Jump to content
  • Advertisement

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

-TheDragon

OpenGL OpenGL 1.3, 2.0 & DirectX 9

This topic is 6633 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

Advertisement
Furby my good fellow,
Take a chill pill, grow a sense of humor and call me in the morning. Dude, I love hungarian notation, but in DirectX they''ve taken things a bit too far with it. I know hungarian notation has nothing to do with COM you dolt. I realize I could make my device object global, but geez, if I made everything gobal that I had to pass around wouldn''t that defeat my OOP? DirectX has some great features, but frankly they''re implimentation blows. I''ll take OpenGL''s lovely global state machine anyday =)
Furthermore, I think you need to take DirectX complaints a little less personally. Everytime someone says anything negative about the API you come out with guns a blazin, it''s nothing personal and we all know that neither API is perfect, just relax a bit my friend! And about me not knowing anything about COM, I love how you can konw everything about me from one post, simply amazing how you do that. DirectX would be much better if they implemented it in more of a state machine style like OpenGL, COM is just getting in the way of a potentially great API.

~S''Greth

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I find it odd you tell me to:
quote:

grow a sense of humor


and say:
quote:

I love how you can konw everything about me from one post, simply amazing how you do that


You are correct that I did say a few things that I wasn''t entirely sure about, but you are capable of being wrong as well. Simply because you do not understand how something (ie the sense of humour) works doesn''t mean it doesn''t exist or is stupid.

You also seem to have applied this to your other post. When someone says that they like the COM-ness of DirectX, you say:
quote:

Are you on crack?


Which _seems_ to imply (please correct me if I''m wrong) that you think that if someone likes the COM construction of DirectX they must be beyond logical thought and reasoning, and will ''come to their senses'' eventually to prefer the OpenGL way. But I''m afraid it doesn''t work as simply as that. Just because you don''t like something, or don''t understand something does not mean that you would have to be mad or stupid to like it. Please try to understand other people''s viewpoints.

You may respond telling me that you are not like this in general, but this is the behaviour that you have exhibited in your past two posts, and I conclude, not unreasonably, from that that you tend to act like this in general.



Just because you''re outnumbered doesn''t mean you''re wrong.


sharewaregames.20m.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Before this gets ugly, I want to interject a few things to get this back on topic.

First off, I don''t know anything about the status of the next release of OpenGL. And to the best of my knowledge, although there are hardware implementations of OpenGL 1.2 available for Windows from the various vendors, Microsoft has not yet released a generic OpenGL 1.2 implementation, which was supposed to be included with Win2K.

About whether or not DX9 will compare to OpenGL... IMO, DX8 already beats OpenGL in terms of functionality. Ease of use is comparable now as well, especially when you get past doing trivial things.

In the same vein, the market won''t shift in favor of DX with DX9, it''s already shifted. Direct3D (now DirectX Graphics) has been more widely supported and used in PC games for several years now. OpenGL still has a lead in many non-game applications, and DirectX really isn''t in competition there.

Finally, as far as Microsoft stealing ideas from OpenGL:

  • As has been pointed out, they are on the ARB, and have been since the beginning. If the rest of the ARB really thinks they are just stealing ideas, why not oust them?
  • Hello, it''s called "Open"GL for a reason.
  • Why would the DirectX developers have to steal anything? I''ve talked to many members of the DX team, and most of them are brilliant, and very in touch with what people want. They meet regularly with hardware vendors and game developers to see what people want.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Furby, while I have enjoyed the personal attacks, I can argue with my officemates if I want to pick a fight on personality, interpret my words as you may....anyway...and now for something completely different...

