PDA

View Full Version : Debate!!!



CyBBe
06-11-2000, 07:02 AM
Why does almost all games use Direct3D, and those who support OGL does almost always support Direct3D to...

Why?

Is it because it's more compatible with graphic cards, in this case why does the graphics cards mostly support D3D?

Or is it just because it's easier, or is it easier???

By the way, is there any DirectX forum???

Gorg
06-11-2000, 10:00 AM
I have no clue. My guess is that when people starts to learn DirectX to program games, they probably learn Direct3d at the same time.

I think that direct3d is just another tool in a programming toolbox and nothing more.

it seems like the X-Box will only have Directx, direct3d support, so if you know opengl, direct3d, directx, and other platform input apis, well, you can code, for PC win, PC linux, mac, x-box and others OS and hardware platform I never heard of or don't want to get close to now.

I would love if there was only one API!! Saves a lot of trouble, but if you want to have a large audience, well, you have know them.

SKSlayer
06-11-2000, 11:18 AM
Hum, probably OpenGL is much more powerful, but it only covers graphics.

Direct X got DirectInput, Direct 3D, DirectSound, DirectShow, and a lot of stuff

Geoff
06-11-2000, 11:37 AM
From what I understand, Tim Sweeney (sp?) the god behind Unreal Tournament is looking to drop support for OpenGL in future games because D3D and DirectX is being continually updated and improved, whereas OpenGL is not? Not sure how true this is or how the current version of GL stacks up to D3D, but from what I've heard, DirectX, etc, performs at least somewhat faster.

One the flip side, I've tried to do DX programming and boy did I hate it. I gave up with D3D because it was even worse. When it comes to OpenGL programming in a Win32 environment, the only part I really don't like is Win-doze aspect of it...perhaps that's why I despised DX--because it was as poorly designed as Win-doze? At least OpenGL has been easy to learn and the results are satisfying. I personally am hoping that GL stays around.

Ah well...

dans
06-11-2000, 01:25 PM
I think his statement was more along the lines of 'for Win32 concentrating on DirectX for the graphics API, still with openGL support in Win32, this added openGL support will cover the other OS's that dont have DirectX - Linux, Apple, and the others..'

I hope my memory is not failing me on this one, but none the less I am sure they would keep OpenGL as the alternative rendering API.

Basically You can do in DirectX alot more than in OpenGL because DirectX covers alot more, ie. input/output/sound/movies (repeating someone above me) Direct3D is == to OpenGL its a sub-system of DirectX. You could use Direct Sound/Input to play your music on Win32 but the would be useless to run or compile on Linux or iMac. It would also not run on NT4 systems unless you stuck to the DirectX 5.0 API (NT4.0 only has DirectX 5 support) DirectX 7.x is current now for win9x/2k, with 8 in beta testing. Dont be shy of DirectX in Windows. It seems the way to go for alot of things, - Keyboard Joystick input (DirectInput).

If your having probs getting started with openGL be very afraid of getting started with Direct3D, be very afraid.

lgrosshennig
06-11-2000, 02:16 PM
Hi there!

Looks like a flame war has been started (again).

One thing first, I do use BOTH OpenGL and DirectX. Both of them have their good and their ugly aspects. However I am more addicted to OpenGL for the 3d stuff.

The thing is that the new features of the 3d cards are faster available in directx to the developers (in the beta program) than they are as OpenGL extensions.

For a software company it is a "NO BRAINER" what kind of 3d api to use in the first place (of course the one that targets most gamers). Just because we are talking about business right here and not about what is better/worse.

As far as I know, 3d card manufactures do the directx driver stuff in the first place, and than the OpenGL stuff.

On most alpha/beta prototype 3d cards I have seen their was not even ANY OpenGL ICD nor MCD that was useable or stable.

No, I'm NOT a friend of Mircosoft, but what most people do not realize in their hatred is that millions of people worldwide have a job where they develop programs for Microsoft Windows (what would they do otherwise?).

Blame (flame) me if you want (and can) but their would be not so many software companys out their without Microsoft.

Yes, i.e. Linux is faster and more relayable (I use it as an proxy, firewall and fileserver) but it is definetly nothing for a secetary.

At least what I am thinking.

