PDA

View Full Version : Download OpenGL v1.2, 1.3 or 1.4



08-24-2003, 02:44 AM
Where can i download the versin:
OpenGL v1.2, 1.3 or 1.4 are included with the drivers for your OpenGL video cards.

I cannot find a link.

Please help!

Thanks

PanzerSchreck
08-24-2003, 03:08 AM
You can't download OpenGL like it's the case with DirectX.
It's included in your videocard's driver, so you should download the newest driver for your gfxcard for the latest OpenGL-Implementation.

08-24-2003, 03:32 AM
And how can i get the latest openGL implementation???
Originally posted by PanzerSchreck:
You can't download OpenGL like it's the case with DirectX.
It's included in your videocard's driver, so you should download the newest driver for your gfxcard for the latest OpenGL-Implementation.

PanzerSchreck
08-24-2003, 03:41 AM
Can't read? http://www.opengl.org/discussion_boards/ubb/wink.gif
I said that it's included in the drivers for your graphicscard.

08-24-2003, 04:18 AM
And for what is openGL good?
because somebody told me that i have to download this version.

mikael_aronsson
08-24-2003, 05:00 AM
Hi !

You shouldn't listen to people that tell you "what you have to do", if you don't have a clue why you need to download it you probably don't need it.

OpenGL is a 3D graphics API, many games use it, and also 3D modellers and CAD software, it is alos pretty common for screen savers and other vital things...

You already has OpenGL on all late versions of Windows (and Linux also), but it is usually software only rendering (slow), if you get drivers for your video card you may get hardware acceleration (much faster 3D graphics).

Hope that helps
Mikael

Dave Astle
08-24-2003, 06:57 AM
Check out this article http://www.gamedev.net/reference/programming/features/oglext/ . It should answer most of your questions.

GL_ZERO
08-25-2003, 02:28 PM
If im correct Doom 3 used OpenGL2.0 right.... What does ID know the the public doenst know ??

I really like the OpenGL API, but i dont understand its SDK thing... cuz there is... there isnt... or its old but yet i see OpenGL demo's with effects that DX9 is just capable off.

Either OpenGL is more advanced the DX or im VERY confused http://www.opengl.org/discussion_boards/ubb/tongue.gif

[This message has been edited by GL_ZERO (edited 08-25-2003).]

Azrael
08-25-2003, 03:32 PM
ID has more information because it's a part of ARB so they are developing OpenGL. But regarding to the latest decisions i don't think that D3 will need GL2. GL1.5 includes mostly the features, which should be implemented in GL2.

DX is not as often updatet than GL, because DX is a kind of layer over the Driver, GL instead is implemented in the driver itself so the vendors are able to implement new features directly via an extension. The problem is that it'S mostly vendor specific until ARB agrees on a extensions, which is not vendor specific, but this may take a while. You see, GL is much more quicker in using new technologies.

Back to the topic.
You answered your question on your own, so why do you ask again?

08-27-2003, 01:01 PM
First of all ddraw,d3d ect. will only work on windows os. Opengl can run on other os. Dx is better in my opinion but if you want to make a game and port it to ther os dx is a bad choice so large game dev. can use opengl to its advantage to run on other os as long as they have g cards that are opengl suported. (example) After all assembly is more powerful then c\c++ but not as portable.

08-27-2003, 01:05 PM
And also open gl is slower then dx this I know for a fact.

PanzerSchreck
08-27-2003, 01:42 PM
Originally posted by whocares:
And also open gl is slower then dx this I know for a fact.

Thats the most stupid sentence I read in the last years.
1) OpenGL and DX have nothing in common,and it should read D3D (DX is the name of the whole package)!
2) This quote is totally wrong...the fact that some games (like UT2k3) run slower when selecting OpenGL is due to the fact that their GL-Renderer isn't as optimised as the D3D one (cause of the fact that UT2k3 was developed with D3D in mind and that it's GL-Renderer is only experimental)

08-27-2003, 03:15 PM
First of all learn to read In my first reply you see d3d and draw and I also said in my opinion I used dx in the 2nd thinking that I already siad d3d an draw (directdraw,direct,3d,dinput ect. I know it is a pack other wise I would have said dx in the begining so hope you learn to read before you act it is your opinon what you wrote and I respect that but please dont say I am completley wrong for you also proved what I said(utslow). The reason why opengl is slow is if you don't have a good 3d video card. With dx this aloso aplys but most of the time it is just if you dont have the latest ver. So I hope I got to you.
See.noe.Hear.noe.Speak.noe.

