[gronne]

Just like we weren't allowed to use CoreAVC do decode H.264 faster I assume we're definitely not allowed to use Divx new H.264 decoder in xbmc, right? Supposedly it's even faster at decoding H.264 than CoreAVC is, which makes me wonder if x264 is really badly optimized or if there's some structure in x264 that makes it harder to optimize its speed?

Anyway, if someone knows whether (beyond all reason), we're allowed to use Divx new decoder or not, it would be interesting, as it probably would make lots of too heavy H.264-videos run better.

[Gamester17]

Moving to the feature suggestion forum (the developers forum is only for the programmers who write the code).

FYI; x264 is only an H.264 encoder, XBMC uses FFmpeg decoder for H.264, and no there is nothing which makes the FFmpeg harder or worse to optimize than any other codec out there. You have to understand that the huge difference here is that FFmpeg is (just like XBMC) an open source hobby project which only has volunteers who work on it for free in their spare time, while both CoreAVC and the DivX codecs on the other hard are being developed by their respective company who have full-time employees that get paid to work on their codecs as a day job.

...and no, we are not allowed to use DivX Inc.'s DLL binary files in XBMC either (so same as CoreAVC), ...though I personally think it is more likely that the company behind CoreAVC might someday allow open source video-player developers to use their binary codec in an open source video-player (if each user pays for it) then DivX Inc. would, though that is just my personal guess, (you see even though divxlabs.com promote DivX Inc. open source tools, they are not big on oping sourcing their codec or muxers/demuxers, ...which is btw why there still is no open source DMF DivX6 container demuxer available in FFmpeg).

Now please read this:
http://wiki.xbmc.org/?title=Codec_and_Format_requests

Support open source!