We're working on an application that displays information through a Direct3D visualisation. A late client request is the ability to view this application via some Remote Desktop solution.
Has anyone done anything similar? What options are available / unavailable? I'm thinking RDC, VNC, Citrix...
Any advice?
I think you can still use all of the normal D3D tools, but you won't be able to render to a surface associated with the screen. You'll have to render to a DIB (or some such) and Blt it with GDI to a normal window HDC. RDC/VNC/Citrix should all work with this technique.
Performance will definitely suffer - but that's going to be the case over remote desktop anyway. In fact, if I were you, I would mock up a VERY simple prototype and demonstrate the performance before committing to it.
Good luck!
I think Windows 7 has D3D remoting stuff - probably requires both client and server to be W7 though.
The build-in remote desktop works. (You don't have to do anything special)
But it is extremely slow, because when in doubt, it just sends the contents of a window as a bitmap.
Related
I have 3 monitors, but I don't need them all turned on all the time. I can just shut them down with power button, but I want to use their standby mode, like Windows does when we let PC idle for a while - it shuts down monitors, HDD, etc.
But of course, I wanna keep using PC and let just that monitor on standby. Others must remain on and that one doesn't wake up even with me using PC.
Is it possible to do that? It would be great to have a shortcut like Winkey+1, 2, 3 etc to shut down and wake up each monitor.
An existing app with this feature is not likely to exist, but is there a Windows API function that can control monitor state, for each monitor in a MultiMonitor system?
The display control panel applet calls SetDisplayConfig to start or stop forced projection on a particular target
You can probably use MS Detours or some other API hooking tool to inspect the usage pattern of the API while using the applet to adjust display settings.
You'll want to try Display Fusion. You should be able to do what you're asking for using Monitor configurations.
I know I'm late on this but use DDC to control your display. You can easily create hotkeys that send a command via DDC to the display to turn-off. This would be equivalent to turning off the display using the button. Works like a charm for me. The only trick is that DDC command specs vary across monitor manufacturers but its not hard to find the right codes to send with the help of google.
Ready made tools also exist for this; search for anything that is related to DDC or EDID and you should find.
Be aware though that this does not remove the display from Windows which means that apps may find their way onto displays that are off and you will be looking for them.
I run the DirectX SDK sample, BasicHLSL10 and use a Windbg to attach to the process.
After breaking into the process, I use 'x d3d*!Render' and 'x dxgi!' to list the functions I am interested.
I then set breakpoints on 'dxgi!D3DKMTPresent' as well as all the 'd3d*!D3DKMTRender'.
After that I hit 'g' for the process to continue.
However, BasicHLSL10 seems to continue running without stepping on those breakpoints.
I'm thinking this could be one of those COM Interface thing, but I'm not very familiar. How, can I break into the process when it is calling some of the DirectX call?
Will this technique also works on media players that uses DXVA?
looks like it could be because D3DKMT* functions are only use by OpenGL Installable Client Driver (at least that is what I think I read in WDK), so maybe that is why BasicHLSL10 never use it...
Good afternoon all!
I'm experiencing a rather annoying issue with one of my current projects. I'm working with a hardware library (NVAPI Pascal header translation by Andreas Hausladen) in one of my current projects. This lib allows me to retrieve information from an NVIDIA GPU. I'm using it to retrieve temperatures, and with the help of Firemonkey's TAnimateFloat, i'm adjusting the angle on a custom-made dial to indicate the temperature.
As FMX defaults to Direct 2D on Windows, i can monitor the FPS with any of the various "gamer" tools out there (MSI Afterburner, FRAPS, etc).
The issue i'm having is that when i put the system into sleep mode (suspend to RAM/S3), and then start it up again, the interface on my application is blacked out (partially or completely), and nothing on the UI is visibly refreshing. I'm calling the initialization for the NVAPI library regularly and checking the result via a timer, but this doesn't fix the issue. I'm also running ProcessMessages and repaint on the parent dial and it's children controls (since i can't seem to find a repaint for the form or even an equivalent).
I tried various versions of the library, and each one presents the same issue. The next paragraph indicates that this was in fact NOT the issue, and that it's actually the renderer at fault.
I have one solution, but i want to know if there's something more... elegant, available. The solution i have involves adding FMX.Types.GlobalUseDirect2D := False; before Application.Initialize in my projects source. However, this forces FMX to use GDI+ rather than Direct2D. It works of course, but i'd like to keep D2D open as an option if i can. I can use FindCmdLineSwitch to toggle this on/off dependant on parameters, but this still requires me to restart the application to change from D2D to GDI+ or vice-versa.
What's weird about it is that the FPS counter (from FRAPS in my case) indicates that there's still activity happening in the UI (as the value changes as would be expected), but the UI itself isn't visibly refreshing.
Is this an issue related to Direct2D, or a bug with Firemonkey's implementation? More importantly, is there a better method to fixing it than disabling D2D? Lastly, also related, is it possible to "reinitialize" an application without terminating it first (so perhaps i can allow the user to switch between GDI+ and D2D without needing to restart the application)?
This is may be of the issues with FM prior to the update 4 hotfix - 26664/QC 104210
Fixes the issue of a FireMonkey HD form being unresponsive after user unlock - installing this might resolve the issue for you.
The update should be part of your registered user downloads from the EDN (direct link http://cc.embarcadero.com/item/28881).
We need to drive 8 to 12 monitors from one pc, all rendering different views of a single 3d scenegraph, so have to use several graphics cards. We're currently running on dx9, so are looking to move to dx11 to hopefully make this easier.
