Sign in to follow this  
giugio

OpenGL opengl

Recommended Posts

Hy. I have some little experience with opengl. But this is my queston: why the professional programmers uses directx for create games ? 1)speed? but vbo is slower than directx? 2)documentation 3)help in vs and in all community book ecc...? 4)integrated shaders vs extensions? why?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Many reasons, the 2 main ones in my opinion being that OpenGL has been left behind constantly in terms of features and is constantly doing catch up to DX (this wasn't always the case) and the fact that ~97% of the PC game market runs Windows, so portability is really not an issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There are lots of reasons, but as with any choice of technology (e.g. Windows vs Linux, Java vs C#...) you're going to have to weigh up the factors important to you and decide based on that.

In addition to Kwizatz's points, the one key advantage D3D seems to have is its ease of use. The programming model (mostly true for v9, definitely true for v10/11) is incredibly clean by comparison - quite simply, its easier to write code against. Secondly, the tools, samples, documentation, support (from MS, IHV's, community..) are generally more plentiful and complete.

For me personally, and obviously I have a bias, being able to cleanly, uniformly and concisely express my graphics application is a huge win. I've done some OpenGL coding and I found it a chaotic and messy experience - I spent as much time fighting the API/technology as I did solving my problem, which is simply not good enough in this day and age.

When there isn't a clear winner on features (yes, D3D has a slight edge but you can argue via extensions), performance and X-Platform isn't a motivator then simple ease of use and speed of development will reign king.


hth
Jack

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote:
I've done some OpenGL coding and I found it a chaotic and messy experience

My experience is quite the opposite as I found directx messy and chaotic. I'm sure that is just because I'm used to opengl. If I started using directx I'm sure I would get used to that too.

I guess it just depends on what you are comfortable in using.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I must agree, our proprietary Graphics Engine at work was built in DX9 and whenever I look at the source code it is a complete mess, however when I look at my own OpenGL code it looks much neater (probably bias).

Also, portability is a key factor, even if you don't think you need it now, you may need in the future, which is the problem we're facing at work where we may want to start shipping our software on Linux machines.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote:
Original post by AndyEsser
Also, portability is a key factor, even if you don't think you need it now, you may need in the future, which is the problem we're facing at work where we may want to start shipping our software on Linux machines.
If portability is a big factor, then you need to support multiple rendering backends, at which point OpenGL and D3D are just a few out of many.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote:
Original post by swiftcoder
Quote:
Original post by AndyEsser
Also, portability is a key factor, even if you don't think you need it now, you may need in the future, which is the problem we're facing at work where we may want to start shipping our software on Linux machines.
If portability is a big factor, then you need to support multiple rendering backends, at which point OpenGL and D3D are just a few out of many.


There is no reasn for having a OGL and DirectX both inside of an engine. They both do the same exact thing. and will render the same. the only thing difference is having opengl or directx rendering it. So creating a game for portability means just use opengl, and not need to have both because that basically is just adding more bloat to the engine instead of adding more functionality and a complete waste of time. But thats just my opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote:
Original post by xZekex
There is no reasn for having a OGL and DirectX both inside of an engine. They both do the same exact thing. and will render the same. the only thing difference is having opengl or directx rendering it. So creating a game for portability means just use opengl, and not need to have both because that basically is just adding more bloat to the engine instead of adding more functionality and a complete waste of time. But thats just my opinion.


Tell that to the guys at Ogre3d [smile].

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote:
Original post by Kwizatz
Tell that to the guys at Ogre3d [smile].


I think they already know. But isn't those just plugins? But like on professional games. who's going to really care if its has directX or Opengl based except for all the fanboys.

But iirc on OGRE, you can either support one or the other.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Another factor is how familiar/comfortable you are with COM interfaces, the win32 libraries, and all that jazz. There are subtle differences in D3D that make it seem more win32-ish. As an example, D3D uses specific functions to return state information and does so in (often large) structs. On the other hand OpenGL gives you a few general functions that returns a single state value. If you're already comfortable with Windows programming you probably won't notice the difference too much, but if you aren't it does make a difference.

Subjectively speaking, if you are starting from scratch OpenGL definately feels easier. Just create a new C file, a couple of lines of window/GL initialization code, and you're good to go. At the minimum, you'll only need to link to your windowing library (on top of the c-runtimes of course).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote:
Original post by xZekex
Quote:
Original post by Kwizatz
Tell that to the guys at Ogre3d [smile].


I think they already know. But isn't those just plugins? But like on professional games. who's going to really care if its has directX or Opengl based except for all the fanboys.

