As you know, Aureal has gone out of bussiness a long time ago, and FMod is still using A3D buggy drivers to provide with EAX2 capabilities.
I think there’s no point in continuing to support A3D, as they’re forever gone (Creative buyed them), and FMod would benefit from dropping A3D and entirely adhering to EAX, that is clearly the mainstream now.
Do you think A3D support should be maintained?
Brett wrote (april-09-2001 19:39):
I am seriously considering dropping A3D support from the next version of fmod..
As you know Aureal have gone out of business and they have left behind buggy drivers (which i was in the middle of discussions with the a3d programmers to resolve them, when they went bust 
), and removing it would also reduce the size of the dll. As of late FMOD A3D support has gone relatively untested, and with new OS’es and cards coming out it just gets more complicated.
- Juantxo asked 18 years ago
- You must login to post comments
You could try these (which I use in Win2000)…
http://www.vortexofsound.com/drivers/drv_v2wdm.htm
they also have a link to the latest A3D driver.
I really would like to see A3D staying supported.. and the EAX driver support for the vortex2s isn’t the greatest.
I really would have liked to have seen the A3D drivers go opensource to help keep it alive 
Robert ‘Heffo’ Heffernan
- Heffo answered 18 years ago
- You must login to post comments
If DSound can do it, then A3D is not required.
- Sly answered 18 years ago
- You must login to post comments
if A3D was only another output mode, then sure, I can’t see why it should be supported. But the Geometry alone would be reason enough to keep it.
I dunno.. I just like A3D over DSound 😉
Robert ‘Heffo’ Heffernan
- Heffo answered 18 years ago
- You must login to post comments
Is it possible to emulate geometry with DSound? Maybe it’s harder, but from what I’ve seen it’s perfectly possible by using EAX, no?
- Juantxo answered 18 years ago
- You must login to post comments
With cool features like that it’s amazing that Aureal folded..
/me kicks crappy company directors
Robert ‘Heffo’ Heffernan
- Heffo answered 18 years ago
- You must login to post comments
Hiya,
Why DON’T we do our own?!?
I don’t know a lot about 3D sound, but I know enough about 3D in general to be able to knock up a very fast line-of-sight algorithm for a complex environment.
This would give us a basic ‘muffling’ effect, and we could build on it from there…
The line-of-sight routine can also return distance, which might be useful for an echo?
Bye!
Mark
- marksibly answered 18 years ago
- You must login to post comments
well, i’m all in favor of doing a 3D geometry engine, but must say i wish creative would get their @$$ in gear and put a geometry engnine into EAX… preferably in hardware… this is the kind of thing that should be done in hardware, with all the benefits inherent in doing it there. i say we pressure Creative to put this at first and at least into the software EAX, and eventually into hardware. my 2cents
-i
- illusion answered 18 years ago
- You must login to post comments
Yep, really think so. Brett, don’t you know someone there in Creative to whom you could tell the idea?
- Juantxo answered 18 years ago
- You must login to post comments
Get Creative to fix their SBLive drivers first and THEN try to convince them to do a geometry engine in EAX.
Priorities first methinks…
- Sly answered 18 years ago
- You must login to post comments
Please login first to submit.