Latrans
08-28-2003, 04:26 AM
I can't believe I'm participating in a Dx vs OGL debate. Pretty much everyone here already knows better than to believe whocares's comment, anyway.

So, I'll just say this... if you've got an nVidia card try playing games based on id engines like Half-life or Quake 3 and see what gives the better performance. I get a LOT better performance with OpenGL.

The truth is, if used right both APIs will give about the same performance, at least with nVidia cards. nVidia gives good drivers for both OpenGL and D3D.

If you have a crappy video card, D3Ds software implementation may be faster, but who cares, it's still going to be crappy performance.

08-28-2003, 09:51 AM
thank you you have shown my point of dx dinput, d3d,draw ok dx what ever. Yes dx games apps ect.(I like using ect.)do run faster then Opengl ones if you have a bad video card. You missed one thing tho since dx is faster on bad video cards the same aplys if you have a very good video card like a nvidia geforce2. My point was that dx is good but opengl is better since you can port to other os. Ok blallala!

Latrans
08-28-2003, 10:40 AM
No, the same does NOT apply for good cards. For good cards, there are good drivers for OpenGL and Direct3D that take advantage of the hardware, and therefore any speed differences are negligible. Speed differences you may see in individual games are due to the game favoring one API over the other. I've written identical demos in OpenGL and Direct3D just to make this comparison for myself and OpenGL was only slightly faster. Can you say the same? It sounds like you are making assumptions based on a limited set of experiences.

08-28-2003, 10:54 AM
Now under stand My point was that dx is good but opengl is better since you can port to other os. Ok! And I also siad in my opinion now thats that! Do you know what I mean by o.p.i.n.i.o.n! Now class lets have a session! The best movie of all time is A.I.! That is a o.p.i.n.i.o.n that is true to one but may not be to another now I hope you understand. See.noe.Hear.noe.Speak.noe.

08-28-2003, 10:57 AM
Now lets stop fighting like little brats dam it!

Latrans
08-28-2003, 12:21 PM
You implied that DirectX was faster than OpenGL in all cases. That is something that can quantitatively be measured, and therefore is not an opinion. I simply stated that it your statement is not always true. If you don't believe me that there are cases where OpenGL is faster, and that there are cases where they are virtually identical, then you are welcome to try and prove me wrong.

08-28-2003, 12:40 PM
I only have one thing to say to that so this will not go on any further See.noe.Hear.noe.Speak.noe. Ok? Oh and who cares! Enogh!

08-28-2003, 01:00 PM
You know what I know this will keep going on so this maybe will stop it this is another topic but realy is on open gl vs. d3d.So this would of been the result of are nonsense.

Author Topic: OpenGL vs Direct3D
skater_g
Contributor posted 03-13-2001 01:18 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm a writing a persuasive paper for HS and I'm wondering what experiences people have had with OpenGL and Direct3D. Which do you personally prefer and why? I only use OpenGL. Are there any drawbacks that you have found in your preferred API? Is there a different preference when using different languages, such as Visual Basic or C? Are there any areas of improvement that you think will need to be addressed in future versions? Please tell me whatever you are willing to share. I really would value your input. Thanks.
Bryan


john
Frequent Contributor posted 03-13-2001 03:30 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi! I'm wondering how to fuel a bush-fire. see, i've got several hundred drums of petrol, and this works, *BUT* i can only turn several hundred hectares of scrub into a smouldering mess. I was wondering... has anyone had much sucess with nuclear weapons?
cheers,
John

[This message has been edited by john (edited 03-13-2001).]


Gorg
Frequent Contributor posted 03-13-2001 04:21 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here we go again!!

Deiussum
Frequent Contributor posted 03-14-2001 11:09 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
John, I think your nuclear weapon idea sounds like a good one. Not only do you get a lot of initial damage, but also the benefits of the whole mushroom cloud and nuclear fallout thing.
Skater_g, do you seriously think you're going to get objective opinions on OpenGL vs. Direct3d on a board that is primarily to discuss OpenGL? Post the same thread on a Direct3d board and you'll get opions that are completely different.

So far as differences between the two, OpenGL is easier to learn for many people, but a lot of people claim D3D is easier...

OpenGL has the whole extension thing going for it, while D3D gets a new update every year, (and in some cases those changes require a drastically different approach to the way you program.)


skater_g
Contributor posted 03-15-2001 06:39 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Deiussum,
Thank you for your response. It is all I need for the 4th source for my paper. Hehe....I knew it wouldn't be the best idea to post the message on an OpenGL board, but since I'm writing my paper to persuade people to use OpenGL, I figured this would be a good place to get some info......some serious info.

