• Announcements

    • khawk

      Download the Game Design and Indie Game Marketing Freebook   07/19/17

      GameDev.net and CRC Press have teamed up to bring a free ebook of content curated from top titles published by CRC Press. The freebook, Practices of Game Design & Indie Game Marketing, includes chapters from The Art of Game Design: A Book of Lenses, A Practical Guide to Indie Game Marketing, and An Architectural Approach to Level Design. The GameDev.net FreeBook is relevant to game designers, developers, and those interested in learning more about the challenges in game development. We know game development can be a tough discipline and business, so we picked several chapters from CRC Press titles that we thought would be of interest to you, the GameDev.net audience, in your journey to design, develop, and market your next game. The free ebook is available through CRC Press by clicking here. The Curated Books The Art of Game Design: A Book of Lenses, Second Edition, by Jesse Schell Presents 100+ sets of questions, or different lenses, for viewing a game’s design, encompassing diverse fields such as psychology, architecture, music, film, software engineering, theme park design, mathematics, anthropology, and more. Written by one of the world's top game designers, this book describes the deepest and most fundamental principles of game design, demonstrating how tactics used in board, card, and athletic games also work in video games. It provides practical instruction on creating world-class games that will be played again and again. View it here. A Practical Guide to Indie Game Marketing, by Joel Dreskin Marketing is an essential but too frequently overlooked or minimized component of the release plan for indie games. A Practical Guide to Indie Game Marketing provides you with the tools needed to build visibility and sell your indie games. With special focus on those developers with small budgets and limited staff and resources, this book is packed with tangible recommendations and techniques that you can put to use immediately. As a seasoned professional of the indie game arena, author Joel Dreskin gives you insight into practical, real-world experiences of marketing numerous successful games and also provides stories of the failures. View it here. An Architectural Approach to Level Design This is one of the first books to integrate architectural and spatial design theory with the field of level design. The book presents architectural techniques and theories for level designers to use in their own work. It connects architecture and level design in different ways that address the practical elements of how designers construct space and the experiential elements of how and why humans interact with this space. Throughout the text, readers learn skills for spatial layout, evoking emotion through gamespaces, and creating better levels through architectural theory. View it here. Learn more and download the ebook by clicking here. Did you know? GameDev.net and CRC Press also recently teamed up to bring GDNet+ Members up to a 20% discount on all CRC Press books. Learn more about this and other benefits here.


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


OpenGL and DirectX??

7 posts in this topic

I''d like to know which of the 2 API is either better, easier to learn, better documented....and your personal opinion about them. I know that OpenGL can be used with any language, and DirectX is neither portable like OpenGL is nor can you use any language. But OpenGL only has the 3D graphics and stuff like DirectSound is missing. Is it right that you can implement DirectSound into OpenGL?? and is it still portable as without i.e DirectSound?? And again: which of the 2 API is either better, easier to learn, better documented...?

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
I started developing games about two years ago using Direct x 6.0
,simply because most of the professional software houses use the MS API
It is a matter of fact, useless to deny the evidence !.
A nightmare, I was about to quit with game programming.
Afterwards I shifted to Opengl .
In about 3 monthes time I was able to grasp the basic of 3D graphic programming.
Ok, my previous experience was not probably completely useless but no doubt that the Opengl architecture is much easier ( I do not mean better) than direct x.
The lack of sound and input support as well as of a custom 3d file format , same as .x file, are definitly drawbacks but you
can purchase a book such as "Opengl game programming " which integrate direct sound , direct input and md2 file format in the opengl based game engine.
I am concern about one point, only.
will the graphic cards manufacturers still support opengl in the future ? ( what about GeForce 3.0 and X box ?, for example)
I would appreciate to receive comments of other readers.


Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
I can't make it any clearer that this is my personal opinion, and I am not trying to start a flame war here. So for those of you who want to accuse me, know it was you who is wrong.

I find Direct X messy, and alot like windows code. It seems to be in sentence structure rather than programming strucutre, and it doesn't stand out as much as OpenGL. Also, the Direct X code itself looks like a error, so its hard to find an error inside of it(my opinions). I like OpenGL because it is to the point, clean, and usually is easy to spot in code. Not to mention, i dont like MicroSoft, so using Direct X would be aginst my moral code and princpals . That is my opnion, but I suggest you go tke a simple tutorial on both(the basics) and see whihc one suits you better.

PS: Just because I say it is messy, doesnt mean it really is, it is just that I look at it, and it seems messy. Once again, you should check both out.

"I've sparred with creatures from the nine hells themselves... I barely plan on breaking a sweat here, today."~Drizzt Do'Urden

Edited by - Drizzt DoUrden on September 4, 2001 2:57:23 PM

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
>>I find Direct X messy, and alot like windows code<<

i remember years ago when i started on opengl my first thought was, why cant the win16/win32 api''s be designed like this ( i was doing a lot of windows programming at the time )

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
OpenGL is better, it doesn''t need all these SDK downloading of several hundred mbs.

Just one tiny little header called glext.h needs to be downloaded for each new update.

Good luck M$, hehe.