Initial investigations seem to suggest that the obvious approach doesn't work - performance is lousy unless we drive each card from a separate process. Web searches are turning up nothing. Can anybody suggest the best way to go about utilising several cards simultaneously from a single process with dx11?
I see that you've already come to a solution, but I thought it'd be good to throw in my own recent experiences for anyone else who comes onto this question...
Yes, you can drive any number of adapters and outputs from a single process. Here's some information that might be helpful:
In DXGI and DX11:
Each graphics card is an "Adapter". Each monitor is an "Output". See here for more information about enumerating through these.
Once you have pointers to the adapters that you want to use, create a device (ID3D11Device) using D3D11CreateDevice for each of the adapters. Maybe you want a different thread for interacting with each of your devices. This thread may have a specific processor affinity if that helps speed things up for you.
Once each adapter has its own device, create a swap chain and render target for each output. You can also create your depth stencil view for each output as well while you're at it.
The process of creating a swap chain will require your windows to be set up: one window per output. I don't think there is much benefit in driving your rendering from the window that contains the swap chain. You can just create the windows as hosts for your swap chain and then forget about them entirely afterwards.
For rendering, you will need to iterate through each Output of each Device. For each output change the render target of the device to the render target that you created for the current output using OMSetRenderTargets. Again, you can be running each device on a different thread if you'd like, so each thread/device pair will have its own iteration through outputs for rendering.
Here are a bunch of links that might be of help when going through this process:
Display Different images per monitor directX 10
DXGI and 2+ full screen displays on Windows 7
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/desktop/ee417025%28v=vs.85%29.aspx#multiple_monitors
Good luck!
Maybe you not need to upgrade the Directx.
See this article.
Enumerate the available devices with IDXGIFactory, create a ID3D11Device for each and then feed them from different threads. Should work fine.
Can any one tell me which is more stable? I know each has their own advantages and disadvantages. But which one is better for http, etc?
In my previous application I used indy9 but I wasn't satisfied with it, as I would sometimes get strange errors.
Can anyone recommend one?
I use Indy in a lot of projects. I used both 9 and 10 mainly as HTTP server and proxy. The projects get very intense traffic at times (HTTP). Indy never did let me down. It works very stable.
But I also had some "strange" situations where I had to dig deep to find the underlying problem. I also do not like the way Indy tends to handle a lot of things through exceptions. In general I like the ICS coding style more. But let me go to ICS.
ICS uses non-blocking sockets, while indy uses blocking. While non-blocking is ok and seems to be better at first sight, I found it irritating in a lot of situations. The problem is that the natural flow of the code gets lost because of the callback functions. This makes it harder to write procedural type of libraries. Furthermore I do not like how everything is handled through messages. For me it gets messy real quick when mixed with multithreading. And multithreading is mainstream these days.
So while I like the coding style and quality of the code in ICS, I prefer the simplicity of use and blocking mode of Indy. What you like more is up to you, but both libraries are mature and stable.
These are my two cents.
I also use both Indy and ICS.
Most of the time I prefer Indy because implementing sequential type of protocols with it is very easy (the request runs in it's own thread so you simply Read/Write to the connection, really easy). Using Indy requires solid knowledge of threading and synchronization. Unlike Runner I like how Indy uses Exceptions to handle "exceptional" stuff because it allows me to concentrate on the normal flow of the protocol (I use try-finally blocks to make sure I deallocate resources).
I also used ICS in a application where Indy simply failed: I used it for an application that implements an TCP/IP proxy. Using ICS was simpler because of it's non-blocking nature. I was able to "proxy" TCP/IP protocols that I know nothing about, so I have no idea how bytes would flow from one end to the other. Indy failed in that scenario because in Indy you're ether reading or you're writing, you can't do both at the same time. Using ICS to implement an sequential-type protocol is a bit of pain: you essentially need to use state-machine logic, brake the protocol in small bits, keep flags laying around so you know where you are in the protocol. An big plus: François Piette, the author of ICS, is active and very helpful on a number of forums and mailing list, and is very prompt to help with anything related to ICS.
For me, if I need to do something with TCP/IP, the decision path is very simple: Can it be done with Indy? Then it's Indy. If it can't be done with Indy then it'll be done with ICS!
I've used Indy 9 and 10 for TCP, HTTP and FTP with very few problems. ICS is a good choice, too. It's non blocking, which will change how you use it.
I haven't used it, but I've heard good things about Synapse, which is also blocking.
We test Indy10 IdTCPClient to receive video stream from remote server, it's OK. But when it's receiveing stream, the same time use it send some data to the server, after some minute, the received stream data began lost data bytes. We use sniffer tool to trace this problem, confirmed that IdTCPClient lost some bytes in receiveing stream.
So, we test Indy9.018, the same problem happend but a few times VS. Indy 10.
Remember that Indy is always in beta stage. Sometimes you need to work with night builds.
Which one is better really depends on specific use case, but I was unhappy with indy as an http client and ICS ended up being exactly what I needed it to be, with a lot less random quirks.
Note though that it is non blocking, so it's not just a drop in replacement.
I use Indy 9 for stable, released, production code to over 1 million users, and have never received any strange errors.
I'd say the answer depends on what you want to do with the internet. Indy is fine if you are prepared to get involved with understanding how it works, and is very capable. ICS is a different take on things, and I've used it effectively for many-connection systems. But for day to day "grab a file or send an email" type stuff, where you want to do a basic task, I pretty much always use Clever Components Internet Suite as you just create the component,
set the options, and it works. The suite is quite comprehensive, and gets useful updates.