In case anyone is wondering, I cannot stand to use D3D. I dislike it with a passion, and I refuse to code with D3D anymore. Sorry though, I shouldn't have even brought it up.....


john
Frequent Contributor posted 03-15-2001 04:30 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
but, if you dislike something, then you presumedly know WHY you dislike something. I don;t like.. oh, say. COBOL because of very well defined reasons: the syntax structure is brain DEAD, the semantics are screwed in the head, and any compiler on a unix system that is called "rmc" is just screaming for trouble. ("rm" being the ReMove command... which is nice, but not when some of us press space bar to oearly=)
but... i know why i don't like cobol, and i can site reasons why it IMHO sucks... so i don't need to ask ppl why it sukcs when i already know why!! so, if you've used D3D and don't like it (which you say you don't...) then... why ask ppl for their opinions when you can form one yourself? "i think opengl is better than d3d for reasons X, Y and Z, with the following supporting evidence"...

feh!

cheers,
Hohn


andreiga
Contributor posted 03-18-2001 05:40 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
With OpenGL you can have per-pixel diffuse+specular lighting on Geforce2 family chipsets (GTS, MX etc.) through the register combiners extension, like in the Doom3. I said like in Doom3 but this doesn't mean that Doom3 will run on a Geforce2. Indeed, Geforce3 it's more powerful (adds more combiners and constants plus a new extension named texture shader), but this doesn't mean that Geforce3 it's a must (for now).
Unlike OGL, DX8 wants only the new advanced NSR from Geforce3 (which it's STUPID) and makes Geforce2 a Geforce1 with more fillrate.
In conclusion, in the future you may see games with per-pixel ligthing running only on OGL (because of the number of Geforce2 family chipsets on the market).
One other important thing it's the support of the fence/VAR extension which is MUCH better implemented than the DX8 vertex buffers, so you can have much more triangles per frame rendered (believe me, I'm first a DX programmer and second an OGL programmer).
P.S. Vertex programming extension (or DX8 vertex shader) is a plus of Geforce3 but i've seen recently some benchmarks made with 3dMark 2001 and the emulation (which i think it's done completly on the CPU, but i'm not so sure about that) is almost as fast as on the Geforce3 (this extension is required as a setup of per-pixel lighting).



LordKronos
Frequent Contributor posted 03-18-2001 06:05 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by andreiga:
With OpenGL you can have per-pixel diffuse+specular lighting on Geforce2 family chipsets (GTS, MX etc.) through the register combiners extension
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well, the drivers are supposed to have a way that allows D3D8 apps to get access to the register combiners. Cant say for sure which functionality is available this way, but its something you should be made aware of.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by andreiga:
Unlike OGL, DX8 wants only the new advanced NSR from Geforce3 (which it's STUPID) and makes Geforce2 a Geforce1 with more fillrate.
Just so you know, the Geforce2 IS a Geforce1 with more fillrate. While there are architectural differences between the cards, there is no difference in functionality. Both cards support the exact same features. From a user/developer standpoint, the only difference is speed.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by andreiga:
One other important thing it's the support of the fence/VAR extension which is MUCH better implemented than the DX8 vertex buffers


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I cant argue this for a fact, but if you use vertex buffers correctly (discard contents & no overwrite), I believe the D3D driver should be able to make use of the fences to get optimal results. Maybe Matt can confirm/refute this, but I wouldnt be surprised if he never even comes in here (given the title of the thread).



mcraighead
Frequent Contributor posted 03-18-2001 10:25 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't know about DX8, but on DX7, VAR was definitely superior. I think DX8 fixes some but not all of the DX7 vertex buffer problems.
- Matt


andreiga
Contributor posted 03-19-2001 02:13 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
---------------------------------------------
Originally posted by LordKronos:
Just so you know, the Geforce2 IS a Geforce1 with more fillrate. While there are architectural differences between the cards, there is no difference in functionality. Both cards support the exact same features. From a user/developer standpoint, the only difference is speed.

Reply:

Maybe what you say it's right (since i have a GTS and i never had a Geforce1 to see if the register combiners works), but don't forget that the NSR is a new component in Geforce2.
One more thing, in Nvidia Opengl SDK they show the power of register combiners and how to use them but ONLY on Geforce2 and Geforce3
(the later with an enhanced version of this extension).



