D3DRM.DLL not loaded
Pablo
(DirectX 9).
Now we are testing our programm in Windows Vista (DirectX 10) and when I run
it a message saying "D3RDM.DLL not loaded" appears.
Can anyone tell me which is the new DLL that have the functions that were in
D3DRM.DLL?
I use the following functions/procedures:
D3DRMCreateColorRGB
D3DRMCreateColorRGBA
D3DRMColorGetRed
D3DRMColorGetGreen
D3DRMColorGetBlue
D3DRMColorGetAlpha
D3DRMVectorAdd
D3DRMVectorSubtract
D3DRMVectorReflect
D3DRMVectorCrossProduct
D3DRMVectorDotProduct
D3DRMVectorNormalize
D3DRMVectorModulus
D3DRMVectorRotate
D3DRMVectorScale
D3DRMVectorRandom
D3DRMQuaternionFromRotation
D3DRMQuaternionMultiply
D3DRMQuaternionSlerp
D3DRMMatrixFromQuaternion
D3DRMQuaternionFromMatrix
Andrew McDonald
D3D retained mode is ancient; IIRC it's not included in Vista as you've
found. If you're only using the functions listed, you can use D3DX for all
the maths methods. The 'CreateColor' functions are replaced by the
D3DCOLOR_*() macros. I don't think there are any to extract individual
channels now, but it's just bitwise arithmetic do you could trivially write
your own if you need them.
--
Andy
Richard [Microsoft Direct3D MVP]
=?Utf-8?B?UGFibG8=?= <Pa...@discussions.microsoft.com> spake the secret code
<31E7F8F3-7368-49CD...@microsoft.com> thusly:
>Now we are testing our programm in Windows Vista (DirectX 10) and when I run
>it a message saying "D3RDM.DLL not loaded" appears.
I've escalated this with MS, we'll see what they say...
Honestly, I expected all the DLLs to be present, but not necessarily
fast.
--
"The Direct3D Graphics Pipeline" -- DirectX 9 draft available for download
<http://www.xmission.com/~legalize/book/download/index.html>
Legalize Adulthood! <http://blogs.xmission.com/legalize/>
Chuck Walbourn [MSFT]
not present in Windows Vista.
See the DirectX SDK FAQ:
http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb219721.aspx
Q: What changes were made to the DirectX runtime for Windows Vista?
A: The primary changes were to support the new Windows Display Driver Model.
For details on the new driver model, impacts on Direct3D 9, and on the two
new graphics interfaces, Direct3D 9Ex and Direct3D 10, review Graphics APIs
in Windows Vista (http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb173477.aspx).
DirectSound was updated to expose the capabilities of the new Windows Vista
audio driver stack, which supports multi-channel software buffers. The
legacy Direct3D Retained Mode API was completely removed from Windows Vista.
DirectPlay Voice was also removed, as well as DirectPlay's NAT Helper.
--
Chuck Walbourn
SDE, Game Technology Group
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
Richard [Microsoft Direct3D MVP]
=?Utf-8?B?UGFibG8=?= <Pa...@discussions.microsoft.com> spake the secret code
<31E7F8F3-7368-49CD...@microsoft.com> thusly:
>I use the following functions/procedures:
>D3DRMCreateColorRGB
>D3DRMCreateColorRGBA
>D3DRMColorGetRed
>D3DRMColorGetGreen
>D3DRMColorGetBlue
>D3DRMColorGetAlpha
>D3DRMVectorAdd
>D3DRMVectorSubtract
>D3DRMVectorReflect
>D3DRMVectorCrossProduct
>D3DRMVectorDotProduct
>D3DRMVectorNormalize
>D3DRMVectorModulus
>D3DRMVectorRotate
>D3DRMVectorScale
>D3DRMVectorRandom
>D3DRMQuaternionFromRotation
>D3DRMQuaternionMultiply
>D3DRMQuaternionSlerp
>D3DRMMatrixFromQuaternion
>D3DRMQuaternionFromMatrix
If this is the *only* thing you're using from retained mode, then I
would create my own replacements for them. They are just helper
routines, not anything that interacts with the hardware.
