User experiences so far with the dx builds of xbmc - share them here..

sergiocos Wrote:That's why so many users request the corecodec support in the forums? They might be Damon Albarn fans (that's a Blur joke). I don't know about you guys, but that's the combo that works best for me (MPC-HC, coreavc with CUDA, reclock) on 43" LCD. I think there are many in this situation, hence the external player thread.

And yes, the -dx builds seems more responsive and the playback smoother, that means the future is promising.

that's what i'm referring to. i'm sure you get a really good picture to be satisfied with, no question, but that is not "pixel perfect" in terms of reproducing the original source. it's more like cosmetic corrections to get a beautiful picture.

This is starting to be offtopic but... there's nothing inherently lossy in the chain sourcefile-->MPC-HC-->coreavc-->reclock. It might well be pixel perfect.

There's no post processing implied in this solution. Unless you ask for it. On the opposite, the smoothness of reproduction achieved by the above is still unequalled, in my experience, by XBMC (current resolution/refresh rates problems aside).

ashlar Wrote:This is starting to be offtopic but... there's nothing inherently lossy in the chain sourcefile-->MPC-HC-->coreavc-->reclock. It might well be pixel perfect.

There's no post processing implied in this solution. Unless you ask for it. On the opposite, the smoothness of reproduction achieved by the above is still unequalled, in my experience, by XBMC (current resolution/refresh rates problems aside).

i think we could have an endless discussion on this

ashlar Wrote:This is starting to be offtopic but... there's nothing inherently lossy in the chain sourcefile-->MPC-HC-->coreavc-->reclock. It might well be pixel perfect.

I don't know very much about coreavc, but I'd heard that it is inherently lossy to begin with. Like, it achieves its speed by breaking the codec (whatever that means). I'm very open to being corrected on this point.

natethomas Wrote:I don't know very much about coreavc, but I'd heard that it is inherently lossy to begin with. Like, it achieves its speed by breaking the codec (whatever that means). I'm very open to being corrected on this point.

As far as I understand it, it does that if you tell it to. You have the option to skip the standard deblocking routines. But it's up to you. If you have a decent CPU you definitely don't need to.
In any case, while being a CoreAVC customer, I definitely want XBMC to be the perfect all-in-one solution.

automated Wrote:Vista 32bit, ATI HD3200 onboard, downloaded the directx drivers from microsoft. rev22854

XBMC loads, but not properly full screen, can still see start bar down the bottom.
Music plays fine, movies start, sound works but no video, dts, dd etc working. Cannot skip forwards or back.

Interface is a little darker than GL, and not as smooth.

Using build 22870 I found that setting the resolution to Full Screen #2 resolved the issue of the start bar displaying (I have a single monitor setup).

All videos so far seem to play fine with the exception of 1080p wmv videos, but they were not working correct in the gl builds.

I have had some issues with dts, but usually restarting the movie or an exit and restart of xbmc resolves it. wmapro audio is still borked.

AzzX Wrote:The only problem I have is that the Fanart and Picture Slideshow Screensaver just shows a white screen.

Same issue here...

All in all though I'd say things are shaping up nicely.

System Specs:

Win7 Build 7100
Asus P5N7A-VM LGA 775
E7300 2.66
NVIDIA GeForce 9300
Onkyo TX-SR606
Sony Bravia 40"

I've just tried the latest build and only have 720p60 as an available resolution. Back to GL.

Hitcher Wrote:I've just tried the latest build and only have 720p60 as an available resolution. Back to GL.

is that how your monitor/tv is set up to? would be 1280x720 then.

if you set a different screen resolution, xbmc will follow you there..

The goal is to show only the default (i.e. native) resolution of the attached screen(s). No need for the user to see 10450 resolutions, 99.9% of which are useless to them.

Obviously this is separate from things like switching refreshrates on playback of video.

Cheers,
Jonathan

jmarshall Wrote:The goal is to show only the default (i.e. native) resolution of the attached screen(s). No need for the user to see 10450 resolutions, 99.9% of which are useless to them.

Obviously this is separate from things like switching refreshrates on playback of video.

Cheers,
Jonathan

yep. and i might add that is a perfect goal, as it also trims down guisettings.xml to only contain the really needed resolution settings.

i might add it actually adapts the screen resolution settings from the screen resolution you've set for the display, so even if your tv has a native resolution of 1360x768, you can set it to 1280x720 and xbmc will use that resolution then.