Lars
Frequent Contributor posted 03-19-2001 05:04 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And you can do per pixel lighting on the Geforce1 and up under direct3D by using the dotproduct operation for the texturestagestate... don't know the syntax at the moment, but it works. You haven't got the full freedom, that the combiners give you of course.
Or wasn't there something ??? I remember a hack for the TNT cards, where you could use there combiners by setting specific stages to specific states in the d3d pipeline.
Maybe you can do this with GeForce too :-)
Lars


LordKronos
Frequent Contributor posted 03-19-2001 05:11 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by andreiga:
[B]but don't forget that the NSR is a new component in Geforce2. [B]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What features does the NSR provide? I'll tell you...NONE. Its a marketing term. Everything (feature-wise) in the NSR was available on the GeForce 256. Now, certainly the 256 didnt have 4 pixel pipelines (which is part of the "NSR" thing), but all additional piplines equates to is performance. Everything a Geforce 2 can do (or at least everything nvidia has disclosed thus far) can be done on a GeForce 256.



andreiga
Contributor posted 03-19-2001 06:07 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Lars:
And you can do per pixel lighting on the Geforce1 and up under direct3D by using the dotproduct operation for the texturestagestate... don't know the syntax at the moment, but it works. You haven't got the full freedom, that the combiners give you of course.
Or wasn't there something ??? I remember a hack for the TNT cards, where you could use there combiners by setting specific stages to specific states in the d3d pipeline.
Maybe you can do this with GeForce too :-)
Lars


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As i said before i don't know how a Geforce1 is working under OGL (maybe is working the same as second generation), but the point is that under DX everything is set as render states (light vector etc.) and you can do only diffuse per-pixel lighting (you can't set the half-vector, specular power which are necesary for specular lighting). I have to remember the name of the topic: OGL vs D3D. Of course, if you have a GF3 the same lighting computations can be done under DX8 and OGL, but how many GF3 are on the market?



Gorg
Frequent Contributor posted 03-19-2001 08:58 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You can use EMBM in Direct3d to make specular highlights if you don't have access to pixel shaders.

kaber0111
Frequent Contributor posted 03-19-2001 11:30 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>to is performance. Everything a Geforce 2
>can do (or at least everything nvidia has
>disclosed thus far) can be done on a
>GeForce 256.

marketing scam, hehe
microsoft pasting in game characters into there screenshots...

now that _IS_ a marketing scam.
pfff.

XBox is a blunder;
yeah, i like the hardware, but personally i think it will be an enormous flop.
ms is going at this in the _wrong_ way,
and it's going to cost them.
and i think the street is frowning on there actions as well.

-akbar A.



andreiga
Contributor posted 03-20-2001 04:15 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Gorg:
You can use EMBM in Direct3d to make specular highlights if you don't have access to pixel shaders.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yes, but EMBM is not suported on GeForce1 and GeForce2, and again, how many GeForce3 are on the market? (i'm not considering the G400 because of the poor performance and ATI RADEON because of the very, very, poor drivers).



Ingenu
Frequent Contributor posted 03-20-2001 04:26 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
KYRO and KYROII (PowerVRS3) supports EMBM.
They are best quality/speed/price ratio on the market.


LordKronos
Frequent Contributor posted 03-20-2001 04:54 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by kaber0111:
marketing scam, hehe
microsoft pasting in game characters into there screenshots...
now that _IS_ a marketing scam.
pfff.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Marketing scam? Well calling it a scam is debatable. Certainly the features of the NSR werent new compared to a GeForce256. However there was a performance increase, and as someone from nvidia said to me on the topic once (Im paraphrasing) "no its not new, but often the increased performance can make the difference between these types of effects being feasible or not". Then again, isnt most marketing a scam in one form or another?

As for the XBOX screenshot "scam", I would disagree with you, but thats way off topic so I wont bother.


cass
Frequent Contributor posted 03-20-2001 05:19 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Being in the marketing dept at NVIDIA, I would say it's about "spin" and timing. There was a right time to push hard for NV_register_combiners as a "branded" feature -- and that time was GeForce2 launch. NSR was a much more suitable name for marketing.
NV_register_combiners was pushed to developers from the GeForce256 on, because for consumers to enjoy a feature like NSR, developers have to program to it.

Thanks -
Cass



ET3D
Frequent Contributor posted 03-25-2001 12:47 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm programming OpenGL now, but I'm following D3D, and might start programming it at some point. At least in terms of simplicity, I think that D3D is getting better with every version. I like the easy loading of textures (including video textures), and the idea of Effects. I'm glad that when I'll finally get into it, it'll be considerably easier than when I started following it (which was with DX6).