You have two choices: 1) implement the routines from scratch or 2)
implement the vector/matrix/quaternion routines as wrappers around
their corresponding code in the current D3DX library. 2) will
introduce a dependcy on the D3DX library and might require you to link
in D3D9 as well, if only to resolve references added by D3DX even if
you're not using D3D9. 1) avoids this whole issue, but it means you
have to write all those routines from scratch. Consulting a math
reference on vectors, matrices and quaternions should give you the
information needed to implement the functions.
If you are using the actual interfaces from retained mode, then it
looks like you're just plain out of luck unless you want to write a
wrapper/implementation for that too.
andlabs
to download the interface (because I don't have the source)?
matthew747
downloaded it but cannot get the pc to recognize it. please help!?!
Chuck Walbourn [MSFT]
--
Chuck Walbourn
SDE, XNA Developer Connection
Richard [Microsoft Direct3D MVP]
=?Utf-8?B?bWF0dGhldzc0Nw==?= <matth...@discussions.microsoft.com> spake the secret code
<046BC3DA-5D71-465F...@microsoft.com> thusly:
>I am trrying to use an rc flight sim and it requires the d3drm.dll. I have
>downloaded it but cannot get the pc to recognize it. please help!?!
Are you attempting to use the program on Vista?
D3DRM.DLL was deprecated for Vista.
SFSW
> Are you attempting to use the program on Vista?
>
> D3DRM.DLL was deprecated for Vista.
D3DRM.DLL may have been 'deprecated' for Vista, but you can still get most
D3D retained mode applications to work by placing the D3DRM.DLL from any
older Windows installation into the \windows\system32 folder or by placing
the DLL in the application's folder.
Many applications using technology far older than retained mode work fine
on Vista, but for some reason, MS decided to leave out this DLL (for a
graphics system MS introduced themselves). It still works though, for most
applications that use it, you just need to include the DLL.
Richard [Microsoft Direct3D MVP]
=?Utf-8?B?U0ZTVw==?= <SF...@discussions.microsoft.com> spake the secret code
<2FFC55BD-BAC7-4457...@microsoft.com> thusly:
>"Richard [Microsoft Direct3D MVP]" wrote:
>
>> Are you attempting to use the program on Vista?
>>
>> D3DRM.DLL was deprecated for Vista.
>
> D3DRM.DLL may have been 'deprecated' for Vista, but you can still get most
>D3D retained mode applications to work by placing the D3DRM.DLL from any
>older Windows installation into the \windows\system32 folder or by placing
>the DLL in the application's folder.
What you describe violates the license terms for D3DRM.DLL,
unfortunately.
SFSW
"Richard [Microsoft Direct3D MVP]" wrote:
> What you describe violates the license terms for D3DRM.DLL,
> unfortunately.
Could we have some more information on this? Why would we be allowed to
install DirectX with this DLL, have it included with applications as part of
an installation process, and yet not be able to use it with those application
on Vista?
Richard [Microsoft Direct3D MVP]
=?Utf-8?B?U0ZTVw==?= <SF...@discussions.microsoft.com> spake the secret code
<18BF0BD0-A0A5-4CDE...@microsoft.com> thusly:
>"Richard [Microsoft Direct3D MVP]" wrote:
>> What you describe violates the license terms for D3DRM.DLL,
>> unfortunately.
>
> Could we have some more information on this?
The DirectX MVPs have been discussing this with MS. You're only
allowed to install DirectX runtime DLLs by running the setup package.
The setup package won't install this DLL on Vista.
>Why would we be allowed to
>install DirectX with this DLL, have it included with applications as part of
>an installation process, and yet not be able to use it with those application
>on Vista?
