Infectious One
16th February 2002 02:10 UTC
Avs Wish
I would love it, as well as many others, if AVS could use the the hardware rendering of your video card for all aspects of avs. This should allow for better resolution and higher FPS rates. Personally I have a 1.4Ghz Athlon, and and still feel the punch that complex AVS's can give your cpu usage. And even the less complex ones, for example, a preset containing only a simple moving particle alone uses 35% of my CPU, add a medum blur and it goes upto 46%, and so forth, and with everything you add, the FPS takes a big hit as well.
Brocolli'sLove
21st August 2004 16:51 UTC
Sorry to revive a dead post but...
I saw the answer for this in another post, and I didn't want some noob who may have actually used the search cmd to think the previous post was a viable solution for boosting the avs power.
I don't recall who said it, but it was said the DirectX coding would be too complicated to integrate into the avs.
There is also the fact that, even though it comes freely with most new games, DirectX is a proprietary software of the evil Microsoft corporation. Have you ever tried to use the SDK help files for DX? Those things are immense! So for Winamp to be distributed with fully implimented dx code it would have to charge every person some small amount of money, which sucks ass.
Of course I'm probably wrong about the whole thing, and the geniuses at NS are right now in the R&D stages of a dx avs. That would be nice.
TomyLobo
21st August 2004 17:02 UTC
there is always OpenGL, which i'm 100% sure is free
and it's also better ;)
but:
with the current structure of AVS, it's not possible to use 3D hardware. AVS would have to be rewritten completely.
and btw: the only genius at nullsoft left them :(
@Infectious One:
if your CPU usage is not at or near 100% you probably did not set the performance slider to maximum (Settings/Display)
AVS normally uses nearly all of your CPU to achieve a maximum framerate. look at the framerate display in the lower left corner of the avs editor window for a performance indicator.
Warrior of the Light
31st May 2005 21:48 UTC
Thanks for reviving a long gone thread with absolutely no extra information. :igor:
TomyLobo
31st May 2005 23:20 UTC
hey at least he used the search feature :P
jheriko
1st June 2005 11:49 UTC
Originally posted by Brocolli'sLove
Have you ever tried to use the SDK help files for DX? Those things are immense!
Another person who checked out Direct X first...
When will you fools learn OpenGL is designed better, runs better and is easier to remember how to use?
I can't write a DX app without reference. I can OpenGL. Why? Because stuff like LPIDDIRECTDEVICEWITHRANDOMLONGNAME isn't easy to remember or decipher. Also it uses COM, just for fun, although not a problem if you know COM, its another hurdle for no genuine reason.
The DX SDK sucked. It was badly layed out and of no help to a novice. As with all Microsoft help, more intent on forcing their bad programming practices down your throat imo.
Who wants slower code thats harder to read and debug?
TomyLobo
7th June 2005 10:05 UTC
COM is great if you want to write your (huge, performance hungry) 3D app in visual basic
(but who'd want that?)