Best regards,

LG http://www.opengl.org/discussion_boards/ubb/biggrin.gif

CyBBe
06-11-2000, 10:25 PM
Do any of U think that D3D will be as good or maybe better than OGL sometime? I mean, DX will soon be releasing DX 8 and that also for Win2k and I think that OGL soon have to start releasing some updtates or maybe D3D will win...
Just a thought...

Then I just wonder if Linux is something to go for or? Is it like I think that its not fully developed yet??? Is Linux worth to use?

Little of the subject there, though... http://www.opengl.org/discussion_boards/ubb/smile.gif

john
06-12-2000, 07:44 PM
linux is not fully develooped yet?
huh? http://www.opengl.org/discussion_boards/ubb/confused.gif

'course linux is fully armed and operationalal. Linux is TONNES easier than windows to use. IMHO, of course. http://www.opengl.org/discussion_boards/ubb/cool.gif

Pauly
06-13-2000, 02:36 AM
Have you ever tried installing X for Linux? oh-my-god!

Direct3D has the luxury of seemingly being rewritten every new version. Because it uses COM interfaces old code still works with the new code. Thats the ONLY good thing about COM IMHO.

THE ARB need to get the next version of OpenGL's specs. sorted out soon. DX8 will have per pixel shaders (as flexible as Nvidia's NV_register extensions) vertex blending (another extension is OpenGL) and a host of other 'cutting edge' stuff.

OpenGL can do all these things - but not all cards have to support them and the ARB hasn't ratified most of the extensions. So it gets a bit silly when you spend half your time querying for extensions and writing work-a-rounds for lesser cards. Aren't the driver writers supposed to be doing that!

If they don't keep up, OpenGL WILL die on the PC platform, a shame.

Paul.

john
06-13-2000, 04:17 AM
Installing X under linux? hmm???

I downloaded the network install image for Mandrake in a minute... installed mandrake over the internet in... well... i went out to get coffee, so. feh http://www.opengl.org/discussion_boards/ubb/wink.gif came back, answered a few poxy questions about DNS, the type of network... yadda yadda... LINUX including X is installed. pah? almost all of? 30 mins? since I downloaded hte image?

http://www.opengl.org/discussion_boards/ubb/wink.gif

linux is cool. go use it http://www.opengl.org/discussion_boards/ubb/wink.gif

cheers
John

Arath
06-13-2000, 05:15 AM
In my point of view, game developper are both working with OpenGL and Direct3D as everyone doesn't own a 100% OpenGL compatible 3D card.
And a game is made for being sell so ... they develop for Direct3D because all PC are "compatible" with it whereas Direct3D is harder to use.
Direct3D also contains DirectInput, DirectSound and DirectPlay which are very usefull for games.

Sjonny
06-13-2000, 05:43 AM
Totally agree with John. (Must be in the name http://www.opengl.org/discussion_boards/ubb/wink.gif
And as linux gets more games ported by loki, all use OpenGL 'cause linux doesn't have DX.
OpenGL gets more popular and games more written with OpenGL. Saves alot of porting time too. Soldier of Fortune for example was from the beginning written to use OpenGL (uses some DX too, I thought), but there is allready a port for linux (maybe other platforms too (mac?)).
It's way better 'cause this approch widens your audience. And the effort doesn't change, you still have to create the game. So hail to OpenGL! http://www.opengl.org/discussion_boards/ubb/smile.gif

John

Pauly
06-13-2000, 06:25 AM
I agree entirely with what you say about OpenGL (and OpenAL) and multi-platform gaming. The point is, if you need to tailor an install of Linux for what ever reason its really really difficult.

A company I'm doing some work for is trying to get a small Linux dist. working on an embedded PC with OpenGL - they're not finding it easy.

Still, at least with Linux you can fully customise the install....

Paul.

Siwko
06-13-2000, 07:10 AM
First, I have to say that I enjoy these threads, as long as people don't get nasty. We're doing a good job here.

Now to the meat and potatoes. OpenGL will not die, simply because it was designed as, and will continue to be designed for the high-end 3D market. Its purposes are as such. It was just by happenstance that the gaming market originally picked up OpenGL, because there was no other viable alternative at the time (circa Quake 1). The only reason OpenGL ever was included in the consumer windows market (Win9X) was because of games. As we all know, OpenGL was not included in the initial release of Win95.

Enter DirectJunk. DirectX started out its life without a 3D renderer. I believe that it wasn't until DirectX 3 that Direct3D came about. But it was a naturally evolving process at the same time.

