thanks all for the answer, i try unity and i find it very easy, you can make games from copy pasting

i want to learn the core of game dev

if i choose to start in directx, will it be easy to switch to opengl? or vise versa?

When I was deciding which to learn first, I didn’t ask, “Which makes the other easier to learn oh noes!”, I asked, “Which one do I need for what I want to do right now?”.

Direct3D 9 was the obvious choice for me because I wanted to make games on PC, and then years later iOS devices appeared and then I decided to learn OpenGL.

is it easy to transfer from direct3d9 to opengGL? same reason i want to learn both. and im not saying im going to learn both, i just want to know if it is easy to jump to another api.

Do not waste time with Direct3D 9. Direct3D 11 is a better structured API, easier to learn, more powerful and it support down-level hardware trough feature levels (down to SM 2.0x GPUs).

Yes, you cannot target Windows XP with Direct3D 11, but who cares? When you will be able to release something to the public, Windows XP will be like <1% or less of gaming PCs (actually Steam says it's around 4%).

The real question is what you want to do. Do you want to learn the core of 3D rendering? That is procedural meshes and shaders. Do you want to learn rendering in general? Choose one: DirectX or OpenGL. Do you want to write a real game? Don't use either. Start with [a game engine like Unity, or at least an existing OpenGL/DirectX wrapper like Ogre/Horde3D/etc].

^^ this (slightly edited for my opinion).

Well, I did suggest Unity because it is a "big boy" engine that does everything and is very well documented and supported. If he want to create a game, a full featured engine is best, but not necessarily Unity. But Unity also seems a bit more easy to get you hands on and grasp than the CryEngine or Unreal. There are also a ton of engines available, but quite a few have to problem of allowing for graphics that are at most from 2006.

But if the goal is not to write a real game, indeed I would recommend a wrapper. Can be something simple as DirectX TK. Or one of the mini-frameworks from a few popular bloggers. I would not recommend DXUT. And Ogre without precompiled headers takes so long to compile that you can have a meal each time.

But if you want the highest of the high level of graphics, super AAA quality rendering, then OpenGl is inferior. Maybe the latest version is great, but the ones I tried were a lot behind. For starters, a big chunk of OpenGL is implemented in the GPU driver. There is a huge quality gap between supper cheap GPUs never meant to do real rendering work and high quality stuff.

[citation needed]

I can't offer you a citation, only anecdotal evidence.

In historic order:

1. Linux. This is probably the problem of early Linux drivers and not a real problem with OpenGL, but OpenGL reliability on Linux was very bad. Sure, if you ran glgears there were no problems. But if you tried to do more complicated stuff, some things would not render exactly as expected with no way to fix it except to either try to change X setting and mess around with the driver or move to another PC. There were small bugs that effected only parts of it, allowing you to render the scene but some effects would not show up.

2. Windows Vista + some ATI cards. When Vista came out, some ATI cards had broken OpenGL drivers and it took so many months for them to fix it that I gave up on Vista. The performance was very bad.

3. Even today, there can be subtle differences. Things like Toksvig specular AA are highly dependent on the exact behavior of the GPU filtering system. Even right now if I tried, I can get at least 3 different results on 3 different PCs. Same code, same resolution, different GPUs. The probability of getting it pixel perfect is less than in DirectX and OpenGL has no mechanic to report to you that it is doing stuff differently than you would expect. It says: OK, rendered corectly! And indeed there is output on the screen. And if you examine it superficially it looks OK. Maybe just by a little and I had bad luck. But I'm pretty sure it is not higher.

What I got out of all these experiences is a common theme of slightly less reliability. This is of course an issue only on the PC. If you target some hardware that only has OpenGL and historically has only had OpenGL and everybody is using OpenGL do do 100% of the graphics stuff, there will be probably no such issues.

I personally use OpenGL because is clossplatform and the differences of performance with Direct3D are gone. I think also Direct3D has a conflict, is not vendor-neutral standard.

Check this nvidia blog:

http://blogs.nvidia.com/blog/2014/03/20/opengl-gdc2014/

AZDO is effectively dead.

With Vulkan and D3D12 on the way, nobody (outside of tech-demos) is going to primarily write code in the AZDO style because it's essentially unportable to other APIs: no other API works that way, and porting will be non-trivial; it's a complete re-architecting.

To be brutally honest, whether or not an API is cross-platform should be the least concern of anybody starting out. They've enough to learn on one platform; learning on two (or more) is just not being helpful. Better to focus on tools, support, documentation, resources and driver quality. I want to highlight the latter because it's vital for a beginner to be able to tell the difference between "did I screw up?" and "have I got a weird driver bug?" Good driver quality gives them the ability to tell that difference with more confidence. Having to continually fight the drivers ... doesn't.