Jump to content
  • Advertisement
Sign in to follow this  
Hodge

OpenGL OpenGL to lose the battle against direct 10

This topic is 4640 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 personally prefer OpenGL over Direct3d. One of the biggest benefits of OpenGL is that it is open sourced where DirectX is commercial. Both are consided required for serious graphic programmer but it seems to me that OpenGL is losing favor with developers. In the past(DirectX 5 era) OpenGL was considered more powerful that DirectX however it seems that alot of developers think that this isn't the case. I have read alot of postings that state that OpenGL will lose it's current support from graphics and game developers when DirectX 10 comes. I personnally refuse to think that OpenGL will lose over Direct even if there are more books and more people that support it OpenGL will always be open source.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Advertisement
opengl is a specification, i think

AFAIK, opengl isnt "open source". however, i believe there are open source implementations of it, but the one im thinking of (mesa?) is a software renderer.

however, i generally found it easy to learn opengl, where as the insane amount of setting up and handles that need to be learned put my off directx.

the major benefit of opengl is that it is cross platform, asar as im concerned.

the other issue is directx is a graphics/network/input/otherstuff api, while opengl is a grahpics api.

they aren't directly comparable.

but SDL/openGL i find easier on the head. my 2 cents

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I will surely not "abandon" OpenGL to use Direct3D 10, since OpenGL is the only alternative (more or less) for multi-platform programming. And I'm pretty sure most game developers will keep supporting OpenGL.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think OpenGL still has a lot of life in it. For purely Windows-based games, you'll likely see a big shift to DirectX 10 simply due to the native support in Windows Vista and (at least from Microsoft) a lack of support for OpenGL.

Of course, that won't have a huge impact (MS not supporting OpenGL) because ATI/NVIDIA will (likely) continue to support it, thus users will have the necessary support available. As well, developers could always distribute the necessary support with their game (in the same way they do DX right now).

And don't forget, the PlayStation3 is based on OpenGL (or, rather, OpenGLES, or what they call PSGL). So game developers will certainly not be leaving OpenGL anytime soon. If anything, you'll likely see a resurgence in OpenGL now that a very close cousin/stepbrother is on the PS3.

That being said, I personally like DirectX *overall* in comparison to OpenGL, primarily due to the incredible amount of support provided by Microsoft. Purely at the API level, though, OpenGL is often "quicker" to get going and experiment with. As a result, most throw-away temporary renderers I've seen are implemented in OpenGL.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In any well designed engine, toggling between D3D and OGL (at least right now) is a trivial proposition. Sure it might require some QA, but the basic port is quick.

Now, with D3D 10, OpenGL/ARB will have to tack on some kludges...excuse me, approve some extensions quickly in order to come up to snuff, or they will have serious problems. OpenGL is no longer driving innovation, as it was for several years. They're playing a pure catch-up game now, and if they mess it up, they'll be relegated to the sidelines (i.e. alternate OSes).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
All things considered, OpenGL already is "relegated to the sidelines." There's no real compelling reason to use OGL if all your developing for is Windows, and since that's 99%-ish of the PC game market very few developers are going to do ports anyways. For someone in it purely for commerical reasons, DirectX is definately more attractive.

That said, like Promit mentioned: What API an engine runs on is pretty insignificant anymore. A well designed engine should be able to port from one to the other in a negligable amount of time. The days are gone where an engine would be pitched as "DirectX based" or "OpenGL based". It's all about the feature set and the tools now.

OpenGL is never going to "die": there are too many modeling apps and the like that use it, and too many older games that need it. The card manufacturers will continue to support it, regaurdless of how badly MS neglects it, and it will continue to be used for ports and various consoles. By and large, though, DirectX is the standard now, and that's the way it looks to stay for a long time.

(Note: I develop primarily using OpenGL, so don't take me to be a DirectX fanboy or anything. I'm just stating the facts.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ah, the "OpenGL is going to diieee!!!11" post of the week. It was already overdue.

*sigh*

Anyway. Will OpenGL lose the "battle" against DX10 ? Nope, it won't. Let's look at some facts, shall we ? First, an API doesn't "drive innovation" anymore, these times are long over. The hardware vendors drive innovation, no, they push it at all price. Both major APIs just try to keep up with it.

And MS has an impressive track record of completely failing at this "catch the new GPU feature" game. The DX9 instancing fiasco is a perfect example where hardware vendors started rebelling against MS's API policies, by even technically circumventing it. MS learned their lesson (well, partially at least), and made DX10 broader in feature context than what has been done before.