But iirc on OGRE, you can either support one or the other.


Especial “professional“ (we cook with the same water too) games use an API abstraction layer as they are developed with consoles in mind. So even if you plan to release on Windows and Mac OSX it is quite common to use Direct3D for Windows and OpenGL for the Mac. The reason for this is that you have no choice on the Mac but on Windows Direct3D is the superior system. This has nothing to do with ease of development as professional developers need to be able to master any API. It’s just the quality of the environment. Direct3D drivers cause less end user trouble then OpenGL drivers as one example.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote:
Original post by Demirug
But iirc on OGRE, you can either support one or the other.


Especial “professional“ (we cook with the same water too) games use an API abstraction layer as they are developed with consoles in mind. So even if you plan to release on Windows and Mac OSX it is quite common to use Direct3D for Windows and OpenGL for the Mac. The reason for this is that you have no choice on the Mac but on Windows Direct3D is the superior system. This has nothing to do with ease of development as professional developers need to be able to master any API. It’s just the quality of the environment. Direct3D drivers cause less end user trouble then OpenGL drivers as one example.[/quote]

That is a biased statement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote:
Original post by KulSeran
You may also note that the PC and XBox are the only real DirectX platforms.
Every other platform (PC, Phones, PSP, PS3/PS2, Wii) has some variant of OpenGL for the graphics backend.


The XBox Direct3D is different from the PC version and I would not call the native PS3 API a OpenGL variant. The OpenGL ES for PS3 doesn’t count as it is not useable for real games.

At the end of the day every platform its own 3D API and you are back to the need of an abstraction layer again.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote:
Original post by xZekex
That is a biased statement.


Biased from the professional game development point.

If OpenGL would work as well as D3D on the PC there would no need for companies like Blizzard to write an additional Direct3D renderer beside of the OpenGL one they do for the Mac.




Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote:
Original post by xZekex
Quote:
The reason for this is that you have no choice on the Mac but on Windows Direct3D is the superior system. This has nothing to do with ease of development as professional developers need to be able to master any API. It’s just the quality of the environment. Direct3D drivers cause less end user trouble then OpenGL drivers as one example.
That is a biased statement.
Biased how? I don't think anyone who has wrestled with OpenGL drivers on Windows will deny that D3D drivers are rock solid by comparison. OpenGL also has this massive problem that you can't detect what level of hardware you are running on, and end up with transparent, performance-killing software fallbacks.

Preferring one API to the other is of course a matter of bias, but it is concrete fact that D3D offers better functionality in at least a few areas, and that the drivers are more reliable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Microsoft have done their part to kill the PC game industry for all non Windows Operating systems. When making games for a PC, portability isn't much of an issue, so DirectX will do that fine for most. CAD programs on the other hand do need to be portable and often end up being written in OpenGL, also, graphics utility programs don't often need the extra functionality that DirectX offers over OpenGL. I've not used OpenGL much at all, I didn't find it better or worse than DirectX, but that being said I stopped using it very quickly and stuck with DirectX, better to learn one and learn it well, than learn half and half of two and have lower quality software for indy devs, hobbiests and people who enjoy graphics programming.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As far as ease of use goes, I'm using D3D10 now for our renderer and I don't like how messy it is. Our OpenGL renderer on the other hand is very clean and straightforward.

Just my opinion, don't kill me please: the problem is that Microsoft's idea of abstraction doesn't make things any more high level or intuitive. I just find the API very far fetched and not intuitive at all.


Why are we supporting D3D in our renderer, you may ask. For Windows, of course. Like the posters above said, Direct3D is just rock solid in Windows.

My view on things:

- DirectX10 is ahead in features
- DirectX10 is superior on windows
- OpenGL is almost on par with DX10 in features but is always 1 step behind unfortunately
- OpenGL has a very simple and straightforward API without any ridiculous, farfetched abstraction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote:
Original post by Demirug
The OpenGL ES for PS3 doesn’t count as it is not useable for real games.


I would have to disagree with that. I'm a programmer on a very real, and very big game, and most other games are using our engine in my company, and the PS3 version of the engine is made in OpenGL ES. It works fine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ok, lets not have this get too heated [smile]

The "cleanliness" of code has come up a few times since I first raised it, but I think my point has been slight misunderstood compared with what I intended. Again, I state my bias and experience toward D3D first. It's the multiple path architecture that I've heard OpenGL developers discuss that I dislike. D3D9 isn't much better here but I do think D3D10 is a big step forwards with the fixed-caps design. The complexity of graphics code was (is?) too high - scaling on performance, on features, on driver stability etc... Again, from hearsay mostly but OpenGL seems to require many more paths if you want to truly utilize the hardware available.