Now as to who wins the contest, you'll notice that even a year ago, video hardware vendors developed their cards around OpenGL, and this was OpenGL's hayday. Now, you'll find that OpenGL poured its influence into Direct3D, and video hardware vendors are developing for Microsoft's camp, because it has the momentum. Thats why almost all OpenGL ICD's for current cards are mapping back to the Direct3D drivers, aka OpenGL wrapper style.

If Microsoft dies, DirectX will too, after a short time. But we shall see.

As to which is better... its one's personal preference. Most people say (even DX developers) OpenGL. Why do they use Direct3D then?

$$$

Thanx,
Siwko

SysCoKid
06-13-2000, 07:27 AM
Hi to you all.
I think linux or unix witch are prety much the same thing are easy enough and run on any machine and Dirext X exist only in Windows witch is not compatibile with any machine(maybe NT is).
On the other hand any video card that has
good 3D supports OpenGl end even if dosn't suports OpenGl there is MGL from schitech witch impements OpenGl trough
DirectX.
As for sound input,network and sound it will be great if somebody would make a standard or a lib.(like glut)

IamBob
06-13-2000, 08:40 AM
I'm fairly new to the game but have found OpenGL to be easy enough to pick up. Quicktime does sound/video well(for those wanting a standard for including sound/video). I'm using Java and as such probably don't see the speed that can be had using OpenGL..but even still what I've been doing cooks!

I'm on a mac(shame on me?) and have never seen anything done in D3D or anything else really...maybe someone will do a D3D port for the macaddicts out there(haha). As it is OpenGL crosses the board well and is most likely to succeed.

We'll see where things go, I'm sure.

tom
06-13-2000, 08:56 AM
IamBob

Yeah shame on you http://www.opengl.org/discussion_boards/ubb/smile.gif

Nah...the Macs have to big plusses :

+ their CPU is much better
+ there's no DirectX

ngill
06-13-2000, 02:56 PM
Just another reason why MS should split up into different companies...

I hope they don't do this stuff and play favorites after they break up... if any of have friends in high places. I am sure you will do a good job of persuading them to help split MS.

Haha, I just realized this ironic thing... I am wearing a Microsoft shirt today....

CyBBe
06-13-2000, 11:57 PM
Ok, you've all convinced me that Linux may be worth a shot... BUT I still can't use my LT-Win modem in Redhat Linux, or can I ???

Siwko
06-14-2000, 09:53 AM
Originally posted by CyBBe:
Ok, you've all convinced me that Linux may be worth a shot... BUT I still can't use my LT-Win modem in Redhat Linux, or can I ???

Yes you can. http://www.opengl.org/discussion_boards/ubb/smile.gif http://linmodems.org/linux568.zip
I've used it. It works.

But in addition to all the posts above, I must mention, Linux is NOT for the average computer user. That's why it has never reached mass market. And until someone decides to make interoperability between all the GUI's in Linux, and make the interface intuitive and "easy for Grandma", it will never reach mass market.

I dare you all to explain to your parents how the different ls options work, and try to teach them what symbolic links are useful for.

Siwko

john
06-14-2000, 04:17 PM
Yer, I agree with Swiko. Linux can be initially very confusing... but, I guess it's all part of the cool fun of finding out about stuff. I mean, try explaining to someone about mounting file systems. geepers. http://www.opengl.org/discussion_boards/ubb/wink.gif
"but, why isn't it just THERE!?! why do I have to type mnt /dev/hda1 /mnt/dos to see my C: driiIIIiive!" http://www.opengl.org/discussion_boards/ubb/wink.gif

Having said THAT, then getting started isn't *too* difficult. You just need to get some linux distribution such as RedHat (and, no, you don't NEED to buy it if you have access to a network or a cd-burner and plenty of patience http://www.opengl.org/discussion_boards/ubb/wink.gif and boot to the CD. I've installed TurboLinux, RedHat and Mandrake, and it's all reasonably straightforward...

