Archived

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

TheLabRat

OpenGL OpenGL's Future?

Recommended Posts

I''m starting to doubt the future of GL. With DX8 out and the huge GeForce 3 Support. Is it time to learn D3D? Should I stop struggling with GL driver incompatibilities? It just seems that every card manufacturer is not keeping to the standard. My game engine provides massively different output on a variety of cards. The only card it looks right on is Voodoo 3''s. On every other card, buffering is messed up, or lighting is not working, or colors aren''t correct. I can''t stand it any more. Is D3D better implemented across the board? Please help. I''m ready to drop this whole programming idea and become a drug dealer - it has to be easier

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think OpenGL''s future is just fine. Incompatible? It''s supported on nVidia and ATI. Any big graphics card supports OpenGL. Everything you can do in d3d with the geforce 3 you can do in OpenGL. As far as the voodoo 3 thing. they were bought out. nVidia is pretty much setting the standards for OpenGL extensions. the arb board is releasing OpenGL 1.3 in a few months. I think OpenGL is still going strong.

HHSDrum@yahoo.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I am quite doubtful about OpenGL''s future too. First of all, Direct3D is catching up to OpenGL FAST! But, D3D still has a lot of work to do in my opinion. And until OGL becomes unsupported on every card known to man, I will continue to use it. I just wish MS would work on an OpenGL 1.2 implementation for Windows.

------------------------------
Trent (ShiningKnight)
E-mail me
OpenGL Game Programming Tutorials

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Voodoo drivers has bad reputation for both OpenGL and Direct3D so it is probably something wrong with your code. OpenGL can do more with a GF3 than D3D. Recently did someone asked on the Microsoft DirectGraphics newsgroup why the shadow map extensions on GF3 is not supported by D3D. The reply from MS clearly showned that they do not even know about it.

Direct3D may catching up fast but they do not even pretends to be faster anymore. The current goal seems to something like OpenGL. MS releasing 1.2 ( or 1.3) would be nice but not particulary important.

I do not know which one is the best. The difference is perhaps not so big anymore.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I definately think OpenGL still has a future. Remember that OpenGL is also crossplatform. Runs on Windows, MAC and linux/ DirectX only runs on Windows.

Quake 3 was written using OpenGL and lots of the other new games use OpenGL.

Will Doom 3 use OpenGL or DirectX ?

Jan
http://home.global.co.za/~jhorn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
We, end-users and game coders are deciding if OpenGL has a future.
OpenGL 1.3 is coming, OpenML also, the ARB is talking about replacing M$ OpenGL implementation to support the latest OpenGL.

I confident about its future.

As far as we will support it, OpenGL will stay alive.

-* So many things to do, so little time to spend. *-

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why doubt the only supported crossplatform 3D graphics API''s future, when there''s nothing wrong with it? What would there be to replace it? Remember, there''s a lot of workstation''s out there that don''t use Windows.

About the Geforce 3, NVidia released a statement saying more of its features could be accessed through OpenGL than Direct3D. They didn''t want people to think that Direct3D''s new features were all that it could do.

Also: Microsoft has finished the OpenGL 1.2 implementation for Windows, they''ve been testing it for at least a year now. SGI made an OpenGL 1.2 implementation for Windows a while back, but Microsoft won''t allow them to release it (for some unknown, but probably obvious to most of us, reason).

So far so good, not a flamewar yet...

[Resist Windows XP''s Invasive Production Activation Technology!]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well no API''s future is realy defined. Most fade away after a time, or are replaced by newer API''s. OpenGL isn''t bad off, and neither is DirectX. The problem is that no one can truely see the future until it''s right in front of them. If you notice most professional game engines out now a days support DirectX, OpenGL, and some even still support Glide. It''s foolish to build a box around yourself and never leave it. Learn both API''s! Just because you know both doesn''t mean you can''t prefer one over the other. As long as you know both you''ll never be stuck in a position of having to worry about either''s future.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Open GL definitely is here to stay I dont see it going away for a pretty good time or simply forever, the reasons are:

0.-Is already a 20+ year old system, it has endured time incredibly well already. Unlike DX which has been "re-designed" almost as a whole in every compilation.
(all arrays start at zero we all know that. =) )

1.-Direct3d only works on MS systems and thats its biggest problem, specially now that consoles are getting much more attention than the PC market (sad but true) and it will prolly stay that way from now on, specially when FREE to develop consoles finally arrive (nokia is building one, MS had to open xbox to indies and there is a PS2 linux kit out there) guess which one of those consoles use directx? hint:only xbox and it can also use opengl.

2.-MS os are not that good, everybody complains about them for good reason (the main problem is that somehow they are still DOS able which is a big resource problem and anyway they are buggy as hell due to poor QA), if MS did better OS''s than it does now, they could get some other markets than the PC and with it directx on them, but as it is now, the only ones that use WINDOWZ are those who dont have other choice but to use it, lots of people will love to use ANY other working OS on their systems.. if their favorite programs and hardware worked on it which is unfortunately not the case... yet.

3.- Read number 1, repeat 3 times then continue.