Anyway.

What do people think of the Intel Larrabee and Tim Sweeney's latest comments? A fundamental move back to custom software rendering in the many-core world and the death of the GPU (+OpenGL/D3D style API's), or just noise...?


Jack

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote:
Original post by BenMatlock
Quote:
Original post by Demirug
The OpenGL ES for PS3 doesn’t count as it is not useable for real games.


I would have to disagree with that. I'm a programmer on a very real, and very big game, and most other games are using our engine in my company, and the PS3 version of the engine is made in OpenGL ES. It works fine.


I don’t deny that it works. But it ate way too much performances compared to the native graphics API. If you can live with this limitation its fine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this  

  • Announcements

  • Forum Statistics

    • Total Topics
      628305
    • Total Posts
      2981967
  • Similar Content

    • By mellinoe
      Hi all,
      First time poster here, although I've been reading posts here for quite a while. This place has been invaluable for learning graphics programming -- thanks for a great resource!
      Right now, I'm working on a graphics abstraction layer for .NET which supports D3D11, Vulkan, and OpenGL at the moment. I have implemented most of my planned features already, and things are working well. Some remaining features that I am planning are Compute Shaders, and some flavor of read-write shader resources. At the moment, my shaders can just get simple read-only access to a uniform (or constant) buffer, a texture, or a sampler. Unfortunately, I'm having a tough time grasping the distinctions between all of the different kinds of read-write resources that are available. In D3D alone, there seem to be 5 or 6 different kinds of resources with similar but different characteristics. On top of that, I get the impression that some of them are more or less "obsoleted" by the newer kinds, and don't have much of a place in modern code. There seem to be a few pivots:
      The data source/destination (buffer or texture) Read-write or read-only Structured or unstructured (?) Ordered vs unordered (?) These are just my observations based on a lot of MSDN and OpenGL doc reading. For my library, I'm not interested in exposing every possibility to the user -- just trying to find a good "middle-ground" that can be represented cleanly across API's which is good enough for common scenarios.
      Can anyone give a sort of "overview" of the different options, and perhaps compare/contrast the concepts between Direct3D, OpenGL, and Vulkan? I'd also be very interested in hearing how other folks have abstracted these concepts in their libraries.
    • By aejt
      I recently started getting into graphics programming (2nd try, first try was many years ago) and I'm working on a 3d rendering engine which I hope to be able to make a 3D game with sooner or later. I have plenty of C++ experience, but not a lot when it comes to graphics, and while it's definitely going much better this time, I'm having trouble figuring out how assets are usually handled by engines.
      I'm not having trouble with handling the GPU resources, but more so with how the resources should be defined and used in the system (materials, models, etc).
      This is my plan now, I've implemented most of it except for the XML parts and factories and those are the ones I'm not sure of at all:
      I have these classes:
      For GPU resources:
      Geometry: holds and manages everything needed to render a geometry: VAO, VBO, EBO. Texture: holds and manages a texture which is loaded into the GPU. Shader: holds and manages a shader which is loaded into the GPU. For assets relying on GPU resources:
      Material: holds a shader resource, multiple texture resources, as well as uniform settings. Mesh: holds a geometry and a material. Model: holds multiple meshes, possibly in a tree structure to more easily support skinning later on? For handling GPU resources:
      ResourceCache<T>: T can be any resource loaded into the GPU. It owns these resources and only hands out handles to them on request (currently string identifiers are used when requesting handles, but all resources are stored in a vector and each handle only contains resource's index in that vector) Resource<T>: The handles given out from ResourceCache. The handles are reference counted and to get the underlying resource you simply deference like with pointers (*handle).  
      And my plan is to define everything into these XML documents to abstract away files:
      Resources.xml for ref-counted GPU resources (geometry, shaders, textures) Resources are assigned names/ids and resource files, and possibly some attributes (what vertex attributes does this geometry have? what vertex attributes does this shader expect? what uniforms does this shader use? and so on) Are reference counted using ResourceCache<T> Assets.xml for assets using the GPU resources (materials, meshes, models) Assets are not reference counted, but they hold handles to ref-counted resources. References the resources defined in Resources.xml by names/ids. The XMLs are loaded into some structure in memory which is then used for loading the resources/assets using factory classes:
      Factory classes for resources:
      For example, a texture factory could contain the texture definitions from the XML containing data about textures in the game, as well as a cache containing all loaded textures. This means it has mappings from each name/id to a file and when asked to load a texture with a name/id, it can look up its path and use a "BinaryLoader" to either load the file and create the resource directly, or asynchronously load the file's data into a queue which then can be read from later to create the resources synchronously in the GL context. These factories only return handles.
      Factory classes for assets:
      Much like for resources, these classes contain the definitions for the assets they can load. For example, with the definition the MaterialFactory will know which shader, textures and possibly uniform a certain material has, and with the help of TextureFactory and ShaderFactory, it can retrieve handles to the resources it needs (Shader + Textures), setup itself from XML data (uniform values), and return a created instance of requested material. These factories return actual instances, not handles (but the instances contain handles).
       
