Is OpenAL dead?
Author
Can someone tell me if OpenAL still has a future? It doesn't seem to be actively developed anymore. Or so I have the impression.
I've always liked the OpenGL API interface, so it was natural to pick up OpenAL for audio. But I have little positive experience with it. On all of the Creative hardware I tested the OpenAL drivers where broken (broken listener orientation, crackling/popping, doppler not working, inconsistent/unpredictable behavior, some wouldn't even install). I think that's rather sad, since Creative is supposed to be the 'driving force behind OpenAL' (or so their press releases state from time to time).
Personally I don't put any trust in Creative because of their low quality drivers, lack of tech support and immoral business practices (patent trolling, see ID Software and A3D cases) in the past.
The only reason I still use OpenAL is because it does work consistently in software mode and provides the very minimal. But it still lacks basic features like 2d panning. I'm considering dropping AL and moving on to something that is actively developed.
I also believe hardware audio isn't any good anymore these days, software audio seems the way to go. Maybe this is because Creative has a virtual monopoly on the audio accelerator market and killed off all competitors?
Please, I don't want to start a flame war. I'm just interested in opinions, your view on things. I don't intend to bash Creative either, it just seems to be the sad state of things; their stuff just doesn't work, and they're not improving.
[Edited by - remdul on November 19, 2007 11:37:45 AM]
I believe it is, we're using it as our primary library for audio. 1.1 was released a bit ago but not too long. Creative is lacking in their drivers overall. Direct Sound is, I could be wrong here though, being discontinued? I want something that is cross platform and OpenAL fits the bill nicely for now.
It's great to see someone who totally agrees with me about Creative. Unfortunately though it seems like your choice of sound libraries are somewhat limited - there are some good ones that are not free, and some average ones that are free.
If I was starting a new C++ project now and had to pick a sound library, I'd probably choose between IrrKlang and FMOD.
If I was starting a new C++ project now and had to pick a sound library, I'd probably choose between IrrKlang and FMOD.
Author
Yes, IrrKlang seems very promising, but I have yet to try it.
FMOD is very, very good. It is really as good as they say it is. You can literally get it working in less than an hour. The only downside is the license, the only reason I'm not using it.
Just a few days ago this popped up on the nearly deserted OpenAL-dev mailing list:
http://kcat.strangesoft.net/openal.html
"OpenAL Soft" is a software implementation based on the original source from Creative. I hope this will become an actively developed fork.
The only problem is that the spec won't be updated as long as it is in hands of Creative, but one can add extensions. I wouldn't be surprised if extensions covering EAX/EFX will be added eventually as well, if this thing is picked up by the masses.
I would wonder if Creative would patent-troll against a fork.
FMOD is very, very good. It is really as good as they say it is. You can literally get it working in less than an hour. The only downside is the license, the only reason I'm not using it.
Just a few days ago this popped up on the nearly deserted OpenAL-dev mailing list:
http://kcat.strangesoft.net/openal.html
"OpenAL Soft" is a software implementation based on the original source from Creative. I hope this will become an actively developed fork.
The only problem is that the spec won't be updated as long as it is in hands of Creative, but one can add extensions. I wouldn't be surprised if extensions covering EAX/EFX will be added eventually as well, if this thing is picked up by the masses.
I would wonder if Creative would patent-troll against a fork.
I have used Audiere and I love it. In my previous project I basically kicked out fmod and completely replaced it with Audiere after it turned out that Audiere got the job done, provided a much nicer API and was free.
Only later did I discover that Audiere's developer had created the library because he didn't like the hacky fmod C API :)
One word of warning, though: Audiere is still lacking in some places. It's not as tightly optimized as fmod and it has very limited support for 3D audio. It was the perfect match for me, but depending on what features you need and on whether you can accept a C API with void pointers, you might want to stay with fmod.
-Markus-
Only later did I discover that Audiere's developer had created the library because he didn't like the hacky fmod C API :)
One word of warning, though: Audiere is still lacking in some places. It's not as tightly optimized as fmod and it has very limited support for 3D audio. It was the perfect match for me, but depending on what features you need and on whether you can accept a C API with void pointers, you might want to stay with fmod.
-Markus-
Is there actually any Audiere documentation online? I don't just mean a list of namespaces and classes, I mean actual examples of how you use it. That's why I've never bothered with it.
The thing that made me stop even thinking of using OpenAL was that its new license, in 1.1, not only is a full plate of b***, since it literally kills any project you may have, but also you dont even get the right to distribute your programs.
Keeping it short, the license said the following:
* You cant distribute binaries of OpenAL
* You must support only Creative cards
* You must contact a distributer from Creative to distribute your program
* You cant modify OpenAL except for the source of the examples included
* You cant even write an engine that supports OpenAL and license it, they wont accept that
At least that's what i read the last time i was there, and its still the same.
Link
Note: The link points to the OpenAL 1.1 SDK, but it wont start the download unless you accept the license.
So you can see why i also dislike Creative, since they're starting to become yet another developer-unfriendly company lately...
Its sad to see the great ones fall like this.
Keeping it short, the license said the following:
* You cant distribute binaries of OpenAL
* You must support only Creative cards
* You must contact a distributer from Creative to distribute your program
* You cant modify OpenAL except for the source of the examples included
* You cant even write an engine that supports OpenAL and license it, they wont accept that
At least that's what i read the last time i was there, and its still the same.
Link
Note: The link points to the OpenAL 1.1 SDK, but it wont start the download unless you accept the license.
So you can see why i also dislike Creative, since they're starting to become yet another developer-unfriendly company lately...
Its sad to see the great ones fall like this.
nuno_silva_pt: Isn't that license for OpenAL SDK? I mean all of your points against OpenAL applies to SDK of OpenAL, not redistributable. Redistributable has much more better license which can be read on installer screen of redistributable.
Quote:Original post by nuno_silva_pt
Keeping it short, the license said the following:
* You cant distribute binaries of OpenAL
* You must support only Creative cards
* You must contact a distributer from Creative to distribute your program
* You cant modify OpenAL except for the source of the examples included
* You cant even write an engine that supports OpenAL and license it, they wont accept that
At least that's what i read the last time i was there, and its still the same.
I believe that only applies to the SDK packaged by Creative, if you compile your own from source, none of that applies, I am even uncertain as to whether it is legal for them to impose those restrictions regardless of how much code they actually contributed.
Related Question: why is it supposed to be version 1.1.0 but the source labels it as 0.0.8?
This topic is closed to new replies.
Advertisement
Popular Topics
Advertisement