The license doesn't let you repackage isolated DLLs with your
application. The license only allows you to install the runtime
through the DirectSetup API, which won't install this DLL on Vista.
Please feel free to complain to dir...@microsoft.com about this.
SFSW
> The license doesn't let you repackage isolated DLLs with your
> application. The license only allows you to install the runtime
> through the DirectSetup API, which won't install this DLL on Vista.
>
> Please feel free to complain to dir...@microsoft.com about this.
Ok, I'll try again :-) How do you know this? Where is this license
condition listed in their EULA for DirectX? Why are Vista users restricted
from placing this important DLL in the needed folder so their programs will
continue to function (and where is this limitation you're referring to
mentioned by Microsoft)? Thanks.
Chuck Walbourn [MSFT]
provide legal advice here. We only support redistributing the DirectX
components through DirectSetup, Windows Update, and/or the DirectX Runtime
Web Installer. None of these will install this DLL on Windows Vista.
I know that sounds like a cop-out, but that's the reality.
Both DPVOICE.DLL and D3DRM.DLL were removed from Windows Vista. Applications
that use these technologies will therefore not run on Windows Vista. I'm
hoping we will have a Microsoft KB article on this topic posted at some
point.
SFSW
"Chuck Walbourn [MSFT]" wrote:
Ok, thank you for the reply. One point, applications that use the
retained mode often do work with no other action other than included the
D3DRM.DLL with the application or in the \system32 folder. The claim that
they 'will therefore not run on Windows Vista' is not valid, Vista just lacks
this DLL which allows them to run. A KB article on this would be a big help,
with either a manual solution such as adding the missing DLL when/where
needed or through a patch/update from Microsoft. When the only thing holding
so many applications from running is simply a missing DLL, it makes sense to
expand an operating system's compatibility by including the DLL (especially
considering so many applications and games depend on it, and many of those
applications can't be updated to remove their retained mode dependencies).
Oddly, this was a technology introduced by Microsoft and was supported up
until the release of Vista. Why compatibility with this was removed, while
other older technology was still supported certainly seems strange. But the
solution is simple and an official response (and solution) from Microsoft
would be very helpful.
ZMan
> they 'will therefore not run on Windows Vista' is not valid, Vista just
> lacks
> this DLL which allows them to run. A KB article on this would be a big
> help,
you can't know that it always works on Vista. Remember there are big things
like the driver model changes.
There's been no public statement on why this (or other DLLs
http://forums.microsoft.com/MSDN/ShowPost.aspx?PostID=1448544&SiteID=1) do
not install on Vista so its pure speculation by everyone.
However if you install the DLL as part of your installer after Microsoft
have said it doesn't work and it causes the end users problems then you may
have a support issue on your hands. If it turns out there is a security
issue then you could be in worse trouble - breaking the EULA is the least of
your worries.
>But the
> solution is simple and an official response (and solution) from Microsoft
> would be very helpful.
We never got a great public explantion on the VB DLL issue either... other
than 'this won't be fixed, not do we support these files on Vista'. So
whilst you may be lucky and get a KB article don't expect anything to
change...
Richard [Microsoft Direct3D MVP]
=?Utf-8?B?U0ZTVw==?= <SF...@discussions.microsoft.com> spake the secret code
<2ED528C4-F4A5-4667...@microsoft.com> thusly:
>"Richard [Microsoft Direct3D MVP]" wrote:
>> The license doesn't let you repackage isolated DLLs with your
>> application. The license only allows you to install the runtime
>> through the DirectSetup API, which won't install this DLL on Vista.
>>
>> Please feel free to complain to dir...@microsoft.com about this.
>
> Ok, I'll try again :-) How do you know this?
Because we MVPs have already discussed this problem with MS.
Because I have been using the SDK for 8 years and the redist license
has always been the same: you have to use the approved methods for
installing the runtime; you are not allowed to repackage individual
files any old way that you want.
