DXVK 1.0.2 is out with some bug fixes, d9vk seems to be progressing nicely

Quoting: Comandante ÑoñardoI didn't know that... If that is true, I wonder why the project is not officially funded.

We have at least half a dozen D3D9 implementations right now. How would you decide on which one to support?

• wined3d: mature, runs pretty much everything you throw at it, doesn't perform well but most games are playable


• nine: relatively mature, fast, only works on RadeonSI and Iris at the moment, could be brought to Nvidia via Zink


• dgvoodoo2: closed source, translates d3d7-9 to D3D11, quite slow, d3d9 part still WIP but already works with a fairly decent number of games
  
• DXUP: Abandoned in favour of d9vk, could have been a faster + open alternative to dgvoodoo2


• D9VK: Starts running some games that don't use fixed-function, performs quite well so far, but still has ways to go before it's actually useful


• VK9: Not in a terribly useful state right now, runs some old fixed-function stuff but that's basically it

Compare that to the number of D3D11 implementations that were available ~one year ago when Valve started throwing money my way:

• wined3d: not particularly mature, not particularly fast, a bunch of high-profile games like Witcher 3 did run but were barely playable


• dxvk: sort of ran one game and a bunch of demos, quite fast already, but still had a long way to go before actually being useful

Or D3D12:

• vkd3d: The only implementation that exists, runs WoW and a bunch of demos, still not usable for much else, but we're going to have to rely on it once D3D11 dies

D3D9 really just isn't a big issue by comparison. That's not to say that improvements on that front aren't appreciated, but wined3d is - for the most part - just good eough right now.


Last edited by YoRHa-2B on 1 April 2019 at 11:48 pm UTC

Also to complicate things further codeweavers have their own implementation of Vulkan backend for wine in development. So many projects all trying to do the same thing, its a shame we can't focus our energy on the best solution.

First of all, is an honour..

Quoting: YoRHa-2B

Quoting: Comandante ÑoñardoI didn't know that... If that is true, I wonder why the project is not officially funded.

We have at least half a dozen D3D9 implementations right now. How would you decide on which one to support?

Easy: Choosing the "Aspie" one of all the D3D9 implementations...The more efficient in the practical and potential terms... The one that can give users the more FPS and the more graphic quality (that means no glitches) with the lower cpu usage.

Remember that I am talking about Crossover, not PROTON..
Every year I pay Codeweavers for a Crossover licence. So, if there is something more efficient than the classical (and glitched) WINED3D, I want it ASAP!

I suppose that, by the End Of Life of Windows 7 SP1, D9VK will be enough mature for to be the default D3D9 implementation.

Quoting: YoRHa-2Bwined3d is - for the most part - just good eough right now.

Wined3d is too slow to be called good enough. With the same hardware I can play Dying Light at 60fps with DXVK (thanks a lot!!) but most DX9 games at arround 20fps with wined3d which is too slow for action games. But with nine I get back the 60fps?. If only nine could be in vanilla.


Last edited by TheBard on 2 April 2019 at 7:33 pm UTC

Stalker Shadow of Chernobyl is the only heavy D3D9 game i play today. (Vanilla Stalker SoC isn't heavy but with mods it is). I hope D9VK will make it perform better one day.
p.s. I'm on Nvidia so no Gallium Nine.


Last edited by axredneck on 3 April 2019 at 2:26 pm UTC