Jump to content

  • Log In with Google      Sign In   
  • Create Account

#ActualHodgman

Posted 21 July 2013 - 10:51 PM

PS3 OpenGL-based LibGCM

I wouldn't call GCM "OpenGL-based". It's a procedural C-API, which makes it look a lot more like GL code than D3D code, but it's design is completely different from GL's design. If anything, I'd say it's based on nVidia's internal GeForce7 driver code, stripped down (which they'd then build GL and D3D interfaces on top of).
 
In any case, Migi0027, there's not much chance you'll ever end up using GCM at this point. You'd only be using it if you got a job at a professional studio who was making PS3 games, and most of them will very soon be making PS4 games instead ;)

There's no war. The only platform where you have a choice is desktop Windows, and on Windows Direct3D works better. End of story

This. Every different platform has it's own "native" graphics API.
If you want to write truly "cross platform" code, you'll have to know: D3D9, D3D11, GL1, GL2, GL3, GL4, GLES, GLES2, WebGL, GX, GCM, GCX, etc, etc, etc...

 

Simply learning OpenGL is in no way a silver bullet for having "cross platform" code.
 
With many of the above, you'll also have to make changes to your code not just for each platform, but for different hardware/drivers within a particular platform. e.g. some phones may support a particular texture format, while others don't, etc... or some PC GPUs might support some shader operation, while others' don't.

Why is Direct3D preferred by the large companies?

I prefer it on Windows, because it's more reliable than OpenGL on Windows, due to the fact that most of D3D is implemented by Microsoft, and is thus the same on everyone's PC.
To contrast: GL has no central body that enforces compliance with the specification. On Windows, OpenGL is implemented in the graphics driver, so 3 users with 3 different GPUs/Drivers, might be running three completely different implementations of OpenGL! My code might work fine for one of them, and have bugs for the other two that I've never noticed, because I've never tested my code with their particular driver.

 
On Mac, OpenGL is mostly implemented by Apple (like how MS implements D3D) -- they've stepped up to enforce compliance with the spec, so this problem doesn't exist as much, so GL is less objectionable on Mac. In any case, GL is your only option on Mac, so all the engine companies that you've quoted do also support GL for their Mac versions.
 
On Linux, your only choice is OpenGL, but the situation is just as dire as on Windows. There is no central authority (e.g. MS/Apple) to ensure that GL strictly follows the spec, so like on Windows, OpenGL is entirely implemented by your graphics driver. You game might run fine on one driver, and be buggy on another driver. To test your game, you need to test it against every different GPU driver that you want to support... but, if you want to support Linux, it's your only choice to deal with this shitfest.

 

To sum that up:

Windows - MS does work to ensure D3D is stable. GL is still an option, but with with only each GPU manufacturer supporting it on their own.

MacOS - Apple does work to ensure GL is stable. There is no other option.

Linux - You're on your own with GL or Wine. Plus you've got distros that even refuse to support official nVidia/ATI drivers out of ideology...

Web - It's the wild west, a new frontier! Use Flash, HTML5 Canvas, WebGL, Java, Silverlight, etc at your own risk.

Mobile - You're on your own with GLES. Test every device you want to support to discover their quirks!

 
So personally, I choose to use D3D on Windows and OpenGL on Mac for stability/ease-of-development, even though it means twice the work inside my low-level renderer library.
Basically, I have to port my code to every different platform that I want to support. I just see this as a fact of life. With OpenGL's inconsistencies (outside of MacOS), I don't like to use it because I'm also forced to port my code within a platform (e.g. supporting different drivers).
 
That's not to say that GL on Windows is the wrong choice though! It is entirely usable, and certainly a lot of professional Windows games have been released using OpenGL!
I disagree with almost everything marcClintDion said above, except for this bit of truth:

you should choose which ever one feels most natural for you.
If you feel that DX is the better API then use it, otherwise don't, or learn both.

 
I started with OpenGL because it made sense to me sooner than DX did.

Except I'd say that you should learn both anyway, in the long run!

 

I did also find GL easier to get started with when I was first learning ;)

Should I port my engine to OpenGL. (I have no thoughts of making my engine cross-platform)

If you want to release it on Mac or Linux, then yes, you'll have to port it. Otherwise, there's no reason to do that work.