OpenGL doesn't work this way, because it uses a different release model. OpenGL evolves continously, while D3D does it in jumps. It has always been the same: DX is a step ahead of OpenGL when a new version is released. Then after some time both are on par again. And finally, OpenGL gets the lead because new GPU features get released as GL extensions. Repeat the cycle for the next version.

So yeah, DX10 has features current OpenGL implementations don't have. So what ? OpenGL will get them as soon as the demand is there. And just wait until GPUs have surpassed DX10 features. Then OGL will lead again, until DX11. And so on. It's just the way both update models work.

Quote:

There's no real compelling reason to use OGL if all your developing for is Windows,

And there is no real compelling reason not to use it.

Quote:

and since that's 99%-ish of the PC game market very few developers are going to do ports anyways. For someone in it purely for commerical reasons, DirectX is definately more attractive.

How so ?

In fact, it's more a question about the graphics framework game companies license from third parties. Most companies won't give a shit about whether the engine they buy is D3D or OGL, as long as it's cutting edge and not too expensive. The reason why currently more 3D engines in the game sector use D3D is historical (well, around 2, 3 years ago). Theoretically, this could change again at any time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Some misunderstanding people got from my original post, and it's entirely my fault for just putting in another attention getting & poorly written OpenGL post. Here is one post by the mod Yann L that shows how I screwed up my argument for OpenGL losing popularity.

Quote:

Ah, teh "OpenGL is going to diieee!!!11" post of the week. It was already overdue.

*sigh*



Well I never did say that OpenGL was going to "diieeee!!11" what I was trying to get at is how alot of developers are using Direct3d where openGL would work better. Take Carmack for instance he was a long term OpenGL guy and on the latest Doom installment he worked with DirectX 8 stating that DX8 at the time had the best pixel shader support and the best vertex shader support.

Perhaps I am just overeacting to Microsoft's success with Direct. But I wish that more individuals would avoid DirectX just because Microsoft is a 10 ton corperation with a "mostly" bad rep.

Also on a side note I also f**ked up by stating that OpenGL is open source, Opengl by itself isn't, I should have said it is the current industry standard. I was actually thinking about mesa which is an open source implementation of the OpenGL. I also forgot to state that opengl is cross-platform and that too many computer users are trapped in to using windows when they have other options. BTW sorry about my piss poor writtening style and all my english errors.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote:
Original post by Hodge
Some misunderstanding people got from my original post, and it's entirely my fault for just putting in another attention getting & poorly written OpenGL post. Here is one post by the mod Yann L that shows how I screwed up my argument for OpenGL losing popularity.

I wasn't specifically referring to your post. This is yet another standard D3D versus OGL thread. Whatever the exact way of starting it might be, it will always end in the same way, trust me on that. People always use the same fallacious arguments, ignore facts, and twist reality to fit with whatever API they might prefer. Again, this is not targeted at you in particular, it's just a typical property of such threads: objectivity dies first.

Quote:

Well I never did say that OpenGL was going to "diieeee!!11" what I was trying to get at is how alot of developers are using Direct3d where openGL would work better. Take Carmack for instance he was a long term OpenGL guy and on the latest Doom installment he worked with DirectX 8 stating that DX8 at the time had the best pixel shader support and the best vertex shader support.

Doom 3 uses OpenGL, except for the XBox version (obviously).

Quote:

Perhaps I am just overeacting to Microsoft's success with Direct. But I wish that more individuals would avoid DirectX just because Microsoft is a 10 ton corperation with a "mostly" bad rep.

And that is supposed to be a valid reason to avoid it ? Select an API based on objective technical assessments. Select it based on your personal preference for its semantics. Select it based on driver, OS or platform support. But avoiding an API because it is done by "the big evil M$" is just stupid. No offense intended, but I smell zealotry from miles around.

Quote:

I also forgot to state that opengl is cross-platform and that too many computer users are trapped in to using windows when they have other options.

Windows is the industry standard on consumer level platforms right now. Deal with it. As an indie developer, you have the choice: use Windows or Linux, use D3D or OGL. Use what you prefer, or what might be better suited to your particular needs. Choice is always good.

But if you are a large scale game development studio, your priority is not to bring down Windows or D3D and introduce the next OS revolution. Your priority is to get the game done on schedule, to reduce costs, and to make shareholders and/or publishers happy. What API is used to do that is completely irrelevant. More often than not, the techies (who might be able to judge the pros and contras of an API) are not even involved in the selection process. The purchasing and finance department will choose whatever engine seems to be most suited in terms of minimizing investment and a fast ROI.

