Sign in to follow this  

Worries...

This topic is 4777 days old which is more than the 365 day threshold we allow for new replies. Please post a new topic.

If you intended to correct an error in the post then please contact us.

Recommended Posts

I started a MSc this year and we learn OGL even if I knew it. However I am concerned. I realize that OGL 2 has been finalised but I see DX being used more and more. Please I dont have a problem with DX. Anyone that accuses DX because it from MS ONLY then should read again. I just worry whether OGL can compete in the game market anymore. I use OGL and C for my projects. i am satisfied. But DX nad now MDX makes me worry for my decision. My other two questions are: 1) Can we support the idea that OGL is easier to learn than Managed DX? 2) DX has support for UI interface construction does OGL has the same feature? As far as I know it doesnt. Where can I find something like this for OGL?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
yeah, well openGL will probably last longer than any of us... remember... it still is THE de-facto API for workstation programs and such... the word im looking for escapes me at the moment though... :-/

anywho... no openGL does not have any UI creation built in... but i dunno if id want that... if i wanted a game maker... id go grab one... but i want to program so i use an actual API...
and on the specific case of a UI... creating a simple UI system in openGL is a weekend project, depending on how simple, maybe a few hours...

dont sweat it... openGL is gonna be around for a while... and im willing to bet ittl keep hardware developer support as long as its around

-Dan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Anonymous Poster
Sigh, we get one of these threads at least once a week. To make it short:

Yes, OpenGL can compete. Even more than "just compete", in some aspects it is far superior to DX.

No, OpenGL is not going to die, fade away, or whatever else anytime soon.

Yes, OpenGL is being actively maintained and developed, even more since MS got kicked out of the ARB.

Yes, OpenGL is the defacto standard in the professional CAD world (architecture, engineering, military, avionics, research, ...), and it will stay that way. DX is pretty much games only.

Yes, OpenGL will be continued to be used by AAA games, and engine licensees (for example everything released by ID).

No, OpenGL is not easier to learn than DX. Both do just the same thing, with different semantic approaches to the interface. If you know one, you know them all.

Yes, you can jump from OpenGL to D3D and from D3D to OpenGL in no time. If you have lots of experience with any of them, learning the other one will take something like a week or two.

Can we close this thread now ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Agreeing with the AP.

The most important thing when new to things like this, do not get caught up in the whole "which is the best API" war.. it's redicioulus.
Learn the concepts, and apply them through whichever API you chose (or is chosen for you)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DX had better shader support early on (in OGL, you had to dload custom extentions), and I believe that is why DX seems to be ahead right now. With OGL2, the shader language has been standarized (no more extentions!), so OGL use should pick up again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OpenGL doesn't have the .FX standard or DXSAS.
OpenGL doesn't allow you to re-attach depth buffers to different render targets.
OpenGL doesn't allow you to use the same rendering context for different render target formats.
Advanced OpenGL will crash on 10% of all new machines (S3, SiS, and similar graphics chips)


DirectX doesn't have quads.
DirectX doesn't allow you to easily read the depth buffer.
DirectX only runs on Windows and derivatives.


If you understand hardware-accelerated computer graphics, using either API isn't that different from the other; you should familiarize yourself with both. Learning the API isn't the hard part; learning the basics (geometry, algebra, transformation and pipeline operation) as well as a sense of how to accomplish specific goals is much more important -- and is mostly the same on both APIs.


@Ademan555: GLSL does not have a standard annotation semantic, nor a standard meta-format to describe multiple passes, material semantics, switch between techniques based on card capability, nor the ability to configure specific render states. GLSL is, in functionality, a significant subset of .FX.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This "Opengl vs DirectX" has been done a million times, and it's pointless. First of all, OpenGL does rendering only, so it can't be compared to DX, but to D3D. And no, it won't go anywhere, it's the industry standard, DX is used only for games in windows, and that's that. OGL is low-level and doesn't do some things like loading model formats and FX files, it's up to the programmer to do those. If you're a good programmer, it doesn't matter what API you'll use, they have both the same capabilities.

I prefer OpenGL because I don't like COM, but that's just me. I prefer the procedural structure of OpenGL, but the best practice is to write your engine API-indepedent and then write rendering ports for both OpenGL and D3D.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This topic is 4777 days old which is more than the 365 day threshold we allow for new replies. Please post a new topic.

If you intended to correct an error in the post then please contact us.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this