The Game Industry

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
Question: I see openNL/hawkNL and openAL listed here. But what open library can do input like DirectInput?

Now to my input. I have used both directX (D3D and DDraw) and openGL (a little) and I personally perfer OpenGL. It is probably because I do not like microsoft and I personally think openGL is a tiny bit eaiser to use, and also because I could get it to work with Dev-C++ while I could not (after much effort) get DirectX (7 and 8) to work with it.

Now the facts. OpenGL is cross platform DirectX is not. Meaning if you want to write for linux and windows use OGL but if you are just going for windows use OGL and DX.
OpenGL gets the newest features first. Through extentions you can use the newest features on video cards before you can with DX but your code may not work unless people have that card (correct me if i''m wrong). With DX pretty much all your code will work.

Well I could go on but I will advise along with these other people to try both out even thought we are making it sound like OGL is 10 times better. Still try both (unless you are pressed for time).
Oh one more thing OGL can be used with DirectInput, DirectPlay, DirectSound, and the like (only on windows of course).

Hope I helped.


Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
I''ve personally found Open GL to be a much better API to work with. It has is flaws. No input support and such but a person can use the good aspects of direct x for those things. Direct 3D gave me a headache when coding. I always came up with errors and had to rewrite a lot of code to get it to do what I wanted. I switched to Open GL a few months ago and have written a lot more code that actually works in a shorter period of time.

As for Anonymous''s concern. As far as I know every major video card manufacturer still plans on supporting Open GL. Nvidia has even released an OpenGL SDK specific for the GeForce 3 cards. And with version 1.3 of OpenGL coming out the future looks good.

As far as X-Box? I would give that a big thumbs down. Microsoft has pretty much based the whole system around programming with Direct X. At least that is what I''ve heard and someone may be able to enlighten me more. Personally why would I want to buy what is basically another PC modified to just play games. When I have an even better one right in front of me now.

Talk to everyone later.


Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
I can't say it better.

When I used VB, I used DirectX. Simply because it's the first language I crossed, and because it has all the features needed for games. Later I saw some OpenGL, but it was really a pain with VB.

When I moved to C++ for more speed and control, I started with DirectX too, and bought a book. Although I had a lot of experience with it using VB (it's almost the same, code's just a bit bigger now ) I still found it hard. Then I found NeHe. I immediatly started using OpenGL when I heard impressive games where made with it (Quake III, Half-Life) and I found it's much easier to use than DirectX. (only the setup code in the first lesson was hard, the rest of code is really self-explaining)

I'm creating an engine with it now, and it goes pretty well. The engine is better than all my VB / DirectX engines and everything I created with C++ / DirectX. I'm going to buy the OpenGL superbible 2nd edition, OpenGL game programming and a C++ book soon, to become an OpenGL master because this language is really powerfull and has a future (though it's much easier to use than DirectX)

Oh, and for Input and Sound, you can integrate it with DirectX easily, and the input code is not so hard (I don't know about sound really)

Good luck with it. I really advise you to use OpenGL

Edited by - Everquest on September 5, 2001 1:46:39 AM

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Similar Content

    • By mapra99

      I am working on a recent project and I have been learning how to code in C# using OpenGL libraries for some graphics. I have achieved some quite interesting things using TAO Framework writing in Console Applications, creating a GLUT Window. But my problem now is that I need to incorporate the Graphics in a Windows Form so I can relate the objects that I render with some .NET Controls.

      To deal with this problem, I have seen in some forums that it's better to use OpenTK instead of TAO Framework, so I can use the glControl that OpenTK libraries offer. However, I haven't found complete articles, tutorials or source codes that help using the glControl or that may insert me into de OpenTK functions. Would somebody please share in this forum some links or files where I can find good documentation about this topic? Or may I use another library different of OpenTK?