But my real worry is, that when going to high school/university, I've read that they use OpenGL, so will I have to relearn it all?

This shouldn't really be a problem. Once you've learnt one graphics API, it's very easy to learn others.
I don't even worry about it any more... as long as I've got a reference manual for a new API, I can start working with it almost immediately.


#4Hodgman

Posted 21 July 2013 - 10:49 PM

PS3 OpenGL-based LibGCM

I wouldn't call GCM "OpenGL-based". It's a procedural C-API, which makes it look a lot more like GL code than D3D code, but it's design is completely different from GL's design. If anything, I'd say it's based on nVidia's internal GeForce7 driver code, stripped down (which they'd then build GL and D3D interfaces on top of).
 
In any case, Migi0027, there's not much chance you'll ever end up using GCM at this point. You'd only be using it if you got a job at a professional studio who was making PS3 games, and most of them will very soon be making PS4 games instead ;)

There's no war. The only platform where you have a choice is desktop Windows, and on Windows Direct3D works better. End of story

This. Every different platform has it's own "native" graphics API.
If you want to write truly "cross platform" code, you'll have to know: D3D9, D3D11, GL1, GL2, GL3, GL4, GLES, GLES2, WebGL, GX, GCM, GCX, etc, etc, etc...

 

Simply learning OpenGL is in no way a silver bullet for having "cross platform" code.
 
With many of the above, you'll also have to make changes to your code not just for each platform, but for different hardware/drivers within a particular platform. e.g. some phones may support a particular texture format, while others don't, etc... or some PC GPUs might support some shader operation, while others' don't.

Why is Direct3D preferred by the large companies?

I prefer it on windows, because it's more reliably than OpenGL on windows, due to the fact that most of D3D is implemented by Microsoft, and is thus the same on everyone's PC. GL has no central body that enforces compliance with the specification on Windows.
To contrast: OpenGL is implemented in the graphics driver, so 3 users with 3 different GPUs/Drivers, might be running three completely different implementations of OpenGL! My code might work fine for one of them, and have bugs for the other two that I've never noticed, because I've never tested my code with their particular driver.
 
On Mac, OpenGL is mostly implemented by Apple (like how MS implements D3D) -- they've stepped up to enforce compliance with the spec, so this problem doesn't exist as much, so GL is less objectionable on Mac. In any case, GL is your only option on Mac, so all the engine companies that you've quoted do also support GL for their Mac versions.
 
On Linux, your only choice is OpenGL, but the situation is just as dire as on Windows. There is no central authority (e.g. MS/Apple) to ensure that GL strictly follows the spec, so like on Windows, OpenGL is entirely implemented by your graphics driver. You game might run fine on one driver, and be buggy on another driver. To test your game, you need to test it against every different GPU driver that you want to support... but, if you want to support Linux, it's your only choice.

 

To sum that up:

Windows - MS does work to ensure D3D is stable. GL is still an option, but with with only each GPU manufacturer supporting it on their own.

MacOS - Apple does work to ensure GL is stable. There is no other option.

Linux - You're on your own with GL or Wine. Plus you've got distros that even refuse to support official nVidia/ATI drivers out of ideology...

Web - It's the wild west, a new frontier! Use Flash, HTML5 Canvas, WebGL, Java, Silverlight, etc at your own risk.

Mobile - You're on your own with GLES. Test every device you want to support to discover their quirks!

 
So personally, I choose to use D3D on Windows and OpenGL on Mac for stability/ease-of-development, even though it means twice the work inside my low-level renderer library.
Basically, I have to port my code to every different platform that I want to support. I just see this as a fact of life. With OpenGL's inconsistencies (outside of MacOS), I don't like to use it because I'm also forced to port my code within a platform (e.g. supporting different drivers).
 
That's not to say that GL on Windows is the wrong choice though! It is entirely usable, and certainly a lot of professional Windows games have been released using OpenGL!
I disagree with almost everything marcClintDion said above, except for this bit of truth:

you should choose which ever one feels most natural for you.
If you feel that DX is the better API then use it, otherwise don't, or learn both.