Richard [Microsoft Direct3D MVP]
If this becomes a big enough issue, you can always implement your own
version of the interfaces and DLL exports in D3DRM.DLL and ship *that*
with your application.
However, its probably less work and hassle to port the application to
a newer version of the Direct3D interfaces.
SFSW
> version of the interfaces and DLL exports in D3DRM.DLL and ship *that*
> with your application.
>
> However, its probably less work and hassle to port the application to
> a newer version of the Direct3D interfaces.
There are numerous games and applications that use retained mode that will
not be updated to a newer version of Direct3D (several board games by Hasbro
come to mind). This is technology that was included as part of DirectX 9,
used widely through 2001 (introduced in 1997, IIRC), even in several programs
through 2003-2004 (mapping program, several simulators, and some other games
come to mind). It would be nice if these programs were ported to newer
versions of Direct3D, but that's not just going to happen for most of them.
So a viable way to run these applications would be preferred, unless PC users
are now, with Vista, expected to accept forced obsolescence conditions common
to consoles and give up large portions (or even small portions) of their
software library, especially when it's for no other reason other than a file
is missing that would provide the compatibility to those applications. It
would just be yet another drawback for the PC and Vista.
SFSW
> > Ok, I'll try again :-) How do you know this?
>
> Because we MVPs have already discussed this problem with MS.
>
> Because I have been using the SDK for 8 years and the redist license
> has always been the same: you have to use the approved methods for
> installing the runtime; you are not allowed to repackage individual
> files any old way that you want.
That's great for you, I guess. How does one become a MVP and be granted
such exclusive communication with MS?
Ok, that's what you claimed before, but it still doesn't answer the
question. I'm not asking for your resume to back up your claim, I'm asking
for the evidence to back it up. I'm not asking for an interpretation of the
license terms, only the location in the license agreement. I'm interesting
in learning about why a Vista user is not allowed to place the D3DRM.DLL in
the system32 folder (or the application's folder) on their own computer.
This is the commonly known solution all over the internet to solve this
compatibility limitation in Vista (a quick google search for 'D3DRM.DLL
vista' provides some results, wikipedia, various tech support forums, etc.),
you're claiming it is not allowed and violates a licensing term. Please
point us in the correct direction as to where we can verify your claim.
Richard [Microsoft Direct3D MVP]
=?Utf-8?B?U0ZTVw==?= <SF...@discussions.microsoft.com> spake the secret code
<03797BF7-5972-4FE7...@microsoft.com> thusly:
> There are numerous games and applications that use retained mode that will
>not be updated to a newer version of Direct3D (several board games by Hasbro
>come to mind).
Then your best bet is to either a) have a machine that dual-boots an
older OS and Vista, or b) have an older machine just for playing these
games.
This is common with people who want to play old DOS games or even C=64
games.
MS doesn't do what I say, and as I already mentioned, the MVPs have
brought this issue up with MS.
I get the impression that Vista's target audience is cutting-edge
current apps and future apps, not "legacy" apps. AFAIK, noone was
writing D3DRM apps in 2001, even if the runtime was still installed.
D3DRM was last updated in DirectX 6 IIRC. That's quite a while ago.
Richard [Microsoft Direct3D MVP]
=?Utf-8?B?U0ZTVw==?= <SF...@discussions.microsoft.com> spake the secret code
<A14DFEBB-22AC-435A...@microsoft.com> thusly:
> Ok, that's what you claimed before, but it still doesn't answer the
>question. I'm not asking for your resume to back up your claim, I'm asking
>for the evidence to back it up.
Install the SDK and read the EULA. Its in there.
"Everyone does it" has never been a valid defense for violating the
terms of a license.
Whether or not MS is going to prosecute you for violating the license
is not something I know, but you should be aware that the approach
you're advocating is not in conformance with the license.
SFSW
I have and I haven't been able to find what you're referring to. If you
can provide the section, that is the assistance I am asking for.