4.-Opengl is already the standard in graphics programming, at least 70% or more of the world graphics community uses it, almost every tutorial, sgi paper, graphic research is based on it, and on top of that it works! is quite a bit easier to understand than DirectX because it doesnt use the COM system but simple functions, and each day more and more cards are capable of using it.

(skip here if you already are aware of geforce3 opengl extensions)
DX8 made us truly believe that Opengl was toast , due to the vertex buffers and shaders and stuff it delivered, but ID software is making Doom 3 using OpenGl using geforce 3 in no less than a MAC! and they are definetily using vertex buffers and shaders, so they are still used in opengl, only that they are reached through extensions instead of the SDK itself, thats all! Nvidia released the SDK to fully use opengl geforce3 extensions recently.
(Thank you, we now return to our regularly scheduled answer)

Just not to turn this into a flame war, I would advice the following: when you build your game engine, use a DLL like structure to use either opengl or direct3d for rendering, if you only can aim for one, then question the portability of your engine and your own experience and skill then choose one. The choice is finally yours.

Personally I prefered Opengl because I was sick and tired of getting stuck in Dx8 due to the manuals not covering the aspects I needed. And almost no source to get info from. 90% of the info out there is opengl based (check if you dont believe me!)

Opengl is good for at least other 10 or 20 years, even Ms has been forced to be Opengl compatible (on XBOX no less!), most of the best games coming and out there are opengl based or compatible , Opengl is going nowhere for a loooong time.

Now a good question will be:, "will MS and DX still be around in 5-10 years?" XBOX out there (which means MS could dedicate to gaming instead of OS''s, or lose quite a big deal in the progress whichever comes first) linux gaining more strength every day, XP generating high frequency waves of "I wont get that, is against my privacy!", the lost monopoly trials, the info blackouts, the REAL future of MS is simply... uncertain, but that kids is another story.

I hope that helps!

/*Signature start>

Remember kids when stuck with an ugly bug from hell, start chanting:

"The power of C compiles you!"
"The power of C compiles you!!"
"The power of C compiles you!!!"

Gets them every time!

=)

C ya!
*/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don''t really care. I use both API''s and I love both API''s, no need to prefer one over the other. There is no reason to think that OpenGL will die to, because Linux is growing stronger by the day, which makes OpenGL a lot tastier than that "other" api (due to portability). My vision of the future is this:

1) microsoft dies :-)
1.5) directx dies :-(
2) linux rulez :-)
3) OpenGL rulez :-)

three smileys and one saddy, that''s not to bad!

(PS: I know this is not very realistic, but I can dream can''t I???).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
God, i'm sick of people saying "I would like to see MICROSOFT dead". Why ? Why ? cuz it has monopoly over PC industry. Remeber that MICROSOFT was the one who made windows 3.1 , and windows 95 and so on.It made the computer possible, one more step over technology.IT also made u VC++, now tell me if vc++ is a piece of shit ? No !. And i'm sure that it made you proud to see computer evolution growing !!! right ? yeah, it's right!!

HAhaha, how many of u would say no ! if you were told to work for micorsoft ? hummm... i don't see anybody !!! hummm... nobody raised their hand did they ? NO !!

Hahaha, oh i would love to see you guys saying the same if the LINUX took over. Don't rush guys, just don't rush.

"The shortcut is not always the best way "

Metal Typhoon

Edited by - Metal Typhoon on June 26, 2001 9:55:24 PM

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
quote:
Original post by Metal Typhoon
HAhaha, how many of u would say no ! if you were told to work for micorsoft ? hummm... i don''t see anybody !!! hummm... nobody raised their hand did they ? NO !!



I was asked to work for them and said no does that count?


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, it only count if you''re telling the truth otherwise it''s a nothing !!! and by the way work in what area ???

"The shortcut is not always the best way "

Metal Typhoon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Anonymous Poster
HAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAH!!!!

er *cough* pardon me....

HAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAH!!!!
HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

MS Visual C++... Good...

HAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAH!!!!
HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

Oh my god.

The brainwashing is complete.

I bet you have never tried any other IDE or compiler.
I bet you return FALSE on an error!! (HAHAHAHAHAHAHHA!)

OH my, I am sure I have offended enough people by now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
HAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
yes i had, HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

so why developer use most vc++ instead of Borland or other shit ?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHHAHAHAHA
(coughs)

hummmm... ?

"The shortcut is not always the best way "

Metal Typhoon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Anonymous Poster
Ahh...

Because ignorant pricks like you only take what is SHOVED up their ass. 99.9% of so called educational programs are SPONSORED by MicroSH*T and thus MUST use VC++. Oh I see Borland or some other shit... THat about wraps it up. Who here uses Borland or some other shit ??

Tell me what is a Compiler. Do you know what its purpose is? Can you tell me the names of 10 compiler vendors?(Better hit google). What IDEs have you used. What language do you even program in? Do you write pee diddly programs(not that there is anything wrong with that) or mission critical Enterprise software? Have you ever written a Portable program? What operating system experience do you have?

Where did you learn to program?