Nutty
Frequent Contributor posted 03-25-2001 01:20 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

bah.. dont you mean "considerably gayer"???

I really can't understand the fuss about D3D? I can't find one single reason to use it over OpenGL. If someone can give me some good reasons to learn it.. I might just do that..

M$ have already buggered up the OS market with their flimsyware/bloatware crap OS's.. and even worse products.. (though in defence I do like Visual C++) And it seems they want to dominate the 3D market with their lame plagurised API.

I'll be smiling ear to ear the day M$ go bankrupt...



Nutty.


jwatte
Frequent Contributor posted 03-25-2001 05:43 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
any compiler on a unix system that is called "rmc" is just screaming for trouble
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Do what I do, and just rename it "cc" for "cobol compiler" :-) :-)



kaber0111
Frequent Contributor posted 03-25-2001 09:26 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>I really can't understand the fuss about
>D3D? I can't find one single reason to use
>it over OpenGL. If someone can give me some
>good reasons to learn it.. I might just do
>that..
Umm, I know this is a OpenGL forum...
but, it's something called fragmenting.

like ati has "there extension" to do dot3lighting in OpenGL,
where nvidia has there "own way" to do this
as well..

but in D3D, it's unified and there is only 1 way/interface to do it...



CViper
Contributor posted 03-25-2001 11:46 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well i've been "learning" D3D out of curiosity lately... Well out of mistake d3d rm (retained mode or something)... First you have to battle your way through about 10'000 com objects, and then you still cant do what your really want to (you can load files directly, but specifying verticles directly well forget it). I guess d3d im (immediate mode) is somewhat better in that way (i don't really know though).
And a little note to the xbox stuff: They froze Halo (the bungie game) until theyr going to release the xbox... just because that i hate m$... and that they support d3dmore that ogl makes that just worse


Nutty
Frequent Contributor posted 03-26-2001 02:32 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It's nothing more than trivial to write a wrapper for several extensions of the same functionality.. Thats basically all D3D does...
Though with OpenGL, you might get access to more features (ala pixel shaders) as you're not limited to D3D's implementation.

Nutty


zed
Frequent Contributor posted 03-26-2001 03:56 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>like ati has "there extension" to do dot3lighting in OpenGL,
where nvidia has there "own way" to do this
as well..<<
i just noticed a few more extension specs have been posted including http://oss.sgi.com/projects/ogl-sample/registry/ARB/texture_env_dot3.txt

(wtf is there a clear fields button for, he saiz after pushing that instead of send)


kieranatwork
Frequent Contributor posted 03-26-2001 12:32 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't know about in America, but here in England, seeing Bill Gates announce the XBox in his knitted sweater accompanied by some annonymous WWF wrestler did nothing for its' potential appeal to 18-30 year olds...he doesn't seem to realise that the average console buyer does not know or care what pixel/vertex shaders are, or that it's fill rate is double/treble that of the PS2 or whatever whatever whatever...they're interested in innovative, exciting and most probably Japenese games.
They'll continue to buy PS2's, and the XBox will go the same way as the MSX...straight into the classified ads in local newspapers. Shame...but I hope to god that NVidia have not invested too much in this doomed project - I think they deserve better...

Nutty
Frequent Contributor posted 03-27-2001 01:19 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Not sure I agree with that. Being in the games industry myself, I reckon it's gonna totally stomp all over PS2. It's basically a fixed spec highly optimized PC... and there are loads of developers out there that would love to get their hands on this thing..
PS2 aint really that hot.. it's really useless at textures.. only 4 meg of VRAM, and no hardware texture compression.

Another good thing about XBox, is that it's really easy to develop for.. Basically just get a geforce 3 pc.. with dx 8, and you're 90% there.. Very easy to port existing Pc games too.. especially if they were already written using D3D..

Nutty


zed
Frequent Contributor posted 03-27-2001 01:10 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ive written a paper entitled "why the xbox wont suceed"
as nutty saiz, its gonna be a hit with developers unfortunately the developers DONT buy the games.
kieranatwork is far closer to the money

maxuser
Contributor posted 03-27-2001 02:36 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Few people despise M$ more than I do, but in the PC software industry, they're the 800-pound gorilla that can bully everyone else, and they usually get what they want. Why else could an inferior API like the early versions of D3D survive? M$'s often successful strategy is to put out an inferior first version (like Windows, IE, D3D, etc.), let the industry insiders laugh at it, keep chipping away at market share with iteratively better versions, until they completely dominate the market with a product that is "good enough." I doubt XBox will be any different.

maxuser
Contributor posted 03-27-2001 02:58 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As far as the original topic (D3D vs GL), it's a matter of personal preference and intended use. If you like pure, clean, "academic" API's, OpenGL is for you. (It's clearly not just academic, as John Carmack as proven.) If you don't mind, or even enjoy, getting your hands dirty with often needless complexity and you care only about supporting the latest 3D features on Windows, then D3D is worth a look. I personally like to experiment with somewhat academic 3D stuff on Mac OS X, so OpenGL is the obvious way to go. BTW, OpenGL support on Mac OS X is far superior to the second-class support that M$ provides (you can write an OS X OpenGL-based screensaver in about 50 lines of extremely simple code; try that on Windows), but that's another topic...

