W7 (64bit). I got the message to the effect that D3DX9_41.dll was missing. I just found that dll on-line, downloaded it and copied it to the XBMC installation folder. After that the DX builds load, no need to install anything else for me, seemed fairly straightforward.
What are others doing who get this error message?
Installed the latest DirectX.
I never download individual dll's (some very nasty sites out there with rogue DLL's! But, interesting to learn it just needs one dll in the distribution. That makes life a LOT simpler (providing they're allowed to redistribute it)