[QUOTE=Dark-Energy;26451702]Isn't OpenGL much harder to code than DirectX? Or is that backwards? I don't think DirectX is bad at all, there is a clear distinction between DX9 and DX10 in many games from my own experience. DX11 was a better jump as it supported tessellation and wasn't as hyped.[/QUOTE]
Its the other way round, but more people know how to develop with DirectX than OpenGL.
[QUOTE=27X;26454074]Backwards, general rendering is easier in DX, but getting fancy is easier on OGL, and you don't need a new rendering framework to support advanced coding in OGL, you just need specific support for the feature itself, in many cases independent of the version of OGL you are using. Carmack was doing a lot of the lighting stuff DX11 touts as being "next gen" well before OGL 4 was around or even being ratified as the new package standard. Same for Starbreeze. Hell they have stuff running through a wrapper and it's still more efficient. People have backcoded in [I]accurate[/I] Cook Torrance lighting algorithms for Doom 3, and that shit is gonna be 7 years old soon; meanwhile DX11 [I]still[/I] doesn't have anywhere as accurate a representation that I've seen.
The issue is money and consoles, as opposed to an open standard the a company like M$ can't wring licensing money from. The adoption rate is solely about business, not which is better.[/QUOTE]
You know I think what John Carmack does and what an average developer does are two slightly different things.
The developer of Infinity once stated that he would prefer to move to DX as OpenGL was a mess. I'd tend to believe him over random schmucks on FP.
[editline]3rd December 2010[/editline]
Also, what does cook-torrence lighting have to do with anything? Pretty sure DX has had fully programmable shaders since like 8-9ish?
[QUOTE=pebkac;26451482]I wonder whether people who say this shit have ever written a single line of code in their entire life. I'm not saying it's true or not, I haven't gotten into graphics programming myself yet, but it's sad how people spew that kind of shit around based on what current videogames have to offer.[/QUOTE]
If you like having something interesting to read, I recommend reading these:
[url]http://blog.wolfire.com/2010/01/Why-you-should-use-OpenGL-and-not-DirectX[/url]
[url]http://blog.wolfire.com/2010/01/DirectX-vs-OpenGL-revisited[/url]
Actually I'm going to give them a re-read.
Yes because that is not at all biased.
[QUOTE=BmB;26462004]Yes because that is not at all biased.[/QUOTE]
How about admitting the only reason DirectX is widely used is because Microsoft threatened to drop OpenGL support in Windows and the fact it has a good documentation for programmers ?
Or maybe because it's *gasp* a good solution as well?
Dare I even suggest that some might find it better? :O
Some might find it better. But in terms of performance, OpenGL is ahead of DirectX.
All I know is Half-Life 1 ran 10 times faster and looked alot better running on OpenGL with an 8MB AGP 2x ATi Rage II Pro than it did in DirectX or software rendering.
I have backed OpenGL since then, and Microsoft's financial dominance must come to an end...
[QUOTE=BmB;26462428]Dare I even suggest that some might find it better? :O[/QUOTE]
How dare you.
DirectX is the equivalent to the iPhone in terms of phones, sure it may not be as good as Android (Open GL) but everyone knows what it is and you can bet your bottom dollar that there is more support and community based around the iPhone than android.
[editline]3rd December 2010[/editline]
not to mention graphics card vendor support
The only reason people were so hyped up about DX10 was Crysis, and It's amazing graphics, You could only get the amazing awesome graphics on DX10... Because V-High was locked out on DX9, and the only reason DX11 was so hyped up was because of Tesselation, Which, Granted does look fucking nice but OpenGL has had it for years.
[QUOTE=wingless;26463849]Tesselation, Which, Granted does look fucking nice but [B]OpenGL has had it for years.[/B][/QUOTE]
Oh, I wonder where you got that from.
