I was scratching my head today trying to get a instancing example to work. I was getting stumped so i downloaded someones example code which also gave error code number exceptions.
Then i realized what the obfuscated error code 8007xxxx was telling me after hours of scratching my head. I had to manually set the graphics profile to hi-def; Which worked yaay !. i have a example bit of code to compare what im doing wrong now.
however…
I almost always use the reach profile to ensure what im writing is compatable with as much as possible plus i have a old card. Anyways i tried to put it back to reach and use different shader levels but even 4_0_level_9_1 wouldn’t work with the reach profile on and i thought it did in xna. Im pretty sure even dx9 has instancing i don’t see why a 16bit vb wouldn’t allow instancing a ushort is 65535 but mg’s reach basically uses int’s anyways i think. So i would think instancing would be supported for reach if the card can support it in hi-def.
Anyways can anyone shed some light as to why reach wont allow instancing ?
Edit apparently just one profile works for me on dx with hi-def and its not even the highest one i normally use, weird.
Hardware instancing requires a card with DX9_3 or higher.
XNA probably had some form of emulation ot support instancing under Reach profile. It worked on Desktop and XBOX360 but not on WP7.x.
On MG things are quite different. @willmotil , Is it possible that you have one of those cards that support 9_1 & 10_0 but not 9_3?
Oh sorry i didn’t see the reply the shader exits with a numeric code or will not compile depending on the level under hi-def It will compile and run on hi-def 4_0 for instance but not on 4_9_1
I have an NVIDIA Quadro 600 (1024 MB) - Wikipedia says it is equivalent to a GT 440 - lying around, I bought it to test some software [I bought it on EBay second or n-Hand lol], the test failed but I think the card works fine,… I think…
I could test it on two systems, and if you like, ship it out to you. Performance wise it is lower, but support wise it is better…
I don’t know how stable it is though as the system I tested it on originally would randomly lock up, may be other factors, I am not sure… but I should probably mention that now than later haha…
Yeah your card only supports 9.0C
VS.
Wikipedia article:
It would take me a few days to get around to the testing, but shipping it out is reliant on some other factors, namely: I seldom leave the house at the moment
I can look into it, if you think it might help you, I am feeling pretty generous at the moment so bite while you can I will cover shipping as well, just to be clear.
cool bean’s you must be that mana from heaven i heard about, in that book i read once, for a man surrounded by I.T. heathens in a electronic desert oO. Seriously though that would probably help me a lot to have dx12 compatible card. Ill owe you one.
Unable to find the GT 730, looked everywhere, must have lost it during the house move
But I did bump into the GT 430 which I thought I lost lol, it supports DX11/12 though I need to confirm this as well as OpenGL 4.2… and is less powered than your GTS 250 which sucks 150W vs 49W on the GT 430, but it has more feature support… and is far less power hungry… I still managed to play GTA IV on it so there is that Shader Model 5 support mind you, vs. the SM4 on the GTS 250
Let me know if you still want the GT 430, at least you can get DX 9.3 support… as well as DX11 with 1GB VRAM
Their page descriptions are actually full of false data, like the GTS 250 page mentions the 9800 GTX lol
So I will test the GT 430 and see what factual data I can find, but I am certain 100% that it does support DX11.
I will cover shipping as well, just to be clear.
Shader Model 5 support mind you, vs. the SM4 on the GTS 250