 
I started with OpenGL because it made sense to me sooner than DX did.

Except I'd say that you should learn both anyway, in the long run!

 

I did also find GL easier to get started with when I was first learning ;)

Should I port my engine to OpenGL. (I have no thoughts of making my engine cross-platform)

If you want to release it on Mac or Linux, then yes, you'll have to port it. Otherwise, there's no reason to do that work.

But my real worry is, that when going to high school/university, I've read that they use OpenGL, so will I have to relearn it all?

This shouldn't really be a problem. Once you've learnt one graphics API, it's very easy to learn others.
I don't even worry about it any more... as long as I've got a reference manual for a new API, I can start working with it almost immediately.


#3Hodgman

Posted 21 July 2013 - 10:34 PM

PS3 OpenGL-based LibGCM

I wouldn't call GCM "OpenGL-based". It's a procedural C-API, which makes it look a lot more like GL code than D3D code, but it's design is completely different from GL's design. If anything, I'd say it's based on nVidia's internal GeForce7 driver code, stripped down (which they'd then build GL and D3D interfaces on top of).
 
In any case, Migi0027, there's not much chance you'll ever end up using GCM at this point. You'd only be using it if you got a job at a professional studio who was making PS3 games, and most of them will very soon be making PS4 games instead ;)

There's no war. The only platform where you have a choice is desktop Windows, and on Windows Direct3D works better. End of story

This. Every different platform has it's own "native" graphics API.
If you want to write truly "cross platform" code, you'll have to know: D3D9, D3D11, GL1, GL2, GL3, GL4, GLES, GLES2, WebGL, GX, GCM, GCX, etc, etc, etc...

 

Simply learning OpenGL is in no way a silver bullet for having "cross platform" code.
 
With many of the above, you'll also have to make changes to your code not just for each platform, but for different hardware/drivers within a particular platform. e.g. some phones may support a particular texture format, while others don't, etc... or some PC GPUs might support some shader operation, while others' don't.

Why is Direct3D preferred by the large companies?

I prefer it on windows, because it's more reliably than OpenGL on windows, due to the fact that most of D3D is implemented by Microsoft, and is thus the same on everyone's PC. GL has no central body that enforces compliance with the specification on Windows.
To contrast: OpenGL is implemented in the graphics driver, so 3 users with 3 different GPUs/Drivers, might be running three completely different implementations of OpenGL! My code might work fine for one of them, and have bugs for the other two that I've never noticed, because I've never tested my code with their particular driver.
 
On Mac, OpenGL is mostly implemented by Apple (like how MS implements D3D) -- they've stepped up to enforce compliance with the spec, so this problem doesn't exist as much, so GL is less objectionable on Mac. In any case, GL is your only option on Mac, so all the engine companies that you've quoted do also support GL for their Mac versions.
 
On Linux, your only choice is OpenGL, but the situation is just as dire as on Windows. There is no central authority (e.g. MS/Apple) to ensure that GL strictly follows the spec, so like on Windows, OpenGL is entirely implemented by your graphics driver. You game might run fine on one driver, and be buggy on another driver. To test your game, you need to test it against every different GPU driver that you want to support... but, if you want to support Linux, it's your only choice.

 

To sum that up:

Windows - MS does work to ensure D3D is stable.

MacOS - Apple does work to ensure GL is stable.

Linux - You're on your own. No one is pouring money into graphics APIs. Plus you've got distros that even refuse to support official nVidia/ATI drivers out of ideology...

Web - It's the wild west, a new frontier!

Mobile - You're on your own. Test every device you want to support to discover their quirks!

 
So personally, I choose to use D3D on Windows and OpenGL on Mac for stability/ease-of-development, even though it means twice the work inside my low-level renderer library.
Basically, I have to port my code to every different platform that I want to support. I just see this as a fact of life. With OpenGL's inconsistencies (outside of MacOS), I don't like to use it because I'm also forced to port my code within a platform (e.g. supporting different drivers).
 
That's not to say that GL on Windows is the wrong choice though! It is entirely usable, and certainly a lot of professional Windows games have been released using OpenGL!
I disagree with almost everything marcClintDion said above, except for this bit of truth:

you should choose which ever one feels most natural for you.
If you feel that DX is the better API then use it, otherwise don't, or learn both.
 
