What's difference of direct x and openGL?

Started by
16 comments, last by psjie 20 years, 1 month ago
quote:Original post by _the_phantom_
Like Promit, i''ve always liked that artical myself as well.


As it turns out, Promit has other reasons for liking that article...
SlimDX | Ventspace Blog | Twitter | Diverse teams make better games. I am currently hiring capable C++ engine developers in Baltimore, MD.
Advertisement
One of the pros of Direct3D is its more powerfull and always has the newst features cause microsoft controls it unlike OpenGL wich is standerdised with ISO and requires aproval for chances makeing improvment a big lag.

[edited by - Commander Keen on March 18, 2004 11:02:00 PM]


I'm new to directx and have only seen code from openGL but so far i find directx to be a bit cryptic and am tempted to learn openGL as well

[edited by - Commander Keen on March 18, 2004 11:05:22 PM]
Commander Keen
A big difference between the two is that DirectX is more OOPy than OpenGL. :D
Opengl is a sort of an additional c\c++ library, a collection of varaiables and functions
Most of the functions are selfunderstandig so they are easy to learn and to remember.
direct x is OO , its architecture is intrinsicaly more complicated
On the other hand direct x provide a lot of utilitis thanks also to the d3dx library which make life much easier in the long run
quote: Posted - 18 March 2004 11:01:09 PM
One of the pros of Direct3D is its more powerfull and always has the newst features cause microsoft controls it unlike OpenGL wich is standerdised with ISO and requires aproval for chances makeing improvment a big lag.


Actually vendors can add their own extensions to OpenGL without them being standardised. This does mean that you may end up coding an effect twice, one for NVidia extensions and once for ATI extensions, but the extensions you use may expose functionality not even available in DX yet. The ARB (the board who set the OpenGL standards) do take extensions and make standard interfaces, so you don''t have to code two(or more) code paths if the extention is an ARB one.

And remember for DX to get any extra functionality it has to go up a version (AFAIK) with OpenGL a single vendor can just add whatever new extensions they want.
DirectX is Windows only (well, and XBox) but how much more useful is OpenGL really? How many AAA games do you see wrote not for Windows? Only console games and the official dev kits don''t support OpenGL.

DirectX is probably going to be more useful in the long run but OpenGL is easier to learn at first. Also if you''re jsut starting out you might want to look into the OpenGL extensions such as SDL or GLUT to easy you in gradually but I''d recomend dropping these after you get more familiar with the language and the concept of games programming. There was people I knew in my 3rd year of games programming at university who didn''t and still didn''t know how to create a window without using GLUT.
Hi..hey u said that u dont have any experience in game programming....Before u get into directX or OpenGl, u need to develop skills in any game programming lib, like allegro or ClanLib or SDL ..cuz if u choose directx or opengl in ur first project u r going to hate game programming...its really hard to start right away with DirectX or OpenGl...u need to take this slow....a slow process ..develop skills ...do small things ...when u have done 3 or 4 games ..take another step (little one) and choose DirectX or OpenGL.

bye then
Bruno B
quote:Original post by Spudder
DirectX is a set of game development APIs which cover sound, networking, input and 3D whereas OpenGL is a 3D API only. The second difference is that OpenGL is portable across many platforms whereas DirectX is for Windows only.
The thread should have ended here. See the Forum FAQ.

FAQ: Closed. (Before people start flaming or a "vs" thread.)

This topic is closed to new replies.

Advertisement