Nutty
Frequent Contributor posted 03-28-2001 12:39 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah.. Mac OpenGL seems to be getting even more support. Didn't I read somwhere that apple have dropped their own api, to push OpenGL more on the Macs
If only M$ would do that too...

Dont you think it would be better if MS dropped D3D, and pushed for better OpenGL support under windows, then all major platforms and OS's would have a common top of the range 3D api.. it would rock.. but no.. instead they have to be stubborn gits, and force their ****e on us as always.



Nutty
Frequent Contributor posted 03-28-2001 02:05 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
oooops... having trouble accessing forum boards.. laggy.. and unresponsive. hence double post.. wont let me delete it though..
odd.


maxuser
Contributor posted 03-28-2001 06:00 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Apple realized that they didn't have the market share or momentum to push their own 3D API (QuickDraw 3D), so they wisely adopted OpenGL for Mac OS 9, and inherited it from NeXTStep/OpenStep for Mac OS X. (BTW, there's a Q3D-compatible API implemented with GL called Quesa, for those interested in yet another retained-mode layer over GL.) M$, on the other hand, *does* have the market share and momentum to successfully push their own API. Smaller platforms (like Mac and Linux) can only survive by adopting standards, whereas larger platforms (M$) will survive by driving a stake into the heart of any standard that would level the playing field with the small guys. They've done it with client-side Java, and I sure as hell hope they don't do it with GL. I don't like it, but that's how business works.

andreiga
Contributor posted 03-30-2001 03:12 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
M$ hates OpenGL because they can't control it (no company to buy in order to own OGL). Besides that, they hate it even more because OGL specifications are not made by marketing guys (which it would be very wrong).
P.S. I'm a marketing guy at a software company.



Hull
Frequent Contributor posted 03-30-2001 02:09 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And that's why we love it
I personally dislike DX because of its platform dependancy and the M$ evil plans
to 'take over the world' behind it

I used to think Mac was a waste of money, but with their frenetic support of OpenGL and impressive good judgement, I have been starting to think about buying one and start developing on it.
( money issue only here. )

I think JC have something to do with it to



Nutty
Frequent Contributor posted 03-31-2001 02:57 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Been talking with some of my mates from work.. and we still dont seem to be able to percieve why Xbox might fail. Maybe you're under the impression, that it will cost loads, seeing as the gfx behind is gonna be a superset of Geforce 3. It wont. Apparently it will take M$ 5 years to get into profit due to the loss they will make selling the machine at such low cost.
If I saw a console out there with a better than geforce 3 spec'd graphics system in it.. for say 200 quid.. BARGAIN! I'd jump at the chance to get one.

I still reckon Xbox will totally stomp over PS2... Probably gamecube too.. but that looks like a much nicer system than ps2 as well... I really think that sony have misjudged with ps2...

just my tuppance worth.

Nutty


All times are ET (US)
next newest topic | next oldest topic


Administrative Options: Close Topic | Archive/Move | Delete Topic
Hop to: Select a ForumList of Forums:Category: USERS - Gamers, Professional 3D Users, Consumers--------------------User Hardware, Software, & Gaming HelpCategory: DEVELOPERS--------------------OpenGL coding: beginnersOpenGL coding: advancedOpenGL under LinuxOpenGL on MacintoshHigh-level APIs (e.g. Inventor, Performer, Optimizer)OpenGL for embedded systemsSuggestions for the next release of OpenGL

Contact Us | OpenGL.org

Powered by: Ultimate Bulletin Board, Version 5.43d
Infopop Corporation (formerly Madrona Park, Inc.), 1998 - 2000.

al_bob
08-28-2003, 01:03 PM
In case no one has noticed, this is an OpenGL forum. Quite obviously, people here will tend to think that OpenGL is better than D3D.