You should really pick up a book on Linux, I think? I mean, how else do you know how to start X with startX, hmmm?? Or what a .xsession does? or a .cshrc?? so... getting a book or a linux guru to give you a hand is probably a GOod Thing http://www.opengl.org/discussion_boards/ubb/smile.gif

my 2c worth

cheers
John

john
06-14-2000, 04:19 PM
oh, that's right! My whole point for posting was FORGOTTEN. I saw a tech release from microsoft expounding on their New! And AMazing! Invention... baout how their researchers are busily commig up with amazing new ideas to revolutionalise the world, yadda yadda. well, this article was about the "inventor" or symbolic links. http://www.opengl.org/discussion_boards/ubb/wink.gif

Really... it's FUUNNNY. uh.. guys... unix has had sym links for.. hmm.. ever? http://www.opengl.org/discussion_boards/ubb/wink.gif

cheers,
John

Random_Task
06-15-2000, 02:10 PM
I've got some observations that could use some more insight. I have used both DX and OGL so don't go yelling that I haven't. Ok on to the observations. In my studies of DirectX I came up with the conclusion that DirectX is so "quick" because it utilizes not only hidden windows APIs but also has the capabilities to directly access the video hardware. As third party implementors of OpenGL it is obvious that without direct access to video hardware and hidden APIs it will be slower (Is there a way to directly access hardware in Win programming?) So what I'm thinking is that if MS is broken up will DirectX be moved to the "programs" portion of MS? If so then we may see DirectX slow down as new releases of windows come out. Then possibly OGL will advance a little more. Just some Ranting.

Random Task

Gorg
06-15-2000, 04:38 PM
Originally posted by Random_Task:
In my studies of DirectX I came up with the conclusion that DirectX is so "quick" because it utilizes not only hidden windows APIs but also has the capabilities to directly access the video hardware.

Just to point out that was the whole point of DirectX. pure windows functions are too slow and Microsoft had to do something to make game developper happy and make them accept windows as a game platform.


As third party implementors of OpenGL it is obvious that without direct access to video hardware and hidden APIs it will be slower (Is there a way to directly access hardware in Win programming?) So what I'm thinking is that if MS is broken up will DirectX be moved to the "programs" portion of MS? If so then we may see DirectX slow down as new releases of windows come out. Then possibly OGL will advance a little more. Just some Ranting.

Random Task

The version of opengl on windows is made by microsoft. You are right, just taking software rendering into account, Direct3d is faster because microsoft made more optimisations, but opengl standard specifies that if a card support opengl, it must support all features! So there is no real need for third party opengl implementation

blide
06-16-2000, 02:36 PM
I belive for any type of 3d or advanced graphics that Opengl would be the best api to use. DirectX is great for their directinput directsound directmusic and directplay, however direct3d is very hard and painful to use and does not run as smooth or look as good as opengl. Just look at the difference between Quake3 Arena(opengl) and Unreal Tournament(d3d). Quake3Arena looks much better with flashier graphics. UT looks very blocky, everything is rectangular! I belive opengl is the best 3d graphics api, nand dinput, dsound, dmusic, and dplay are excellent for games also, however d3d is just plain horrible. This is all my own opinion of course, so tell me what u think.

omm123
06-17-2000, 05:23 AM
Originally posted by Random_Task:
In my studies of DirectX I came up with the conclusion that DirectX is so "quick" because it utilizes not only hidden windows APIs but also has the capabilities to directly access the video hardware.
Is there any particular reason why an OpenGL library for Linux can't/shouldn't be able to access hardware? Take NVIDIA's implementation: they have three libs (libGL, libGLcore and libglx) which work with their XFree86 4.0 nvidia drivers to access hardware directly. I'm using it right now and even without the extra perks associated with AGP (something wrong with their AGP implementation), I'm getting *fantastic* results with it. 8^)

Oh ... and may I also advocate OpenAL <http://www.OpenAL.org/> as an alternative to DirectSound.

john
06-18-2000, 03:46 PM
Hi,

well, what you quoted in your reply and what you responded to are two entirely different things.

It has been alleged that microsoft have "secret" sections of their windows API that allows DirectX to access the hardware directly; ie. magic directX backdoors that OpenGL can't access. But that's another story, and I don't want to go there.

What you responded to is a different matter. SGIs allow direct access to the hardware, largely because it doesn't expose a linear framebuffer to the user. It's GLX *can* bypass the X-Windows interface and talk directly to the OpenGL pipe with appropriate resource locking.

Can Linux do this? Hmm. Not sure. THere are good philosophical/techical/practical reasons why a given resource (not just the screen, but printers, the harddisk, etc.) shouldn't be exposed to the user process. Whter XFree4 can get around this is another question. I don't know.

cheers
John