8
Vote

Shouldn't require DirectX SDK just to run the samples

description

It'd be a lot nicer if you just shipped binaries of the the library and the demos. Most of the developers who stop by to check this out won't have the DirectX SDK and have no reason to install it. They won't need the DirectX SDK to use your library, only to compile it.

comments

odahan wrote Jul 15, 2009 at 1:42 AM

It is an absolute needed feature !
I'm downloading 514 MB of DirectX SDK (certainly more space needed on my disk once I'll run the setup !), I had to download Wpf "future" project (build shader fx), etc and I'm still not sure all this big machine will compile... And for what ? Just for a couple of ".ps" files that are not shipped..
So PLEASE include compiled fx files we don't want to install all this stuff !
BIG THANKS in advance for all other users of your good work in the future, and with Silverlight 3 I think pixel shader lovers will be numerous !

marten_range wrote Jul 22, 2009 at 12:37 PM

To download the full DirectX Sdk to start doing pixelshaders in WPF is a hurdle for many developers.

If I could wish I would like that the Shader compiler task isn't dependent on the SDK but instead uses an approach similar to what they used in the bling (here at codeplex) where the fx files is compiled into ps file using imported interop interfaces.

wrote Jul 22, 2009 at 12:37 PM

wrote Oct 21, 2009 at 8:24 AM

wrote Feb 23, 2010 at 1:40 PM

wrote Apr 2, 2010 at 12:58 AM

wrote Jun 25, 2010 at 6:58 PM

wrote Feb 21, 2013 at 11:44 PM

wrote Jun 1, 2014 at 12:42 PM