In the industry, there are no OGL versus D3D arguments. The question doesn't even exist. It's all about the bottom line. Create a groundbreaking new OpenGL based 3D engine that sells cheaper than existing engines, and suddendly everybody will use OpenGL. Do the same with D3D, and the balance tips into the other direction again. Right now, it's the latter. Tomorrow, everything can change again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

  • Advertisement
  • Advertisement
  • Popular Tags

  • Similar Content

    • By plz717
      Hello, everyone! I hope my problem isn't too 'beginnerish'. I'm doing research on motion synthesis now, trying to implement the Deep Mimic paper (DeepMimic) by BINPENG XUE, in this paper, I need to first retarget character A's motion to another character B to make the reference motion clips for character B, since we don't have character B‘s reference motion. The most important thing is that in the paper, the author copied character A's joint's rotation with respective to joint's local coordinate system (not the parent) to character B. In my personal understanding, the joint's rotation with respective to joint's local coordinate system is something like that in the attached photo, where for the Elbow joint, i need to get the Elbow's rotation in the elbow's local coordinate system (i'm very grateful for you to share your ideas if i have misunderstanding about it 🙂)
      I have searched many materials on the internet about how to extract the local joint's information from FBX, the most relative one i found is the pivot rotation( and geometric transformation, object offset transformation). I'm a beginner in computer graphics, and i'm confused about whether the pivot rotation( or geometric transformation, object offset transformation) is exactly the joint's local rotation i'm seeking? I hope someone that have any ideas can help me, I'd be very grateful for any pointers in the right direction. Thanks in advance! 

    • By nOoNEE
      hello guys , i have some questions  what does glLinkProgram  and  glBindAttribLocation do?  i searched but there wasnt any good resource 
    • By owenjr
      Hi, I'm a Multimedia Engineering student. I am about to finish my dergree and I'm already thinking about what topic to cover in my final college project.
      I'm interested in the procedural animation with c++ and OpenGL of creatures, something like a spider for example. Can someone tell me what are the issues I should investigate to carry it out? I understand that it has some dependence on artificial intelligence but I do not know to what extent. Can someone help me to find information about it? Thank you very much.
       
      Examples: 
      - Procedural multi-legged walking animation
      - Procedural Locomotion of Multi-Legged Characters in Dynamic Environments
    • By Lewa
      So, i'm still on my quest to unterstanding the intricacies of HDR and implementing this into my engine. Currently i'm at the step to implementing tonemapping. I stumbled upon this blogposts:
      http://filmicworlds.com/blog/filmic-tonemapping-operators/
      http://frictionalgames.blogspot.com/2012/09/tech-feature-hdr-lightning.html
      and tried to implement some of those mentioned tonemapping methods into my postprocessing shader.
      The issue is that none of them creates the same results as shown in the blogpost which definitely has to do with the initial range in which the values are stored in the HDR buffer. For simplicity sake i store the values between 0 and 1 in the HDR buffer (ambient light is 0.3, directional light is 0.7)
      This is the tonemapping code:
      vec3 Uncharted2Tonemap(vec3 x) { float A = 0.15; float B = 0.50; float C = 0.10; float D = 0.20; float E = 0.02; float F = 0.30; return ((x*(A*x+C*B)+D*E)/(x*(A*x+B)+D*F))-E/F; } This is without the uncharted tonemapping:
      This is with the uncharted tonemapping:
      Which makes the image a lot darker.
      The shader code looks like this:
      void main() { vec3 color = texture2D(texture_diffuse, vTexcoord).rgb; color = Uncharted2Tonemap(color); //gamma correction (use only if not done in tonemapping code) color = gammaCorrection(color); outputF = vec4(color,1.0f); } Now, from my understanding is that tonemapping should bring the range down from HDR to 0-1.
      But the output of the tonemapping function heavily depends on the initial range of the values in the HDR buffer. (You can't expect to set the sun intensity the first time to 10 and the second time to 1000 and excpect the same result if you feed that into the tonemapper.) So i suppose that this also depends on the exposure which i have to implement?
      To check this i plotted the tonemapping curve:
      You can see that the curve goes only up to around to a value of 0.21 (while being fed a value of 1) and then basically flattens out. (which would explain why the image got darker.)
       