> "Everyone does it" has never been a valid defense for violating the
> terms of a license.
No, but why would there be no official announcement from Microsoft that
this is violating their license agreement if it's being done so frequently?
I wasn't even aware that this would have been a license problem for a Vista
user to copy a DirectX DLL from one computer to another to enable
compatibility. Came as a surprise to me, so that's why I want to confirm
what you said.
> Whether or not MS is going to prosecute you for violating the license
> is not something I know, but you should be aware that the approach
> you're advocating is not in conformance with the license.
I'm not sure why you feel the need to imply a threat, I'm asking for
verification of your claim, that's all. If this is wrong for anyone to do,
we need to know that is the case so we can avoid violating any such license
conditions. So far, all we have to go on is your statement. If you are in
such close communication with Microsoft, as you say, please have them comment
on this so we will know that using d3drm.dll on Vista is in violation of
licensing terms and we can inform others that this option is not possible due
to that violation.
SFSW
> current apps and future apps, not "legacy" apps. AFAIK, noone was
> writing D3DRM apps in 2001, even if the runtime was still installed.
> D3DRM was last updated in DirectX 6 IIRC. That's quite a while ago.
Why would the DLL be dated August of 2001 then? Far older applications
and technology work on Vista, so I'm not sure that the 'this is too old'
argument should really apply to retained mode. It's got my curiousty though,
I would like to know why this specific DirectX system was dropped from Vista.
Sam Brown
"Richard [Microsoft Direct3D MVP]" <legaliz...@mail.xmission.com> wrote
in message news:enbiIPC...@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> This is common with people who want to play old DOS games or even C=64
> games.
Yes, but we also have free things we're allowed to use like DOSBox
and CCS64 to make them work. ;)
(I appeciate that's the same as you suggesting we rewrite D3DRM.DLL
ourselves though).
Cheers,
- SamB (who has several backups of his XP install disks, and isn't
budging until the support dies ;)
Richard [Microsoft Direct3D MVP]
=?Utf-8?B?U0ZTVw==?= <SF...@discussions.microsoft.com> spake the secret code
<C0794064-0959-4A4F...@microsoft.com> thusly:
>"Richard [Microsoft Direct3D MVP]" wrote:
>> I get the impression that Vista's target audience is cutting-edge
>> current apps and future apps, not "legacy" apps. AFAIK, noone was
>> writing D3DRM apps in 2001, even if the runtime was still installed.
>> D3DRM was last updated in DirectX 6 IIRC. That's quite a while ago.
>
> Why would the DLL be dated August of 2001 then?
There were some security patches that did affect these DLLs. That's a
far cry from saying that they were updated as in features enhanced or
added.
What Vista decides to support isn't just a matter of "if (age > N)
then drop support".
SFSW
> > Why would the DLL be dated August of 2001 then?
>
> There were some security patches that did affect these DLLs. That's a
> far cry from saying that they were updated as in features enhanced or
> added.
I never said it was updated in features, you said you thought it was last
updated in DirectX 6, yet it was updated (for whatever reason) in at least
2001.
I would hope that Microsoft would soon provide an answer to this
limitation (and hopefully a solution). I may decide to just do the same
thing as Sam and I'll keep my XP disc handy :-) If Windows (which had been
known for decent legacy support) is going to start dropping large lists of
compatible software that is widely used, then we might as well start sticking
with older OS's on a long term basis or switch platforms altogether.
> What Vista decides to support isn't just a matter of "if (age > N)
> then drop support".
That certainly seems true in this case. And I'd like to understand more
about the decision they made. What were the details of the 'MVP's'
discussing this with them?
ronald....@gmail.com
<subiNOS...@dslIMEANIT.pipexREALLY.com> wrote:
> "Richard [Microsoft Direct3D MVP]" <legalize+jee...@mail.xmission.com> wrote
> in messagenews:enbiIPC...@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>
> > This is common with people who want to play old DOS games or even C=64
> > games.
