Portability

[Tanja]

how it stands with the portability to other systems like nintendo ds or GP2X?
the latter one is very interesting, because it is only for homebrew, there are no official games of a game developer.

[durnurd]

Currently, all games are written in C#.NET with Managed DirectX 9 support for graphics and input.  At best, you could port it to the XBox, if you knew what you were doing (and I think you need a developer kit which costs $$$).  As for other systems, you'd have to look for .NET clones with a DirectX clone as well, or rewrite the display and input code to use the native functionality.  The only .NET clone I know of is Mono written for Linux, but it doesn't have DirectX support (yet?).

I suppose you could try for Windows-based PDAs.  Not sure.

[Tanja]

and what would be with the wonderswan? there is an IDE called WonderWitch, and it works with C.
is there any tool around to make C code out of C#?
i ask because i wonder if anyone of you tried to port the games made with sgdk. for myself, i have a gameboy advance.

[bluemonkmn]

I've asked for help on this (I think) but nobody seems to be interested.  And I don't have the time or skill to port the code to other platforms while I'm still finishing the code on this platform.  If SGDK2 ever settles down a bit, I might look into making it work on OpenGL instead of DirectX, and then it might be more portable.

[Jam0864]

how do you pronounce C#?

I always think in my head of it as "C Sharp" coz i play guitar, so a # means sharp to me... lmao

[bluemonkmn]

Well, you're absolutely correct!  That's why all the file extensions on the files in the SourceCode folder in SGDK2 are "cs".  It stands for "C Sharp".  You're doing better than some who call it "C Pound" (including Microsoft's own marketing department for a time, if you believe this: http://dotnetmasters.com/HistoryOfCFamily.htm).

http://ironfroggy.blogspot.com/2005/09/c-pound-is-looking-sharp.html
http://worsethanfailure.com/Articles/5_years_C-pound_experience.aspx

[durnurd]

The idea of the naming of C# is similar to that of the naming of C++.  C++ means basically, "C plus one" or a step up from C.  C#, while the # sign looks like ++ somewhat, also means, in musical notation, a note slightly higher than C.  A step up, again.

There's no easy way to transfer all the code from C# to C or C++.  The idea is that it would be simpler to rewrite the whole program by yourself than to try to come up with a code translator that generates portable C.  The syntax is... kind of similar, but that's where the similarities end.  It may be possible to try to transfer it to Java (it's closest relative) which is highly portable, but it would have to rely on some other graphics language first.  The DirectX bit is not portable to Java and on to other languages.

[Tanja]

too bad. when it comes to portability it is getting really interesting to me, because i don't like playing on the computer.

[Jam0864]

Well, you're absolutely correct!  That's why all the file extensions on the files in the SourceCode folder in SGDK2 are "cs".  It stands for "C Sharp".  You're doing better than some who call it "C Pound" (including Microsoft's own marketing department for a time, if you believe this: http://dotnetmasters.com/HistoryOfCFamily.htm).

http://ironfroggy.blogspot.com/2005/09/c-pound-is-looking-sharp.html
http://worsethanfailure.com/Articles/5_years_C-pound_experience.aspx

haha... Wow... lol Nice Links >.>

[Richard Kain]

Well, there is Mono. Mono is an open-source project that works on developing just-in-time compilers for the .net framework for different platforms. Using Mono, it is possible to port C# applications over to other platforms. (such as Mac OSX and Linux) It's a proven project with commercial examples. The Unity game engine and editing system was created using Mono, and they've ported it to Windows, Mac OSX, Linux, and even have it running on the Wii.

The biggest problem is, obviously, DirectX. Even if the C# code can be ported to other platforms, DirectX can't be. It's Windows only, and there's only one real other option. If SGDK2 is ever going to be cross-platform and have hardware GPU support, it's going to have to integrate OpenGL. No two ways about it. If SGDK2 gets OpenGL support, it will be viable for cross-platform porting. As it stands, you will have to be content with the 90% of the market userbase that Windows provides. Boo hoo.

[durnurd]

Of course, seeing as how all of the drawing code is stored in the project, it would be possible to completely rewrite that bit to use OpenGL instead of DirectX.  Simple enough...if you know OpenGL

[Tanja]

i only hear wii....  :surprise:

[Richard Kain]

i only hear wii....  :surprise:

Don't get too excited. If you wanted to port the engine to the Wii, you would have to have a Wii dev kit to test it on. Those run about $2,000.00 each, and you can only get them direct from Nintendo. So you would have to convince Nintendo that you are serious about developing games for their system, and be ready to shell out two grand. I would wait to see how the WiiWare service they are developing goes down before looking too deeply into Wii porting. If it turns out that small third-party teams actually stand a good chance on WiiWare, it might be worth considering. The kind of sprite-based development that SGDK2 lends itself to would be a good fit for download games on the Wii.

Porting the SGDK2 to platforms like OSX and Linux is probably more feasible at the moment. I would especially love to see SGDK2 show up on the iPhone and iPod touch.

[Jam0864]

linux and mac would be cool, but i don't think iphone and ipod touch is really necessary. I only know one person who owns an ipod touch and I don't know a single iphone owner. Better off seeing if it can be done on a nintendo ds, or a psp.

[Tanja]

producing games for these iProducts attract me. it would be quite interesting to mess around with screen sizes, color and hardware restrictions.