Latrans
08-29-2003, 04:29 AM
You know you can posts links, too, right? I'm not quite sure what your point was in reposting an entire thread that is 2 1/2 years old, but I could probably post dozens more just like it. Not only that, but there's a point in there where mcraighead (who was an nVidia driver writer) actually stated that OpenGL's VAR was superior to Dx7, and possibly 8. That seems to counter your previous argument that D3D is faster...

The simple fact is, you can't back up your claim that Direct3D is always faster than OpenGL. Why don't you just admit that and be done with it? It's like you are trying to debate the price of coffee by saying the sky is blue. You are challenged on one simple point of your posts, and you respond with something totally unrelated to what you were challenged on.

Oh well... I get the impression that you are young, and therefore "always right." You will grow up some day.

08-29-2003, 12:12 PM
First of all I posted this to stop this nonsense and also dx9 is out so get up to date will you!

08-29-2003, 12:34 PM
Now you think that im a child? Well maybe this is true maybe it is not. One thing is for a nother tho. See I siad when I posted that long thread this may stop the nonsense. But you continue to fight I'm th child? If it will make you happy I will say that opengl is faster then d3d. (even tho I don't realy think this)Now I hope you will stop speaking this childish nonsense. So I will repeat d3d is not as fast as opengl in some scenarios. Now you may stop.

Some guy
08-29-2003, 12:35 PM
I replied to this nonsense because it was on top. I have to give "who cares" credit for being an annoying troll and this is his only intention. Good move to post a complete thread instead of a link.

Anyway, its something sick about it.

08-29-2003, 12:46 PM
You know what just to prove I know some things I will give my age it is OxFF or maybe OxOA ok thats enogh of this thread.

Some guy
08-29-2003, 12:48 PM
Dont worry about that.
The only thing you should think of is _why_ you do it.

08-29-2003, 12:52 PM
It's ok if you do not understand that now this is the last time I will reply to anyting in this topic as long as no one recanointers for dirt.

Some guy
08-29-2003, 12:59 PM
Thanks!
It was a serious suggestion, you have something to think or perhaps even worry about.

08-29-2003, 01:03 PM
Is this a threat? Are you threatining my comp? Are you repecting my athoratahhhah!

Some guy
08-29-2003, 01:08 PM
Please, you dont have to tell anyone but ask yourself why you do it. You are threated but not by anyone but yourself.

08-29-2003, 01:10 PM
Thank you some guy or is it Latrans. Who is OxFF he is old.

Some guy
08-29-2003, 01:14 PM
No, I am just some guy.
Glad that you enjoy it but this is my last reply. http://www.opengl.org/discussion_boards/ubb/smile.gif

Some guy
08-29-2003, 01:16 PM
Wait you dumb brat you peice of crap that was not my last reply! You dam troll! I hate all of you!

08-29-2003, 01:19 PM
he he, I guess that if I should continue to post here do I have to register.

Some guy
08-29-2003, 01:19 PM
I don't know what you mean by OxFF ok and I do not want to know I am a C\C++ guru.

Some guy
08-29-2003, 01:21 PM
Ok I do not know what OxFF or 10ff or what ever all I know is that I am a C\C++ guru and I do not need to know what OxFF is or OxOA is and thats that! http://www.opengl.org/discussion_boards/ubb/smile.gif

Latrans
08-29-2003, 01:25 PM
Originally posted by Whocares:
First of all I posted this to stop this nonsense and also dx9 is out so get up to date will you!


Did you even read the "nonsense" you posted? Let me point out one little part...



mcraighead
Frequent Contributor posted 03-18-2001 10:25 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't know about DX8, but on DX7, VAR was definitely superior. I think DX8 fixes some but not all of the DX7 vertex buffer problems.
- Matt


Note, he mentions DX8 and DX7. This was 2 1/2 years ago, if you bothered to even look at the date of your own drivel.

Believe that D3D is faster if you like. It still doesn't change the fact that it isn't in all cases. How ironic that in your attempt to be as annoying as possible, you may have found a statement by a respected member of nVidia to prove you were wrong. I find that laughable.

Your responses are all pretty immature, which is what makes me think you are young. Instead of trying to counter my arguments to your claims with facts that can be actually be backed up, you respond with drivel and a defensive attitude.

[This message has been edited by Latrans (edited 08-29-2003).]

Some guy
08-29-2003, 01:25 PM
Ok now I'm a reg. and I am a c\C++ guru and I dont know daaaaaaaaa what hex is hahaha!

Some guy
08-29-2003, 01:28 PM
He is just a treeeeeeeeky troll that dam Whocares and what does he mean OxFF and that dam See.noe.Hear.noe.Speak.noe.! I hate him!