[quote=http://blog.wolfire.com/2010/01/Why-you-should-use-OpenGL-and-not-DirectX]The tesselation technology that [URL="http://www.microsoft.com/games/en-US/aboutGFW/pages/directx.aspx"]Microsoft is heavily promoting for DirectX 11[/URL] has been [URL="http://developer.amd.com/gpu_assets/AMD_vertex_shader_tessellator.pdf"]an OpenGL extension for three years[/URL].[/quote]
Well if you actually bothered to read the document linked in the article you would have seen it was an ATI-only *extension*. Their cards have had tesselators since the HD2000 series, and even some of their older cards like Radeon 8500 supported tesselation, but it was just smoothing without displacement maps.
Here's a good read about it that I've just found:[URL="http://rastergrid.com/blog/2010/09/history-of-hardware-tessellation/"] http://rastergrid.com/blog/2010/09/history-of-hardware-tessellation/[/URL]
That's right, Nvidia didn't have tesselation until DirectX 11 forced them into supporting it. One thing that Microsoft certainly does well with DX is setting standards. This way all GPUs that support a certain version are able to run the same code. For obvious reasons, vendor-specific extensions in OpenGL generally go unused except for graphics demos.
It's fucking ridiculous how everyone instantly started praising OpenGL and how it's better than DirectX the moment that Wolfire posted that article. I'm not claiming any one of them is superior over the other, the point I'm trying to get across is [highlight][B]Don't try to teach others about stuff you don't know.[/B][/highlight] I'm so fucking sick of everyone doing it.
[QUOTE=pebkac;26464378]Oh, I wonder where you got that from.
Well if you actually bothered to read the document linked in the article you would have seen it was an ATI-only *extension*. Their cards have had tesselators since the HD2000 series, and even some of their older cards like Radeon 8500 supported tesselation, but it was just smoothing without displacement maps.
Here's a good read about it that I've just found:[URL="http://rastergrid.com/blog/2010/09/history-of-hardware-tessellation/"] http://rastergrid.com/blog/2010/09/history-of-hardware-tessellation/[/URL]
That's right, Nvidia didn't have tesselation until DirectX 11 forced them into supporting it. One thing that Microsoft certainly does well with DX is setting standards. This way all GPUs that support a certain version are able to run the same code. For obvious reasons, vendor-specific extensions in OpenGL generally go unused except for graphics demos.
It's fucking ridiculous how everyone instantly started praising OpenGL and how it's better than DirectX the moment that Wolfire posted that article. I'm not claiming any one of them is superior over the other, the point I'm trying to get across is [highlight][B]Don't try to teach others about stuff you don't know.[/B][/highlight] I'm so fucking sick of everyone doing it.[/QUOTE]
The problem about tesselation is Microsoft hyping it like it's some new high-tech stuff and they were the first to do it. Not it being ATi only on OpenGL
[QUOTE=PiXeN;26465723]The problem about tesselation is Microsoft hyping it like it's some new high-tech stuff and they were the first to do it. Not it being ATi only on OpenGL[/QUOTE]
Well, I've never heard them claim any credit for the tesselation. Besides, they only "do" the software side and set the standards, it's up to the companies that produce GPUs to create the necessary hardware. Hell, it's not like your average gamer gives any credit to MS for it, they'll just praise their favourite GPU maker.
And frankly, it does deserve hype. More hype = higher demand to see it implemented = more developers using it. And that's a good thing.
Dx11 is new at the moment.
and it has hardware tesselation. wich will automatically increase polygons and sharpen textures in games and so on. its better by other words.
[QUOTE=PiXeN;26462074]How about admitting the only reason DirectX is widely used is because Microsoft threatened to drop OpenGL support in Windows and the fact it has a good documentation for programmers ?[/QUOTE]
Bull. If MS drops OpenGL support in windows, most developers will drop windows since most applications(that are not games) use opengl. Dropping opengl is like killing yourself.
I like OpenGL more because it is multi-platform.
[QUOTE=MacTrekkie;26470535]I like OpenGL more because it is multi-platform.[/QUOTE]
I like OpenGL more because it's not Microsoft bullcrap.
[QUOTE=Kommunist;26470699]I like OpenGL more because it's not Microsoft bullcrap.[/QUOTE]
Oh no it's from ms, it's instant bullcrap.
Other than DX being closed it's a very good api.