I rest my case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ok, sorry, this thread is now getting blocked, at first it was ok (the future of OGL is something a lot of people are interested in). But it has degenerated into compiler wars, and D3D vs OGL wars. Check this forum''s FAQ, we have enough D3D vs OGL flame wars on the message board.

------------------------------
Trent (ShiningKnight)
E-mail me
OpenGL Game Programming Tutorials

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Forum Statistics

    • Total Topics
      627778
    • Total Posts
      2979025
  • Similar Content

    • By lonewolff
      Hi guys,
      With OpenGL not having a dedicated SDK, how were libraries like GLUT and the likes ever written?
      Could someone these days write an OpenGL library from scratch? How would you even go about this?
      Obviously this question stems from the fact that there is no OpenGL SDK.
      DirectX is a bit different as MS has the advantage of having the relationship with the vendors and having full access to OS source code and the entire works.
      If I were to attempt to write the most absolute basic lib to access OpenGL on the GPU, how would I go about this?
    • By DelicateTreeFrog
      Hello! As an exercise for delving into modern OpenGL, I'm creating a simple .obj renderer. I want to support things like varying degrees of specularity, geometry opacity, things like that, on a per-material basis. Different materials can also have different textures. Basic .obj necessities. I've done this in old school OpenGL, but modern OpenGL has its own thing going on, and I'd like to conform as closely to the standards as possible so as to keep the program running correctly, and I'm hoping to avoid picking up bad habits this early on.
      Reading around on the OpenGL Wiki, one tip in particular really stands out to me on this page:
      For something like a renderer for .obj files, this sort of thing seems almost ideal, but according to the wiki, it's a bad idea. Interesting to note!
      So, here's what the plan is so far as far as loading goes:
      Set up a type for materials so that materials can be created and destroyed. They will contain things like diffuse color, diffuse texture, geometry opacity, and so on, for each material in the .mtl file. Since .obj files are conveniently split up by material, I can load different groups of vertices/normals/UVs and triangles into different blocks of data for different models. When it comes to the rendering, I get a bit lost. I can either:
      Between drawing triangle groups, call glUseProgram to use a different shader for that particular geometry (so a unique shader just for the material that is shared by this triangle group). or
      Between drawing triangle groups, call glUniform a few times to adjust different parameters within the "master shader", such as specularity, diffuse color, and geometry opacity. In both cases, I still have to call glBindTexture between drawing triangle groups in order to bind the diffuse texture used by the material, so there doesn't seem to be a way around having the CPU do *something* during the rendering process instead of letting the GPU do everything all at once.
      The second option here seems less cluttered, however. There are less shaders to keep up with while one "master shader" handles it all. I don't have to duplicate any code or compile multiple shaders. Arguably, I could always have the shader program for each material be embedded in the material itself, and be auto-generated upon loading the material from the .mtl file. But this still leads to constantly calling glUseProgram, much more than is probably necessary in order to properly render the .obj. There seem to be a number of differing opinions on if it's okay to use hundreds of shaders or if it's best to just use tens of shaders.
      So, ultimately, what is the "right" way to do this? Does using a "master shader" (or a few variants of one) bog down the system compared to using hundreds of shader programs each dedicated to their own corresponding materials? Keeping in mind that the "master shaders" would have to track these additional uniforms and potentially have numerous branches of ifs, it may be possible that the ifs will lead to additional and unnecessary processing. But would that more expensive than constantly calling glUseProgram to switch shaders, or storing the shaders to begin with?
      With all these angles to consider, it's difficult to come to a conclusion. Both possible methods work, and both seem rather convenient for their own reasons, but which is the most performant? Please help this beginner/dummy understand. Thank you!
    • By JJCDeveloper
      I want to make professional java 3d game with server program and database,packet handling for multiplayer and client-server communicating,maps rendering,models,and stuffs Which aspect of java can I learn and where can I learn java Lwjgl OpenGL rendering Like minecraft and world of tanks
    • By AyeRonTarpas
      A friend of mine and I are making a 2D game engine as a learning experience and to hopefully build upon the experience in the long run.

      -What I'm using:
          C++;. Since im learning this language while in college and its one of the popular language to make games with why not.     Visual Studios; Im using a windows so yea.     SDL or GLFW; was thinking about SDL since i do some research on it where it is catching my interest but i hear SDL is a huge package compared to GLFW, so i may do GLFW to start with as learning since i may get overwhelmed with SDL.  
      -Questions
      Knowing what we want in the engine what should our main focus be in terms of learning. File managements, with headers, functions ect. How can i properly manage files with out confusing myself and my friend when sharing code. Alternative to Visual studios: My friend has a mac and cant properly use Vis studios, is there another alternative to it?  
    • By ferreiradaselva
      Both functions are available since 3.0, and I'm currently using `glMapBuffer()`, which works fine.
      But, I was wondering if anyone has experienced advantage in using `glMapBufferRange()`, which allows to specify the range of the mapped buffer. Could this be only a safety measure or does it improve performance?
      Note: I'm not asking about glBufferSubData()/glBufferData. Those two are irrelevant in this case.
  • Popular Now