>
> Yes, but we also have free things we're allowed to use likeDOSBox
> and CCS64 to make them work. ;)
>
> (I appeciate that's the same as you suggesting we rewrite D3DRM.DLL
> ourselves though).
>
> Cheers,
>
> - SamB (who has several backups of his XP install disks, and isn't
> budging until the support dies ;)
Just checked my Windows 2003 Standard R2 CD and D3DRM.DL_ is included
on the CD with a DateTimeStamp of 11/30/2005.
Guess they didn't feel that D3DRM was obsolete for a server OS.....
Chuck Walbourn [MSFT]
Windows Vista. Note that the D3DRM.DLL timestamp date you see is probably
the build date of Windows Server 2003 SP1.
Chuck Walbourn [MSFT]
The SDK EULA covers the developer distribution of the DirectX Runtime. The
Distribution portion of that agreement refers to a file that refers to the
contents of the REDIST folder. There are no .DLLs present in that folder,
only .CABs used by DirectSetup.
Again, Microsoft employees cannot state what is and what is not covered by
the agreement. That is something you have to take up with your legal
council.
Chuck Walbourn [MSFT]
last time it was rev'd was for DirectX 6 in 1998. It was removed from the
DirectX 7 SDK documentation to indicate this in late 1999.
D3DRM.DLL and DPVOICE.DLL were removed, as I understand it, because of
security concerns. The choice was either to do major work to resolve the
security concerns while not making any breaking changes or remove them.
There hasn't been any developer team working on either of these components
for many years. Our application compatibility testing showed that very few
applications use either of these technologies so the call was made to remove
them to meet the security standards for the Windows Vista release. A few
games used a tiny portion of D3DRM.DLL to do some loading, and we were able
to deal with it as part of some appcompat mitigations, but the vast majority
of applications never bind to this DLL.
Again, I'm hoping that a KB article on this topic will be published sooner
than later. For now, we've noted this in the DirectX FAQ:
<http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb219721.aspx> There is no
official or supported way to get D3DRM.DLL or DPVOICE.DLL deployed for
Windows Vista, Windows "Longhorn" Server, or any future version of Windows.
If that ever changes, it would be noted in a KB. For now the recommendation
is to remove any dependancies on these components from your applications.
SFSW
> There are two EULAs in the DirectX SDK. The End-User EULA and the SDK EULA.
> The SDK EULA covers the developer distribution of the DirectX Runtime. The
> Distribution portion of that agreement refers to a file that refers to the
> contents of the REDIST folder. There are no .DLLs present in that folder,
> only .CABs used by DirectSetup.
>
> Again, Microsoft employees cannot state what is and what is not covered by
> the agreement. That is something you have to take up with your legal
> council.
Thanks for the information, Chuck. To be safe, not using the d3drm.dll
seems the best course of action, until we hear otherwise from Microsoft. If
possible, please continue to bring this Vista specific limitation to their
attention so a solution might be provided soon. It will only help to expand
Vista's compatibility, user satisfaction, and reduce support problems to
implement a solution.
ZMan
> attention so a solution might be provided soon. It will only help to
> expand
> Vista's compatibility, user satisfaction, and reduce support problems to
> implement a solution.
If you really, really need to get this in front of the right people at
Microsoft (i.e. you have a milti million dallar business resting on this
issue) then the only way is to call Customer Support and get it logged as an
official issue. Posting in here or any online forum has limits when it comes
to getting something this big changed.
However given the similarities between this thread and the missing VB/DX
DLLs I would not expect the situation to change - but feel free to call them
if its important and you have some free support calls left (I think Vista
has 90 days from when you make your first call or something)
See http://forums.microsoft.com/MSDN/ShowPost.aspx?PostID=1448544&SiteID=1
for the history of the VB/DX DLLs and also information on conatcing customer
support.