       
      Is this a good or commonly used approach? Is this going to bite me in the ass later on? Are there other more preferable approaches? Is this outside of the scope of a 3d renderer and should be on the engine side? I'd love to receive and kind of advice or suggestions!
      Thanks!
    • By nedondev
      I 'm learning how to create game by using opengl with c/c++ coding, so here is my fist game. In video description also have game contain in Dropbox. May be I will make it better in future.
      Thanks.
    • By Abecederia
      So I've recently started learning some GLSL and now I'm toying with a POM shader. I'm trying to optimize it and notice that it starts having issues at high texture sizes, especially with self-shadowing.
      Now I know POM is expensive either way, but would pulling the heightmap out of the normalmap alpha channel and in it's own 8bit texture make doing all those dozens of texture fetches more cheap? Or is everything in the cache aligned to 32bit anyway? I haven't implemented texture compression yet, I think that would help? But regardless, should there be a performance boost from decoupling the heightmap? I could also keep it in a lower resolution than the normalmap if that would improve performance.
      Any help is much appreciated, please keep in mind I'm somewhat of a newbie. Thanks!
    • By test opty
      Hi,
      I'm trying to learn OpenGL through a website and have proceeded until this page of it. The output is a simple triangle. The problem is the complexity.
      I have read that page several times and tried to analyse the code but I haven't understood the code properly and completely yet. This is the code:
       