Myopic Rhino, what makes you think that DX has already surpassed OpenGL in functionality? I''m still in the belief that both API''s are quite equal in functionality. If someone who is an authority on the subject can convince me otherwise I''d be more than willing to stop supporting the API which has lesser functionality, but since they seem to be so ''neck n'' neck'' it just seems logical to me to both learn, code, and support both API''s in a game. If you wouldn''t mind, could you please elaborate on this statement.
-----------------
About whether or not DX9 will compare to OpenGL... IMO, DX8 already beats OpenGL in terms of functionality.
------------------

Thanks,
S''Greth

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Re: sound with OpenGL... I have used FMOD and now use BASS. From what I''ve heard OpenAL is not that stable on many configurations; but I haven''t tried it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Perhaps stealing is too harsh of a word but delaying the release of the 1.2 until some undetermined time after dx8 is stealing in my book. How long has 1.2 been out for SGI? MS could have released it a long time ago if they wanted to. They have access to all the ideas from other companies on the ARB which they can then implement in a new version of dx. It is sandbagging at its worst. If they don''t believe in OpenGL then they need to get off the ARB. I know ms has all sort of very smart people, I have read a bunch of Hoppes(sp) papers on polygon reduction, but they are not in charge.

The fanatic is incorruptible: if he kills for an idea, he can just as well get himself killed for one; in either case, tyrant or martyr, he is a monster.
--EM Cioran

Opere Citato

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
>>I''ve been reading about OpenGL quite extensivley latley, and I''ve liked what I''ve been reading. I''ve heard OpenGL 1.3 (or 2.0, as some call it) is either in development or ready for release<<
i havent heard anything about this, though there are another couple of big developments going on with opengl at the moment.
btw would would u like opengl1.3 to contain. personally i cant think of too many things that ild like to add to the 1.2 spec

COM whats this i hear about kde getting into the act arrghh. personally COM is great though ive gotta say it is an idea that doesnt really live up to its promise.

heres what i use
sound - used to use directsound (dropped it in support for openal)
input - directinput (on windows)
network - hawknl

>>IMO, DX8 already beats OpenGL in terms of functionality.<<

its good that u said IMO but im curious can u name one thing that d3d can do that opengl can''t

>>Ease of use is comparable now as well, especially when you get past doing trivial things.<<

this is purely personal taste



http://members.xoom.com/myBollux

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
quote:
Original post by zedzeek

its good that u said IMO but im curious can u name one thing that d3d can do that opengl can''t




I can name more than one, but rather than getting into that, let me just refer you to a feature comparison done by someone else: http://www.xmission.com/~legalize/d3d-vs-opengl.html

You''ll see from the list that there are very few things OpenGL can do that DXG cannot, and most of those things are arguably not very useful in games. On the other hand, there are quite a few things that DXG can do that OpenGL can''t that are useful in games.

Btw, I''m personally a big OpenGL fan (I''m coauthoring a book about it, after all), and I still prefer using it over DXG, but OpenGL evolution really needs to accelerate to remain viable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Myopic Rhino, that chart is very misleading. It is only comparing the core features of OpenGL and ignores what I consider one of the biggest strengths of the OpenGL platform - extensions. Every hardware vendor is able to implement their own extensions to the standard to support any other capabilities on their hardware, without having to rely on anyone to approve it.
Currently, when a hardware vendor wishes to add new DX functionality to their hardware, they have to tell MS what they want to do and hope Microsoft eventually integrates it into DX. In the meantime, the functionality is useless even if the hardware exists. This occured with a fair amount of the Radeon''s advanced features. Developers must wait for Microsoft to release a new version of DX before they can use these new features which means they often go unused for a long period of time (look at T&L, Nvidia''s registers, or Radeon''s 3rd texture unit).
On the other hand, using OpenGL extensions, the driver writers can add this additional functionality immediately and developers can start taking advantage of it right away. And if multiple hardware vendors create similar extensions, the ARB standardizes them into an ARB extension so you don''t have to worry about supporting different interfaces for the same features.
So overall, OpenGL with extensions does *everything* DirectX can do and always will, so long as the driver writers wish to support it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Advertisement
×

Important Information

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

GameDev.net is your game development community. Create an account for your GameDev Portfolio and participate in the largest developer community in the games industry.

Sign me up!