Angel Member Posts: 699 From: The Blissful State Of Me? Registered: 05-21-2001 |
Hay peeps I just had a qustion. Sence the polls arnt up I will just have to ask it here. Wich is used more OpenGL or DerectX? Wich do you like more? I personly use DerectX cuz every game that I get uses it. So as far as im consurned OpenGL is worthless. Now if you take a look at the program "Blender" wich is a modoling program. They only work with OpenGL and they promot their program for develeping games as well as other things. Why would that be worth useing when everyone uses DerectX and plays games that require it? ------------------ |
Krylar Administrator Posts: 502 From: MD, USA Registered: 03-05-2001 |
Heya, DirectX is more commonly used, but it openGL support more platforms. openGL has been known to have driver problem on various cards, DirectX has been know just plain have problems Personally, I've only used DirectX in development, but I've heard a lot of great things about openGL. -Krylar ------------------ |
rowanseymour Member Posts: 284 From: Belfast, Northern Ireland Registered: 02-10-2001 |
In my opinion (and I have used both) Direct3D has only come close to the ease of use and power of OpenGL with version 8. Previous to 8 if one wanted to harness the speed of Direct3D one had to use the infamous execute buffers - and they were ugly . OpenGL has always been ahead of Direct3D feature wise. It supported TnL from day one as well as other advanced features like NURBS. Performance wise I would say there is little difference between the two if they are both used properly. OpenGL does tend to be the more common API for non-commercial programmers and there is a lot more in the way of online tutorials and source out there given that it is platform independent. At the minute tho Direct3D 8 would be my API of choice but when OpenGL 2.0 is released I know that will change. ------------------ |
Briant Member Posts: 742 From: Stony Plain, Alberta, Canada Registered: 01-20-2001 |
OpenGL is far from worthless. Up until DirectX 8, it has been the superior API in my opinion. And definitely WAY easier to learn. With DX8, they're more equal, but they say OpenGL is still easier to learn. As well, look at the releases. Microsoft is already at version 8.1 while OpenGL is still at 1.2 - this is not because OpenGL is worthless, it's because it was awesome from the get-go, and Microsoft has been playing catch-up all this time. As for commercial games that use OpenGL, you gotta see this page (which is just a sampling): http://www.opengl.org/users/apps_hardware/applications/games.html I too am looking forward to OpenGL 2.0 |
MadProf Member Posts: 181 From: Larnaka, Cyprus Registered: 01-24-2001 |
well... i've never done any directX programming, i have done some in opengl tho. i did look at the directX API, but it looked horrendous. opengl is easy to learn, i wont say anything more about DX, as i've not used it. blender uses opengl, as opengl is supported on a lot of platforms, such as linux, unix (all varients- solaris, irix, bsd, etc), beos, atheos, and loads of others, including the amiga, which is where blender origianlly origianlly started off (a lonng time ago). then it moved to linux/unix, and now to windows and osx (which is a unix). they've even ported it to the iPaq... cool, but crazy. :-D OpenGL started off a very long time ago as IrixGL, on the SGI Irix systems. SGI boxes were primarily used for graphics at that time (still today), and so they needed a graphics toolkit which could do high-end 3d stuff which is needed for graphics programming, 3d modeling/animating/etc. in about 1992 (I think, it might have been '95 ... i think '92 tho), they released openGL as an API for non-Irix (and Irix as well) machines, as IrixGL wouldn't scale to non-Irix boxes (boxen?). Around '95/'96, MS released the first directX specs for doing direct access to the system graphics and sound and such for windows, as doing stuff through the windows API is too slow, and directly accessing the hardware without some sort of inbetween library is rather dangerous (and very hard to program). a lot of graphics card manufactorers started supporting directX aroudn then, i have no idea why, some people say cos MS paid them too, i dont know. anyways, people started writing games for it, as it was fast. around '97/'98ish, opengl began to get popular too, as it is a lot easier than directX (or was at that time), more powerful, and supported by an increasingly large number of graphcis cards. quake II (and three) were writeen for it, as most 3d fps games are to this day. i read a lot of articales able it online and in mags, and thats about all really. if you want to write games which might be played on other platforms to windowes, you are best to write in opengl not directx, as it is a lot easier to port. a lot lot easier to port. you could also look at SDL, or clanlib, or similar, whcih do the cross-platform stuff for you. and add extra game-type functions on top of opengl. anyway, long message, now finished. dan ps - hehehehhe ------------------ [This message has been edited by MadProf (edited February 08, 2002).] |
MadProf Member Posts: 181 From: Larnaka, Cyprus Registered: 01-24-2001 |
ooh i forgot to mention a few things... most "serious" 3d programs use opengl, as it tends to be stabler. directX is based primarily at games, and so often the cards/drivers take shortcuts which can badly affect things in serious 3d (maya, 3d max, blender, softimage, etc). opengl certianly isn't "worthless". even if opengl never gets used in the future (Which i doubt. osx now is looking to be a very well used platform, and does not have directX. ditto linux. microsoft wont port directX to anything else. nor can they, really. its built too closely into windows) then it has at least made MS do something they have never done before, improve some of their software/APIs so they are easy to use, but still fast. :-D i'm biased. so shoot me. dan ps - i use linux. ------------------ |
