GP2X Irrlicht?

[Minkoff]

I'm a newbie when it comes to this sort of thing, so don't flame me if this is a stupid question.
Would it be possible to use Irrlicht on the GP2X (it does have software 3D and Linux support) at any sort of acceptable speed? I assume the answer is no, but it can't hurt to ask.

EDIT: Haha, "don't flame me." What a sad thing to type without thinking. :lol:

 

[K0K0NUT_h3lmut]

Definately not possible. It uses DirectX and .NET. If something that you know of is opensource and is programmed in C++ and SDL then it may be possible to port it to the GP2X. You'll learn

 

[Minkoff]

Definately not possible. It uses DirectX and .NET. If something that you know of is opensource and is programmed in C++ and SDL then it may be possible to port it to the GP2X. You'll learn

​

I was under the impression that both of those were just options. :blink:

 

[K0K0NUT_h3lmut]

Yeah, you know more than me about the engine. But you don't need to know what language it's written in to tell that it won't work. That wouldn't even run on a PSP. OpenGL(in a more portable form) will probably run pretty slow on the GP2X. The GP2X however will have other 3D engines. Although this engine does look pretty good. It claims to be fast. And is it ported to many languages. I guess if you downscaled it ALOT it would work. However, I just don't think it would be practical or possible.

 

[yaustar]

Since it can run in linux, I would say it is possible also taking in account that it also has a software renderer as well...

(edit: which isn't finsihed.. )

 

[synkro]

read. my. sig.

 

[Vimacs]

synkro your spam starts to get annoying...

 

[aapje89]

wow, impressive:

 

[Tobriand]

Looks a deal too complex from the screenies, but that doesn't necessarily mean it *couldn't* be done. Don't be surprised if it never is though, or if it is, that it runs insanely and unplayably slow. And bear in mind I'm NOT a developer, haven't had a look at the code (which cannot only be directX and .Net seeing as it is platform independant, btw), and therefore am speaking from a realively uninformed point of view.

Put it like this... try running the engine on a really old computer with no gfx card and see what speed it runs at in 320x240. That might give you an indication (if not a very good one) of how fast it could potentially run on the 2x, although as ever, it is extremely misleading to compare x86 and ARM in any event - all depends on how much floating point code is used, let alone whether there's any x86 assembly involved in there. Although I doubt that, seeing as the aim seems to be compatibility, not speed on an old archetecture that needs every ounce squeezed out of it.

 

[Nilsiboy]

problem would be, w/o gfx card, where do you plug the screen?

 

[pepone]

Back in the "old" day, I used a quite pleasent lib that do 3d in software. It did run well on a cyrix 686 (@120Mhz). It was plush:
http://www.nullsoft.com/free/plush/

 

[Fishbong]

problem would be, w/o gfx card, where do you plug the screen?

​

LOL, a GFX card without hardware accelteration (like a Matrox Milennium) would do.

 

[K0K0NUT_h3lmut]

Back in the "old" day, I used a quite pleasent lib that do 3d in software. It did run well on a cyrix 686 (@120Mhz). It was plush:
http://www.nullsoft.com/free/plush/

​

That does look like it could run well within the specs of the GP2X, although I think the GP2X certainlly has power to run better graphics than that(I think at least around twice that of the Yeti engine).