      My guestion is: In what range should the values in the HDR buffer be which then get tonemapped? Do i have to bring them down to a range of 0-1 by multiplying with the exposure?
      For example, if i increase the values of the light by 10 (directional light would be 7 and ambient light 3) then i would need to divide HDR values by 10 in order to get a value range of 0-1 which then could be fed into the tonemapping curve. Is that correct?
    • By nOoNEE
      i am reading this book : link
      in the OpenGL Rendering Pipeline section there is a picture like this: link
      but the question is this i dont really understand why it is necessary to turn pixel data in to fragment and then fragment into pixel could please give me a source or a clear Explanation that why it is necessary ? thank you so mu
       
       
    • By Inbar_xz
      I'm using the OPENGL with eclipse+JOGL.
      My goal is to create movement of the camera and the player.
      I create main class, which create some box in 3D and hold 
      an object of PlayerAxis.
      I create PlayerAxis class which hold the axis of the player.
      If we want to move the camera, then in the main class I call to 
      the func "cameraMove"(from PlayerAxis) and it update the player axis.
      That's work good.
      The problem start if I move the camera on 2 axis, 
      for example if I move with the camera right(that's on the y axis)
      and then down(on the x axis) -
      in some point the move front is not to the front anymore..
      In order to move to the front, I do
      player.playerMoving(0, 0, 1);
      And I learn that in order to keep the front move, 
      I need to convert (0, 0, 1) to the player axis, and then add this.
      I think I dont do the convert right.. 
      I will be glad for help!

      Here is part of my PlayerAxis class:
       
      //player coordinate float x[] = new float[3]; float y[] = new float[3]; float z[] = new float[3]; public PlayerAxis(float move_step, float angle_move) { x[0] = 1; y[1] = 1; z[2] = -1; step = move_step; angle = angle_move; setTransMatrix(); } public void cameraMoving(float angle_step, String axis) { float[] new_x = x; float[] new_y = y; float[] new_z = z; float alfa = angle_step * angle; switch(axis) { case "x": new_z = addVectors(multScalar(z, COS(alfa)), multScalar(y, SIN(alfa))); new_y = subVectors(multScalar(y, COS(alfa)), multScalar(z, SIN(alfa))); break; case "y": new_x = addVectors(multScalar(x, COS(alfa)), multScalar(z, SIN(alfa))); new_z = subVectors(multScalar(z, COS(alfa)), multScalar(x, SIN(alfa))); break; case "z": new_x = addVectors(multScalar(x, COS(alfa)), multScalar(y, SIN(alfa))); new_y = subVectors(multScalar(y, COS(alfa)), multScalar(x, SIN(alfa))); } x = new_x; y = new_y; z = new_z; normalization(); } public void playerMoving(float x_move, float y_move, float z_move) { float[] move = new float[3]; move[0] = x_move; move[1] = y_move; move[2] = z_move; setTransMatrix(); float[] trans_move = transVector(move); position[0] = position[0] + step*trans_move[0]; position[1] = position[1] + step*trans_move[1]; position[2] = position[2] + step*trans_move[2]; } public void setTransMatrix() { for (int i = 0; i < 3; i++) { coordiTrans[0][i] = x[i]; coordiTrans[1][i] = y[i]; coordiTrans[2][i] = z[i]; } } public float[] transVector(float[] v) { return multiplyMatrixInVector(coordiTrans, v); }  
      and in the main class i have this:
       