Latrans
08-29-2003, 01:31 PM
Grabbing someone's unregistered name is so mature. Way to prove you're not a child, Whocares.

Some guy
08-29-2003, 01:33 PM
Hay hes a tircky troll that one See.noe.Hear.noe.Speak.noe. The only thing is that the known universe is 42 and thats that!

08-29-2003, 01:56 PM
Why do you two have to be enemys?(Latrans
and Whocares)You two are pathetic!

Latrans
08-29-2003, 03:17 PM
Originally posted by Mr.Jones:
Why do you two have to be enemys?(Latrans
and Whocares)You two are pathetic!

Oh goody another Alias of whocares, I assume? I wouldn't consider Whocares (you?) an enemy, exactly. It started out as a debate. I merely presented presented arguments to challenge a single claim he made that DirectX is faster than OpenGL. He was unable to present similar arguments in a believable fashion, and so he resorted to this juvenile behavior, and tried to cloud the one clear point I challenged him on with unrelated babble.

09-03-2003, 06:16 AM
Originally posted by Daniell:
Where can i download the versin:
OpenGL v1.2, 1.3 or 1.4 are included with the drivers for your OpenGL video cards.

I cannot find a link.

Please help!

Thanks


Thanks for the info

09-04-2003, 11:20 AM
Originally posted by Daniell:
Where can i download the versin:
OpenGL v1.2, 1.3 or 1.4 are included with the drivers for your OpenGL video cards.

I cannot find a link.

Please help!

Thanks

09-09-2003, 12:58 PM
Wow!

09-09-2003, 02:46 PM
Thats IT!
You will NOT play with MY computer for a LONG time! No more surfing without netnanny!!

09-10-2003, 12:50 PM
man that was so time consuming to read through this thread

Latrans
09-11-2003, 04:25 AM
Please just go away...

12-10-2003, 04:46 PM
wow that was a waste? Or was it!

dj_indo_420
12-11-2003, 02:12 PM
lmfao

01-12-2004, 02:44 PM
Taht was daaa a long thread doccc! Da what do 0xff daa meano anyway?

01-12-2004, 03:04 PM
Wow that Latrans says he can back things up wow look at what we have there boy! Wow Latrans why do you pretend that who is not asking any questions do you not know them? 0xff OxOA and he even syas he was wrong and said open gl has good things and dx has good things. (point was that dx is good but opengl is better since you can port to other os)

MarkS
01-13-2004, 01:53 PM
WOW! This is a funny thread! I've always liked trolls. They add an interesting.. element.. to these boards!

Ever notice how trolls generally cannot spell, use terrible grammar and post nonsensical sentences and words in their posts? Typically a dead give away...

01-13-2004, 10:04 PM
hmm.... i came here expecting to find tips on how to begin programming with opengl, but instead i find a bunch of people filling up space rambling on and on about a nonsense argument because neither is mature enough to let the other guy have the last word, and then drop it. maybe you guys can serve a useful function and point me toward a few really good tutorials for the absolute novice. (i want to learn for either java or c++, or both).

thanks ahead of time,

2ggaeh4e

ps: i figure someone will ask, so i'll explain now. each letter/number stands for the first letter of a word, and the words form a phrase commonly uttered in certain religous circles. that's all i'll say. bye.

Latrans
01-14-2004, 06:06 AM
What's the point of pulling up a thread that we all thought had died months ago?

If you'll note, my last post on this subject before now was 9-11-2003.

Let it die already.

dorbie
01-14-2004, 11:02 AM
Fun is over, sorry (for the delay).
If you still have questions on OpenGL driver downloads and getting OpenGL working we have a forum for that.

This forum is mainly for technical discussions relating to programming with OpenGL.

shiva banik
10-29-2012, 11:39 AM
jhgtuygvbbhmjv

dirk103
11-01-2012, 12:30 AM
Haven't read all this post, but I'm guessing you guys are going in a direction he doesn't want to go.
I assume there's a modern feature, or you just want to start with the newest version, in that case you need the development libraries for the newest OpenGL, not the newest version of OpenGL.

http://glew.sourceforge.net/

Is a library people wrote to allow you to access the newest features of OpenGL, up to 4.2?
It worries about the platform specific intricacies so you don't have to.

The newer your video card is, the higher version of OpenGL it will support. It's a safe bet if you're a beginner, you'll be covered for whatever feature youre going to try.

The development libraries that come with your compiler will to my knowledge, only support OpenGL up to version 1.2(?)
That is why you need a third party software to access more.