0
0

Slightly confusing that the documentation talks about an output mode where openAL is considered valid, though it does not seem valid and another post hints that this output mode was removed.

Is there a specific reason it was removed? I am having problems with DirectSound’s panning and thought I’d try OpenAL.

  • You must to post comments
0
0

Ok I removed the enum.
Yes it is removed because it is lacking in some very basic areas that makes it unusable to us, and this is before we get to some of the more advanced stuff. An example is that there wasnt even a way to mix a 6 channel stream into a single openal voice.
When we did have it in for a few versions, people just complained of driver like bugs, so it was more hassle than it was worth.

  • You must to post comments
0
0

Too bad.

Is there any way I could access the older version from your archives or something? (4.04.10)

I just got a X-fi today to play around with and running it in hardware blows :/ I do not know if it would sound better via OpenAL, but considering our own OpenAL implementation (that we used before FMOD) worked, I hoped the one in FMOD would too.

  • You must to post comments
0
0

Did you try just using software mixing? FMOD will probably be 100% software mixed in the future.

  • You must to post comments
0
0

Aye Brett, software works, but we were planning to use both since hardware did not use so much CPU.

So I take it there is no way to download an older version?

  • You must to post comments
0
0

no, we’re not supporting older versions, and the openal support was buggy anyway.

Software is not slower than hardware, check the fmod.chm talk about that. Hardware via directsound is slower than fmod’s software mixer by a long way.

  • You must to post comments
0
0

I would assume hardware is lighter if DSP’s are not done on the CPU?

  • You must to post comments
Showing 6 results
Your Answer

Please first to submit.