      public void keyPressed(KeyEvent e) { if (e.getKeyCode()== KeyEvent.VK_ESCAPE) { System.exit(0); //player move } else if (e.getKeyCode()== KeyEvent.VK_W) { //front //moveAmount[2] += -0.1f; player.playerMoving(0, 0, 1); } else if (e.getKeyCode()== KeyEvent.VK_S) { //back //moveAmount[2] += 0.1f; player.playerMoving(0, 0, -1); } else if (e.getKeyCode()== KeyEvent.VK_A) { //left //moveAmount[0] += -0.1f; player.playerMoving(-1, 0, 0); } else if (e.getKeyCode()== KeyEvent.VK_D) { //right //moveAmount[0] += 0.1f; player.playerMoving(1, 0, 0); } else if (e.getKeyCode()== KeyEvent.VK_E) { //moveAmount[0] += 0.1f; player.playerMoving(0, 1, 0); } else if (e.getKeyCode()== KeyEvent.VK_Q) { //moveAmount[0] += 0.1f; player.playerMoving(0, -1, 0); //camera move } else if (e.getKeyCode()== KeyEvent.VK_I) { //up player.cameraMoving(1, "x"); } else if (e.getKeyCode()== KeyEvent.VK_K) { //down player.cameraMoving(-1, "x"); } else if (e.getKeyCode()== KeyEvent.VK_L) { //right player.cameraMoving(-1, "y"); } else if (e.getKeyCode()== KeyEvent.VK_J) { //left player.cameraMoving(1, "y"); } else if (e.getKeyCode()== KeyEvent.VK_O) { //right round player.cameraMoving(-1, "z"); } else if (e.getKeyCode()== KeyEvent.VK_U) { //left round player.cameraMoving(1, "z"); } }  
      finallt found it.... i confused with the transformation matrix row and col. thanks anyway!
    • By Lewa
      So, i'm currently trying to implement an SSAO shader from THIS tutorial and i'm running into a few issues here.
      Now, this SSAO method requires view space positions and normals. I'm storing the normals in my deferred renderer in world-space so i had to do a conversion and reconstruct the position from the depth buffer.
      And something there goes horribly wrong (which has probably to do with worldspace to viewspace transformations).
      (here is the full shader source code if someone wants to take a look at it)
      Now, i suspect that the normals are the culprit.
      vec3 normal = ((uNormalViewMatrix*vec4(normalize(texture2D(sNormals, vTexcoord).rgb),1.0)).xyz); "sNormals" is a 2D texture which stores the normals in world space in a RGB FP16 buffer.
      Now i can't use the camera viewspace matrix to transform the normals into viewspace as the cameras position isn't set at (0,0,0), thus skewing the result.
      So what i did is to create a new viewmatrix specifically for this normal without the position at vec3(0,0,0);
      //"camera" is the camera which was used for rendering the normal buffer renderer.setUniform4m(ressources->shaderSSAO->getUniform("uNormalViewMatrix"), glmExt::createViewMatrix(glm::vec3(0,0,0),camera.getForward(),camera.getUp())//parameters are (position,forwardVector,upVector) ); Though i have the feeling this is the wrong approach. Is this right or is there a better/correct way of transforming a world space normal into viewspace?
    • By HawkDeath
      Hi,
      I'm trying mix two textures using own shader system, but I have a problem (I think) with uniforms.
      Code: https://github.com/HawkDeath/shader/tree/test
      To debug I use RenderDocs, but I did not receive good results. In the first attachment is my result, in the second attachment is what should be.
      PS. I base on this tutorial https://learnopengl.com/Getting-started/Textures.


    • By norman784
      I'm having issues loading textures, as I'm clueless on how to handle / load images maybe I missing something, but the past few days I just google a lot to try to find a solution. Well theres two issues I think, one I'm using Kotlin Native (EAP) and OpenGL wrapper / STB image, so I'm not quite sure wheres the issue, if someone with more experience could give me some hints on how to solve this issue?
      The code is here, if I'm not mistaken the workflow is pretty straight forward, stbi_load returns the pixels of the image (as char array or byte array) and you need to pass those pixels directly to glTexImage2D, so a I'm missing something here it seems.
      Regards
    • By Hashbrown
      I've noticed in most post processing tutorials several shaders are used one after another: one for bloom, another for contrast, and so on. For example: 
      postprocessing.quad.bind() // Effect 1 effect1.shader.bind(); postprocessing.texture.bind(); postprocessing.quad.draw(); postprocessing.texture.unbind(); effect1.shader.unbind(); // Effect 2 effect2.shader.bind(); // ...and so on postprocessing.quad.unbind() Is this good practice, how many shaders can I bind and unbind before I hit performance issues? I'm afraid I don't know what the good practices are in open/webGL regarding binding and unbinding resources. 
      I'm guessing binding many shaders at post processing is okay since the scene has already been updated and I'm just working on a quad and texture at that moment. Or is it more optimal to put shader code in chunks and bind less frequently? I'd love to use several shaders at post though. 
      Another example of what I'm doing at the moment:
      1) Loop through GameObjects, bind its phong shader (send color, shadow, spec, normal samplers), unbind all.
      2) At post: bind post processor quad, and loop/bind through different shader effects, and so on ...
      Thanks all! 
  • Advertisement
  • Popular Now

  • Forum Statistics

    • Total Topics
      631395
    • Total Posts
      2999780
×

Important Information

By using GameDev.net, you agree to our community Guidelines, Terms of Use, and Privacy Policy.

Participate in the game development conversation and more when you create an account on GameDev.net!

Sign me up!