I started with OpenGL because it made sense to me sooner than DX did.

I did also find GL easier to get started with when I was first learning ;)

Should I port my engine to OpenGL. (I have no thoughts of making my engine cross-platform)

If you want to release it on Mac or Linux, then yes, you'll have to port it. Otherwise, there's no reason to do that work.

But my real worry is, that when going to high school/university, I've read that they use OpenGL, so will I have to relearn it all?

This shouldn't really be a problem. Once you've learnt one graphics API, it's very easy to learn others.
I don't even worry about it any more... as long as I've got a reference manual for a new API, I can start working with it almost immediately.


#2Hodgman

Posted 21 July 2013 - 10:26 PM

PS3 OpenGL-based LibGCM

I wouldn't call GCM "OpenGL-based". It's a procedural C-API, which makes it look a lot more like GL code than D3D code, but it's design is completely different from GL's design. If anything, I'd say it's based on nVidia's internal GeForce7 driver code, stripped down (which they'd then build GL and D3D interfaces on top of).
 
In any case, Migi0027, there's not much chance you'll ever end up using GCM at this point. You'd only be using it if you got a job at a professional studio who was making PS3 games, and most of them will very soon be making PS4 games instead ;)
 
 

There's no war. The only platform where you have a choice is desktop Windows, and on Windows Direct3D works better. End of story

This. Every different platform has it's own "native" graphics API.
If you want to write truly "cross platform" code, you'll have to know: D3D9, D3D11, GL1, GL2, GL3, GL4, GLES, GLES2, WebGL, GX, GCM, GCX, etc, etc, etc...

 

Simply learning OpenGL is in no way a silver bullet for having "cross platform" code.
 
With many of the above, you'll also have to make changes to your code not just for each platform, but for different hardware/drivers within a particular platform. e.g. some phones may support a particular texture format, while others don't, etc... or some PC GPUs might support some shader operation, while others' don't.
 

Why is Direct3D preferred by the large companies?

I prefer it on windows, because it's more reliably than OpenGL on windows, due to the fact that most of D3D is implemented by Microsoft, and is thus the same on everyone's PC. GL has no central body that enforces compliance with the specification on Windows.
To contrast: OpenGL is implemented in the graphics driver, so 3 users with 3 different GPUs/Drivers, might be running three completely different implementations of OpenGL! My code might work fine for one of them, and have bugs for the other two that I've never noticed, because I've never tested my code with their particular driver.
 
On Mac, OpenGL is mostly implemented like Apple (like how MS implements D3D) and they've stepped up to enforce compliance with the spec, so this problem doesn't exist as much, so GL is less objectionable on Mac. In any case, GL is your only option on Mac, so all the engine companies that you've quoted do also support GL for their Mac versions.
 
On Linux, your only choice is OpenGL, but the situation is just as dire as on Windows. There is no central authority (e.g. MS/Apple) to ensure that GL strictly follows the spec, so like on Windows, OpenGL is entirely implemented by your graphics driver. You game might run fine on one driver, and be buggy on another driver. To test your game, you need to test it against every different GPU driver that you want to support... but, if you want to support Linux, it's your only choice.
 
So personally, I choose to use D3D on Windows and OpenGL on Mac for stability/ease-of-development, even though it means twice the work inside my low-level renderer library.
Basically, I have to port my code to every different platform that I want to support. I just see this as a fact of life. With OpenGL's inconsistencies (outside of MacOS), I don't like to use it because I'm also forced to port my code within a platform (e.g. supporting different drivers).
 
That's not to say that GL on Windows is the wrong choice though! It is entirely usable, and certainly a lot of professional Windows games have been released using OpenGL!
I disagree with almost everything marcClintDion said above, except for this bit of truth:

you should choose which ever one feels most natural for you.
If you feel that DX is the better API then use it, otherwise don't, or learn both.
 
I started with OpenGL because it made sense to me sooner than DX did.

I did also find GL easier to get started with when I was first learning ;)

Should I port my engine to OpenGL. (I have no thoughts of making my engine cross-platform)

If you want to release it on Mac or Linux, then yes, you'll have to port it. Otherwise, there's no reason to do that work.