Angel Member Posts: 699 From: The Blissful State Of Me? Registered: 05-21-2001 |
Well alot of thows games also suport DerectX as well. So im looking at it that maybe having your game suport both is a good idea. Funny thing is I own one of thows games and it dosnt say a thing about OpenGL. Im just trying to figure out why they have stuff like that? I mean if its a good idea to do it in both then why say one is better then the other? Both make good sails then dont they? Oh well im just trying to set this all right in my head. ------------------ |
MadProf Member Posts: 181 From: Larnaka, Cyprus Registered: 01-24-2001 |
well, coding for two different APIs is complicated, and time consuming. :-D ------------------ |
MeanManInOz Member Posts: 388 From: Hobart, Tasmania, Australia Registered: 06-26-2001 |
A lot of games are written for both because it gives greater coverage - if a game doesn't work because a card has poor support for GL, the user won't blame their card, they blame the programmer. Some cards are better at GL, some are not good at GL at all. So both are used in order that the end user is more likely to get a game to perform well for their circumstance. |
Klumsy Administrator Posts: 1061 From: Port Angeles, WA, USA Registered: 10-25-2001 |
as rowan said, dx before version 8 was a messing little thing.. opengl is quite elegant.. i use dx primarily.. for one reason there are NO good GL drivers for the 3d card in my laptop so anything GL just gets a few frames per second.. in the game scene DX is the highly commercialised one.. more companies have put in money developing drivers for DX than GL.. however on good cards you get very good GL drivers.. many decent 3d engines support both DX and GL... and often the GL will run faster (as long as there are good GL drivers for that card).. another reason i use DX is because i am basically just focusing on windows platform.. and MS stuff works with MS stuff quite well (obviously) - well as good as MS can do however say i wanted to make a game for linux.. i wouldn't go within a foot of DX.. i would do it in GL, because i could make a game that would compile on both rather easily... if i was to make a game for PC and XBOX.. i would do it DX the whole way because XBOX uses a directx dirivitive.. if i was to be making a game for PC, LINUX, XBOX, Playstation, PLaystation2, nintento 64.. i'd make my own graphis system abstracted from the hardware and routines that link in my graphisc framework with DX/GL for windows, DX for xbox, GL for linux, and native stuff for ps2, n64 Karl ------------------ |
Angel Member Posts: 699 From: The Blissful State Of Me? Registered: 05-21-2001 |
Well looking at it that way Karl then I was right in my idea. DX seems to be the best way to go. I would like to have both but this is a first project (sorta but its the first im attached to). Attached? Ya I love the story I have done for this one so I am realy into getting this game done. Im not going to drop this one no matter what. If everyone leaves me fine. I will just go and get funding from a millianr and pay someone to put it into works. ------------------ |
rowanseymour Member Posts: 284 From: Belfast, Northern Ireland Registered: 02-10-2001 |
OGL vs DX, it's a pretty big descision If you are writing this game for the glory of God and in the service of God, and you believe God is going to assist you and keep you right as you make it - then just ask God to make this descision for you, and to bless what you are doing... then toss a coin and even if you disagree with the answer, rest assured that God won't let you make any bad descisions. ------------------ |
Klumsy Administrator Posts: 1061 From: Port Angeles, WA, USA Registered: 10-25-2001 |
angel, designing and implementing a graphcs engine for a game.. (or choosing a third party one, which i would recommend in your case) is a lot more involved that just choosing the lowerend of openGL or DirectX.. many engines will support both.. if you are to write an engine from bottom up ontop of directx or Gl, then thats cool, just be aware that it will require probably about a year or more of a really good programmer fulltime to make just the graphis engine , not even considering game design, or anything like that.. if you go that path... and it will take a huge amount of resources , you have to have basically every 3d card out on the market and test and adapt your code accordingly.. i would suggest you using a 3d engine out there already.. ------------------ |
Jesusfreak Member Posts: 49 From: U.S.A. Registered: 01-20-2001 |
I haven't used OpenGL or DX too much. I have used DX 8 some though. From what I understand OpenGL is having problems with having to use extensions for pixel shaders ,etc... It's not standard in the API. Correct? With OpenGL 2.0 this is supposed to change. Mainly OpenGL has platform independence which I like. I personally like to use premade 3D engines. I've been using Genesis3D for anything I do. http://www.genesis3d.com. It has a new website. It is a bit dated now. If you are willing to wait a while(mid of this year) to start developin something and don't mind paying a little money(your gonna have to pay for stuff sometime) I would say register at http://www.destiny3d.com and see a great 3D engine being built. It's only $40. :-) ------------------ |