[QUOTE=johan_sm;26470897]Oh no it's from ms, it's instant bullcrap.
Other than DX being closed it's a very good api.[/QUOTE]
It's closed source... that's enough to turn alot of programmers off.
[QUOTE=Pixel Heart;26470963]It's closed source... that's enough to turn alot of programmers off.[/QUOTE]
True, but that doesn't make it shit.
Every company wants something that they can hold on to.
I rather program for something that's easily modifiable and flexible, with loads of community support. Much like programming for Linux.
DirectX is shit anyway.
All praise the OpenGL master race.
[QUOTE=johan_sm;26470460]Bull. If MS drops OpenGL support in windows, most developers will drop windows since most applications(that are not games) use opengl. Dropping opengl is like killing yourself.[/QUOTE]
It's not like you can "drop" a third party API. The thing that supplies OpenGL support on Windows is the graphics drivers, it would have to be Intel, ATI and Nvidia that "drops" it.
[editline]4th December 2010[/editline]
[QUOTE=wingless;26463849]The only reason people were so hyped up about DX10 was Crysis, and It's amazing graphics, You could only get the amazing awesome graphics on DX10... Because V-High was locked out on DX9, and the only reason DX11 was so hyped up was because of Tesselation, Which, Granted does look fucking nice but OpenGL has had it for years.[/QUOTE]
This was probably an Nvidia thing since at the time they were the only DX10 hardware vendor. Make people get it for the biggest graphics game, eh? Crysis is a TWIMTBP game.
[QUOTE=Pixel Heart;26471084]I rather program for something that's easily modifiable and flexible, with loads of community support. Much like programming for Linux.[/QUOTE]
Open is for nerds(no offense, I am a nerd myself) while mainstream doesn't give a damn and most stuff is made for mainstream.
[QUOTE=johan_sm;26477473]Open is for nerds(no offense, I am a nerd myself) while mainstream doesn't give a damn and most stuff is made for mainstream.[/QUOTE]
So firefox is for nerds then? Where are you guys pulling all this bullshit about open source from?
[QUOTE=CommanderPT;26446459]I agree. Still, it is annoying how people refuse to upgrade from a nine year old OS. Claiming that MS excluded windows XP from DX10/11 just to make people buy it. Or maybe, just maybe it is just a decade old and needs to be replaced.
Even though DX 11 doesn't make a major difference, it is still pretty when used right.[/QUOTE]
You think Microsoft, the company known for trying to achieve constant backwards-compatibility on an OS that still runs code from the pre-NT versions of Windows, is not capable of adapting a driver model so that XP can use it too?
I think I might just have a bridge to sell you!
[QUOTE=pebkac;26466331]Well, I've never heard them claim any credit for the tesselation. Besides, they only "do" the software side and set the standards, it's up to the companies that produce GPUs to create the necessary hardware. Hell, it's not like your average gamer gives any credit to MS for it, they'll just praise their favourite GPU maker.
And frankly, it does deserve hype. More hype = higher demand to see it implemented = more developers using it. And that's a good thing.[/QUOTE]
They don't actually "do" the software side. They just set the standard. You need device drivers with OpenGL support for applications using OpenGL to be hardware accelerated.
Of course, there are pure software alternatives like Mesa3D, but they aren't written by the people at Khronos.
[QUOTE=gparent;26488135]So firefox is for nerds then? Where are you guys pulling all this bullshit about open source from?[/QUOTE]
I think what he is trying to say is that only geeks and enthusiasts really care about how "open" something is. The average person quite frankly doesn't give a shit as long as it works.
[QUOTE=Demache;26488604]I think what he is trying to say is that only geeks and enthusiasts really care about how "open" something is. The average person quite frankly doesn't give a shit as long as it works.[/QUOTE]
Yes exactly. Most people who use firefox use it because they like it, not because it has source code available.
[QUOTE=johan_sm;26488958]Yes exactly. Most people who use firefox use it because they like it, not because it has source code available.[/QUOTE]
comparing average firefox users to videogame developers doesn't make sense at all
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
