In response to "Why would I do this advanced stuff when it''s not necessary"... Because I want to.

The demo I''m working on has character animation in it. Linear interpolation is lame. The results you get with a spline curve rather than linear interpolation is amazing. Unfortunately moving along a spline, per vertex, per frame, causes a little bit of a performance hit. And I just read about shaders.

I''m not trying to create a complete game, I''m just creating a graphical demo to show off the scripting engine I created. And learn graphics at the same time. So I''m doing this stuff because I want to, and for no real critical reason.

Thanks for the input y''all. I think I''m going to switch to DX (arg... supporting the MS monopoly). There seems to be a lot of documentation on shaders in DX, and DX isn''t as bad as I remember it.

>>In response to "Why would I do this advanced stuff when it''s not necessary"... Because I want to.<<
>>I''m not trying to create a complete game, I''m just creating a graphical demo to show off the scripting engine I created<<

hmmmm i get the feeling u think d3d is more advanced than opengl (where in fact the opposite is true)
opengl will ALWAYS be more advanced UNTIL d3d adds extensions also.
currently the only way d3d advances is when ms releases a new version, with extensions theres new stuff every month, have u ever asked yourself WHY 90% of new graphical stuff is accesable in opengl before it is in d3d?
simple, u want best performance/bleeding edge u choose opengl (no ifs or buts)

sorry about the rant but i do feel ppl get fed wrong info a lot of the time

http://uk.geocities.com/sloppyturds/gotterdammerung.html

quote:
Thanks for the input y''all. I think I''m going to switch to DX

Hmm, giving up, as soon as a little challenge arises. Easy, isn''t it ? Oh well, I wish you good luck with D3D. No, it''s not bad as it used to be. But if you feel that OpenGL is to complex for you, and therefore want to move to D3D, then I''d recommend having a nice wall somewhere around your computer - in case you want to bang your head against it in frustration...

I''m not switching from GL because it''s too hard. In fact it''s much easier than DX. But DX meets my requirements better. I want shaders, and I want them to work on any system regardless of the card vendors (It''s a demo I''ll be sending out to people).

If I were starting this project 4 months from now, I would probably stay with GL because hopefully 2.0 would be out by then. But I can''t wait that long.

Hmmm..ZedZeek: Don''t be too proud of this OpenGL extension thingy.I was an OpenGL programmer for 4 years then I switched to D3D because of all the crap extensions that I had to deal with. Ever heard the saying "OpenGL: Death by Extensions"? There''s no poing programming non ARB specific extensions if you want to release your program for the masses.

As for which is more advanced than the other,I''d have to say none of them.They both do the exact same thing.I should know.I have now done alot of programming in both and I see no difference.The only thing I like about D3D is that I do not have to contend with extensions at all.Which is really sweet.

(Note: This is not to start a flame war or anything.But I was just correctin ZedZeek on this point.And no I am not one sided because I use BOTH API''s on a daily basis )