But my real worry is, that when going to high school/university, I've read that they use OpenGL, so will I have to relearn it all?

This shouldn't really be a problem. Once you've learnt one graphics API, it's very easy to learn others.
I don't even worry about it any more... as long as I've got a reference manual for a new API, I can start working with it almost immediately.


#1Hodgman

Posted 21 July 2013 - 10:24 PM


PS3 OpenGL-based LibGCM
I wouldn't call GCM "OpenGL-based". It's a procedural C-API, which makes it look a lot more like GL code than D3D code, but it's design is completely different from GL's design. If anything, I'd say it's based on nVidia's internal GeForce7 driver code, stripped down (which they'd then build GL and D3D interfaces on top of).

 

In any case, Migi0027, there's not much chance you'll ever end up using GCM at this point. You'd only be using it if you got a job at a professional studio who was making PS3 games, and most of them will very soon be making PS4 games instead ;)


There's no war. The only platform where you have a choice is desktop Windows, and on Windows Direct3D works better. End of story
This. Every different platform has it's own "native" graphics API.

If you want to write truly "cross platform" code, you'll have to know: D3D9, D3D11, GL1, GL2, GL3, GL4, GLES, GLES2, WebGL, GX, GCM, GCX, etc, etc, etc...

 

With many of the above, you'll also have to make changes to your code not just for each platform, but for different hardware/drivers within a particular platform. e.g. some phones may support a particular texture format, while others don't, etc... or some PC GPUs might support some shader operation, while others' don't.

 


Why is Direct3D preferred by the large companies?
I prefer it on windows, because it's more reliably than OpenGL on windows, due to the fact that most of D3D is implemented by Microsoft, and is thus the same on everyone's PC. GL has no central body that enforces compliance with the specification on Windows.

To contrast: OpenGL is implemented in the graphics driver, so 3 users with 3 different GPUs/Drivers, might be running three completely different implementations of OpenGL! My code might work fine for one of them, and have bugs for the other two that I've never noticed, because I've never tested my code with their particular driver.

 

On Mac, OpenGL is mostly implemented like Apple (like how MS implements D3D) and they've stepped up to enforce compliance with the spec, so this problem doesn't exist as much, so GL is less objectionable on Mac. In any case, GL is your only option on Mac, so all the engine companies that you've quoted do also support GL for their Mac versions.

 

On Linux, your only choice is OpenGL, but the situation is just as dire as on Windows. There is no central authority (e.g. MS/Apple) to ensure that GL strictly follows the spec, so like on Windows, OpenGL is entirely implemented by your graphics driver. You game might run fine on one driver, and be buggy on another driver. To test your game, you need to test it against every different GPU driver that you want to support... but, if you want to support Linux, it's your only choice.

 

So personally, I choose to use D3D on Windows and OpenGL on Mac for stability/ease-of-development, even though it means twice the work inside my low-level renderer library.

Basically, I have to port my code to every different platform that I want to support. I just see this as a fact of life. With OpenGL's inconsistencies (outside of MacOS), I don't like to use it because I'm also forced to port my code within a platform (e.g. supporting different drivers).

 

That's not to say that GL on Windows is the wrong choice though! It is entirely usable, and certainly a lot of professional Windows games have been released using OpenGL!

I disagree with almost everything marcClintDion said above, except for this bit of truth:


you should choose which ever one feels most natural for you.

If you feel that DX is the better API then use it, otherwise don't, or learn both.

 

I started with OpenGL because it made sense to me sooner than DX did.

I did also find GL easier to get started with when I was first learning ;)


Should I port my engine to OpenGL. (I have no thoughts of making my engine cross-platform)
If you want to release it on Mac or Linux, then yes, you'll have to port it. Otherwise, there's no reason to do that work.


But my real worry is, that when going to high school/university, I've read that they use OpenGL, so will I have to relearn it all?
This shouldn't really be a problem. Once you've learnt one graphics API, it's very easy to learn others.

I don't even worry about it any more... as long as I've got a reference manual for a new API, I can start working with it almost immediately.


PARTNERS