View Full Version : graphics

05-26-2003, 09:03 AM
Somebody here think that the OpenGL is better than Direct3D. Yes, OpenGL is multi-OS library. Let's assume, we want to write 3D program under Windows32 only. Why OpenGL will be more preferable? Why not Direct3D? Direct3D supports all graphic functions which can give OpenGL. All deal in performance? Or in what? Help me to understand why OpenGL is better than Direct3D. If Direct3D so bad why Microsoft made DirectX 9.0? I can`t beleive in Microsoft working LAMERs! Admit, Direct3D isn`t so bad. In your opinion, all developers which made their projects under Direct3D - idiots? And again - why OpenGL better than Direct3D? Please, list some most distinctive features.
With best regards.

05-26-2003, 10:20 PM
Here is why I hate D3D: (i am not d3d fan)
1. If you are beginer, it will be hard to understand the vertex buffers at start(but they are quite simple in d3d >= 8)
2. apps created with d3d <8 have a BIIIIIIIG initiance code.
3. d3d isn't cross-platformed.
4. I just hate, hate and hate it, because I spent much time to do something in D3D7(when D3D8 wasn't released).
Here is why I like OGL:
2. If you are beginer and want to render something it will be very easy(glBegin/glEnd)
3. OGL has same graphic functions which can give D3D and even more...
4. All cool games(Unreal, Quake, etc) were made using ogl...
(maybe d3d is better, but I am beginer, and I need something simple to work with 3d graphics).
Your Choice: 1. I will use OGL!
2. I will use D3D! :?
P.S: Carmack do not like D3D

[This message has been edited by gvm (edited 05-27-2003).]

05-26-2003, 11:12 PM
They say it's the first sign of madness - talking to yourself, C++.
You better check yourself before you wreck yourself

05-26-2003, 11:42 PM
C++, D3D has been used by many 3D programmers since it's inception, your claim that they can't be misguided as professional programmers surely must apply back then as it does now. But D3D was crap back then and everyone knows it now. It was obvious then to smart people and it was made more clear as D3D absorbed functionality to try and catch up to where OpenGL started out. So I guess the thousands of flies buzzing around the bucket of 5hit that D3D was, might just have been wrong then and may not be more enlightened now.

Just a thought.

05-27-2003, 01:53 AM
Didn't this guy say he wasn't going to be posting here anymore?

PS: This site will be getting a moderator as a result of all the crap. Congratulations C++!

05-27-2003, 04:04 AM
Oh, yes! I see Direct3D hasn`t any essential lacks!
GVM! I`m not interested in "what like Carmack"! You said:
> OGL has same graphic functions
> which can give D3D and even more...
Not more! OpenGL as is haven`t so much graphic functions. Only extensions extends its opportunities.
Direct3D has essential advantages (not obvious for beginners), in general: performance advantages. Yes, OpenGL simple in use. But if you want to use any cutting-edge technology -> it`s much simple in Direct3D.

+ one more question:
What texture filter I must use to implement sharp transition from opaque pixel to transparent pixel in texture (As it implemented in Quake3, structural metallic items, fence grid). Thank you.

05-27-2003, 04:13 AM
There are some pictures in the net of the NV35 (try anandtech).

Printed in the chip, in the processor, you can read NVIDIA nv35 - GL

The chips are made for GL. D3D is a layer on top. It's secondary. It's a wrapper.

Oh, is there something in D3D like the NV_depth_bounds. Or do you have to wait for DX10?

[This message has been edited by KRONOS (edited 05-27-2003).]

05-27-2003, 05:06 AM
d3d has performance advantages?

batching calls are twice as fast under opengl as under direct3d. as these kind of calls will become more and more a problem for 3d optimisation in the near future, it's a good point for openGL (it was mainly discussed arround the "batch batch batch" presentation at GDC 2003).


05-27-2003, 05:12 AM
NVidias CgFX Viewer.
The OpenGL renderer is quite a bit slower than the Direct3D renderer.
Anyone any idea why?

05-27-2003, 05:39 AM

You can set up a blending function to do it based on colours (alhtough it might not work too robustly) or you can put an alpha channel in your texture and do it that way.
It doesn't require you use a particular texture filter.


05-27-2003, 08:09 AM
ok, guys, lemme just put this w/o comments:

John Carmack:"Reasonable arguments can be made for and against the OpenGL or Direct-X style of API evolution. With vendor extensions, you get immediate access to new
functionality, but then there is often a period of squabbling about exact feature support from different vendors before an industry standard settles down. With central planning, you can have "phasing problems" between hardware and software releases, and there is a real danger of bad decisions hampering the entire industry, but enforced commonality does make life easier for developers. Trying to keep boneheaded-ideas-that-will-haunt-us-for-years out of Direct-X is the primary reason I have been attending the Windows Graphics Summit for the past three years, even though I still code for OpenGL."

05-27-2003, 09:50 AM
Please stop feeding the troll. He's much more likely to go away if you do.