Curious to who is sticking with OpenGL now...

[Zengar]

I think it is time to start looking at the 3d API as a tool and not as a religion and use it accordingly. This means D3D on Windows, GL on Mac and Linux. When using Cg as the shading language, it shoudln't be too hard to maintain both GL and D3D versions, as the 3d setup differences are minimal.

[V-man]

I do 1 commercial project that uses GL and although I suggested Direct3D to avoid the complications of GL a while ago, it didn't get accepted. This project doesn't use shaders or anything advanced .

My personal project, a gaming project is pure GL 2.0. I wish to have a D3D9 renderer and D3D10 added as well.
I don't ABSOLUTELY need higher than D3D9 but certain things can benefit from D3D10. That will come along eventually. So perhaps the worst would be that I won't move beyond GL 2.0
Ya, I guess I hang around these forums but not likely to answer questions.

[k_szczech]

I'm using my own framework. I can port it quickly to GL 3.0, but I won't. If OpenGL 3.0 would have the new object model and cleaned up API, then supporting it in my framework would be my top priority. I would even consider dropping support for OpenGL 2.0.
But I'm not interested in making transition in two steps (2.0 => 3.0 => new object model). I'll stick with OpenGL 2.1 for now. Then we'll see.

For me, OpenGL 3.0 is a blank space between my footsteps.

[PaladinOfKaos]

I'm a hobbyist, and I rather despise Windows (not for ideological reasons - I use the closed-source NVIDIA driver after all. I just find Windows to be buggy and feature-deficient, especially for development).

So I'm gonna stick it out with GL on Linux. I find the pains of OpenGL to be quite a bit better than the pains of developing in Windows.

[Leadwerks]

I have begun researching DirectX 10. I can't just switch all our technology overnight, but when it comes time to write something new, I would like to have a foundation with DirectX established. The tutorials are really nice, and it comes with lots of tools. It also feels good to be part of the mainstream.

I see no reason to make any changes for OpenGL 3.0. I think we'll just stick with 2.1 until we are ready to port to DirectX.

[Korval]

Well, thus far, I'd say that the people who are sticking with OpenGL are doing so because they're sticking with Linux/MacOS X.

Here's a more interesting question: of those sticking with OpenGL, if there were an alternative that was more D3D like in API, one that was supported across platforms and such, would you take it? That is, are you choosing OpenGL because you want to be cross platform, or because you like it?

[Leadwerks]

The things that put me off from DirectX are the frequent rewrites and the OO API. But I am willing to try it for the first time now.

[Toni]

At home i use linux, so i have to stick in ogl, and well, in fact i like it. At work it's another issue, as we have 2 GL applications, one that is web based with java and another that is for windows only and desktop based.
I will take a look at dx11 when specs are out, but meanwhile, we will stay with ogl (and even probably switch to gl 3.0) and give them another chance (or perhaps 2 if they release 3.1 in 6 months).

[Mars_999]

I want cross platform. I don't mind the GL API, but I can agree the object model would have been nice to have. If GL is getting bloated and driver quality is suffering due to this, yes get rid of that old [censored], and move on. This use old crap till the end of time drives me nuts, when Vista came out, "oh I can't get Vista my POS scanner I bought back when DOS came out won't work with it" [censored] man, just keep that old computer and use it with that POS PC, and get a new PC and move on. These people who keep old crap around hinder progress.

I decided I am sticking with GL2.1 with DX10 extensions or GL3.0 if I decide to rework my code with GL3.0 "future mode?", and when my current project is done, DX11, Larrabee, and maybe XNA with DX11 features will have been out for awhile and I can reevaluate the situation then.

[PaladinOfKaos]

The thing that bugs the hell out of me about DirectX is the way structures are defined to hold vertex data.

Look at this code:

// Define the input layout
D3D10_INPUT_ELEMENT_DESC layout[] =
{
    { L"POSITION", 0, DXGI_FORMAT_R32G32B32_FLOAT, 0, 0, D3D10_INPUT_PER_VERTEX_DATA, 0 },
};
UINT numElements = sizeof(layout)/sizeof(layout[0]);

That's about where I gave up on the D3D10 tutorials. Sure I can understand it, I read the tuts. But that code is so _ugly_. Lots of opportunity for typos in there.

Once you've created that, you use it as an input to a function to create a D3D vertex layout object (A function which uses a FAILE() macro instead of returning NULL for it's created object). You then need to assign that new object as the input layout.

Your actual drawing code could be somewhere else, and it has _no idea_ what layout is assigned. This is exactly the same problem you have in GL with active objects possibly being changed out from under you.

In GL, the format specification is implied by the data specification. So when you set the data the format is automaticlly correct for what you need.