    • By Solid_Spy
      Hello, I have been working on SH Irradiance map rendering, and I have been using a GLSL pixel shader to render SH irradiance to 2D irradiance maps for my static objects. I already have it working with 9 3D textures so far for the first 9 SH functions.
      In my GLSL shader, I have to send in 9 SH Coefficient 3D Texures that use RGBA8 as a pixel format. RGB being used for the coefficients for red, green, and blue, and the A for checking if the voxel is in use (for the 3D texture solidification shader to prevent bleeding).
      My problem is, I want to knock this number of textures down to something like 4 or 5. Getting even lower would be a godsend. This is because I eventually plan on adding more SH Coefficient 3D Textures for other parts of the game map (such as inside rooms, as opposed to the outside), to circumvent irradiance probe bleeding between rooms separated by walls. I don't want to reach the 32 texture limit too soon. Also, I figure that it would be a LOT faster.
      Is there a way I could, say, store 2 sets of SH Coefficients for 2 SH functions inside a texture with RGBA16 pixels? If so, how would I extract them from inside GLSL? Let me know if you have any suggestions ^^.
    • By KarimIO
      EDIT: I thought this was restricted to Attribute-Created GL contexts, but it isn't, so I rewrote the post.
      Hey guys, whenever I call SwapBuffers(hDC), I get a crash, and I get a "Too many posts were made to a semaphore." from Windows as I call SwapBuffers. What could be the cause of this?
      Update: No crash occurs if I don't draw, just clear and swap.
      static PIXELFORMATDESCRIPTOR pfd = // pfd Tells Windows How We Want Things To Be { sizeof(PIXELFORMATDESCRIPTOR), // Size Of This Pixel Format Descriptor 1, // Version Number PFD_DRAW_TO_WINDOW | // Format Must Support Window PFD_SUPPORT_OPENGL | // Format Must Support OpenGL PFD_DOUBLEBUFFER, // Must Support Double Buffering PFD_TYPE_RGBA, // Request An RGBA Format 32, // Select Our Color Depth 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, // Color Bits Ignored 0, // No Alpha Buffer 0, // Shift Bit Ignored 0, // No Accumulation Buffer 0, 0, 0, 0, // Accumulation Bits Ignored 24, // 24Bit Z-Buffer (Depth Buffer) 0, // No Stencil Buffer 0, // No Auxiliary Buffer PFD_MAIN_PLANE, // Main Drawing Layer 0, // Reserved 0, 0, 0 // Layer Masks Ignored }; if (!(hDC = GetDC(windowHandle))) return false; unsigned int PixelFormat; if (!(PixelFormat = ChoosePixelFormat(hDC, &pfd))) return false; if (!SetPixelFormat(hDC, PixelFormat, &pfd)) return false; hRC = wglCreateContext(hDC); if (!hRC) { std::cout << "wglCreateContext Failed!\n"; return false; } if (wglMakeCurrent(hDC, hRC) == NULL) { std::cout << "Make Context Current Second Failed!\n"; return false; } ... // OGL Buffer Initialization glClear(GL_DEPTH_BUFFER_BIT | GL_COLOR_BUFFER_BIT); glBindVertexArray(vao); glUseProgram(myprogram); glDrawElements(GL_TRIANGLES, indexCount, GL_UNSIGNED_SHORT, (void *)indexStart); SwapBuffers(GetDC(window_handle));  
    • By Tchom
      Hey devs!
      I've been working on a OpenGL ES 2.0 android engine and I have begun implementing some simple (point) lighting. I had something fairly simple working, so I tried to get fancy and added color-tinting light. And it works great... with only one or two lights. Any more than that, the application drops about 15 frames per light added (my ideal is at least 4 or 5). I know implementing lighting is expensive, I just didn't think it was that expensive. I'm fairly new to the world of OpenGL and GLSL, so there is a good chance I've written some crappy shader code. If anyone had any feedback or tips on how I can optimize this code, please let me know.
      Vertex Shader
      uniform mat4 u_MVPMatrix; uniform mat4 u_MVMatrix; attribute vec4 a_Position; attribute vec3 a_Normal; attribute vec2 a_TexCoordinate; varying vec3 v_Position; varying vec3 v_Normal; varying vec2 v_TexCoordinate; void main() { v_Position = vec3(u_MVMatrix * a_Position); v_TexCoordinate = a_TexCoordinate; v_Normal = vec3(u_MVMatrix * vec4(a_Normal, 0.0)); gl_Position = u_MVPMatrix * a_Position; } Fragment Shader
      precision mediump float; uniform vec4 u_LightPos["+numLights+"]; uniform vec4 u_LightColours["+numLights+"]; uniform float u_LightPower["+numLights+"]; uniform sampler2D u_Texture; varying vec3 v_Position; varying vec3 v_Normal; varying vec2 v_TexCoordinate; void main() { gl_FragColor = (texture2D(u_Texture, v_TexCoordinate)); float diffuse = 0.0; vec4 colourSum = vec4(1.0); for (int i = 0; i < "+numLights+"; i++) { vec3 toPointLight = vec3(u_LightPos[i]); float distance = length(toPointLight - v_Position); vec3 lightVector = normalize(toPointLight - v_Position); float diffuseDiff = 0.0; // The diffuse difference contributed from current light diffuseDiff = max(dot(v_Normal, lightVector), 0.0); diffuseDiff = diffuseDiff * (1.0 / (1.0 + ((1.0-u_LightPower[i])* distance * distance))); //Determine attenuatio diffuse += diffuseDiff; gl_FragColor.rgb *= vec3(1.0) / ((vec3(1.0) + ((vec3(1.0) - vec3(u_LightColours[i]))*diffuseDiff))); //The expensive part } diffuse += 0.1; //Add ambient light gl_FragColor.rgb *= diffuse; } Am I making any rookie mistakes? Or am I just being unrealistic about what I can do? Thanks in advance
    • By yahiko00
      Not sure to post at the right place, if not, please forgive me...
      For a game project I am working on, I would like to implement a 2D starfield as a background.
      I do not want to deal with static tiles, since I plan to slowly animate the starfield. So, I am trying to figure out how to generate a random starfield for the entire map.
      I feel that using a uniform distribution for the stars will not do the trick. Instead I would like something similar to the screenshot below, taken from the game Star Wars: Empire At War (all credits to Lucasfilm, Disney, and so on...).

      Is there someone who could have an idea of a distribution which could result in such a starfield?
      Any insight would be appreciated
  • Popular Now