      #include <glad/glad.h> #include <GLFW/glfw3.h> #include <C:\Users\Abbasi\Desktop\std_lib_facilities_4.h> using namespace std; //****************************************************************************** void framebuffer_size_callback(GLFWwindow* window, int width, int height); void processInput(GLFWwindow *window); // settings const unsigned int SCR_WIDTH = 800; const unsigned int SCR_HEIGHT = 600; const char *vertexShaderSource = "#version 330 core\n" "layout (location = 0) in vec3 aPos;\n" "void main()\n" "{\n" " gl_Position = vec4(aPos.x, aPos.y, aPos.z, 1.0);\n" "}\0"; const char *fragmentShaderSource = "#version 330 core\n" "out vec4 FragColor;\n" "void main()\n" "{\n" " FragColor = vec4(1.0f, 0.5f, 0.2f, 1.0f);\n" "}\n\0"; //******************************* int main() { // glfw: initialize and configure // ------------------------------ glfwInit(); glfwWindowHint(GLFW_CONTEXT_VERSION_MAJOR, 3); glfwWindowHint(GLFW_CONTEXT_VERSION_MINOR, 3); glfwWindowHint(GLFW_OPENGL_PROFILE, GLFW_OPENGL_CORE_PROFILE); // glfw window creation GLFWwindow* window = glfwCreateWindow(SCR_WIDTH, SCR_HEIGHT, "My First Triangle", nullptr, nullptr); if (window == nullptr) { cout << "Failed to create GLFW window" << endl; glfwTerminate(); return -1; } glfwMakeContextCurrent(window); glfwSetFramebufferSizeCallback(window, framebuffer_size_callback); // glad: load all OpenGL function pointers if (!gladLoadGLLoader((GLADloadproc)glfwGetProcAddress)) { cout << "Failed to initialize GLAD" << endl; return -1; } // build and compile our shader program // vertex shader int vertexShader = glCreateShader(GL_VERTEX_SHADER); glShaderSource(vertexShader, 1, &vertexShaderSource, nullptr); glCompileShader(vertexShader); // check for shader compile errors int success; char infoLog[512]; glGetShaderiv(vertexShader, GL_COMPILE_STATUS, &success); if (!success) { glGetShaderInfoLog(vertexShader, 512, nullptr, infoLog); cout << "ERROR::SHADER::VERTEX::COMPILATION_FAILED\n" << infoLog << endl; } // fragment shader int fragmentShader = glCreateShader(GL_FRAGMENT_SHADER); glShaderSource(fragmentShader, 1, &fragmentShaderSource, nullptr); glCompileShader(fragmentShader); // check for shader compile errors glGetShaderiv(fragmentShader, GL_COMPILE_STATUS, &success); if (!success) { glGetShaderInfoLog(fragmentShader, 512, nullptr, infoLog); cout << "ERROR::SHADER::FRAGMENT::COMPILATION_FAILED\n" << infoLog << endl; } // link shaders int shaderProgram = glCreateProgram(); glAttachShader(shaderProgram, vertexShader); glAttachShader(shaderProgram, fragmentShader); glLinkProgram(shaderProgram); // check for linking errors glGetProgramiv(shaderProgram, GL_LINK_STATUS, &success); if (!success) { glGetProgramInfoLog(shaderProgram, 512, nullptr, infoLog); cout << "ERROR::SHADER::PROGRAM::LINKING_FAILED\n" << infoLog << endl; } glDeleteShader(vertexShader); glDeleteShader(fragmentShader); // set up vertex data (and buffer(s)) and configure vertex attributes float vertices[] = { -0.5f, -0.5f, 0.0f, // left 0.5f, -0.5f, 0.0f, // right 0.0f, 0.5f, 0.0f // top }; unsigned int VBO, VAO; glGenVertexArrays(1, &VAO); glGenBuffers(1, &VBO); // bind the Vertex Array Object first, then bind and set vertex buffer(s), //and then configure vertex attributes(s). glBindVertexArray(VAO); glBindBuffer(GL_ARRAY_BUFFER, VBO); glBufferData(GL_ARRAY_BUFFER, sizeof(vertices), vertices, GL_STATIC_DRAW); glVertexAttribPointer(0, 3, GL_FLOAT, GL_FALSE, 3 * sizeof(float), (void*)0); glEnableVertexAttribArray(0); // note that this is allowed, the call to glVertexAttribPointer registered VBO // as the vertex attribute's bound vertex buffer object so afterwards we can safely unbind glBindBuffer(GL_ARRAY_BUFFER, 0); // You can unbind the VAO afterwards so other VAO calls won't accidentally // modify this VAO, but this rarely happens. Modifying other // VAOs requires a call to glBindVertexArray anyways so we generally don't unbind // VAOs (nor VBOs) when it's not directly necessary. glBindVertexArray(0); // uncomment this call to draw in wireframe polygons. //glPolygonMode(GL_FRONT_AND_BACK, GL_LINE); // render loop while (!glfwWindowShouldClose(window)) { // input // ----- processInput(window); // render // ------ glClearColor(0.2f, 0.3f, 0.3f, 1.0f); glClear(GL_COLOR_BUFFER_BIT); // draw our first triangle glUseProgram(shaderProgram); glBindVertexArray(VAO); // seeing as we only have a single VAO there's no need to // bind it every time, but we'll do so to keep things a bit more organized glDrawArrays(GL_TRIANGLES, 0, 3); // glBindVertexArray(0); // no need to unbind it every time // glfw: swap buffers and poll IO events (keys pressed/released, mouse moved etc.) glfwSwapBuffers(window); glfwPollEvents(); } // optional: de-allocate all resources once they've outlived their purpose: glDeleteVertexArrays(1, &VAO); glDeleteBuffers(1, &VBO); // glfw: terminate, clearing all previously allocated GLFW resources. glfwTerminate(); return 0; } //************************************************** // process all input: query GLFW whether relevant keys are pressed/released // this frame and react accordingly void processInput(GLFWwindow *window) { if (glfwGetKey(window, GLFW_KEY_ESCAPE) == GLFW_PRESS) glfwSetWindowShouldClose(window, true); } //******************************************************************** // glfw: whenever the window size changed (by OS or user resize) this callback function executes void framebuffer_size_callback(GLFWwindow* window, int width, int height) { // make sure the viewport matches the new window dimensions; note that width and // height will be significantly larger than specified on retina displays. glViewport(0, 0, width, height); } As you see, about 200 lines of complicated code only for a simple triangle. 
      I don't know what parts are necessary for that output. And also, what the correct order of instructions for such an output or programs is, generally. That start point is too complex for a beginner of OpenGL like me and I don't know how to make the issue solved. What are your ideas please? What is the way to figure both the code and the whole program out correctly please?
      I wish I'd read a reference that would teach me OpenGL through a step-by-step method. 
  • Popular Now