DirectX vs OpenGL

Fraza · Post by **Fraza** » Sat Apr 02, 2005 9:08 pm

This was said by Etcaptor

And there are not official way for deinstaling of this version of directX.

I just did a quick check.

And here's the proof.

Persumably, if you don't have this, and you also have problems, you installed it incorrectly.

Edit: I forgot about Quake III though! That game has very good graphics and runs very smoothly, so yes, there is a lot to be said for OpenGL aswell. But every SDK with techdemoes I have seen run much faster (Irrlicht included) when used in conjunction with DirectX.

Nemesis · Post by **Nemesis** » Sat Apr 02, 2005 9:16 pm

Thanks for info

,btw:

Hungarian Notation
Prefix | Type | example
C | declaring a class | class CPerson
| | {

What's the need of DirX of declaring two times a class

:

horrible hungarian notation

I agree with you, Electron,
but for make that type of declaration there's a particular reason?

Fraza · Post by **Fraza** » Sat Apr 02, 2005 9:31 pm

"Hungarian notation" is just some pople's preference.

I use it to help me remember small things like.

Code: Select all

    char cNumber = 0;
    //much more code here
    int iNumber = (int)cNumber - 48;

if I had just used Number for the character, I may have just used that variable without remembering to convert it first. A program would then throw up no error messages but it would get the wrong answer (implicitly converting the character and using the ASCII value of the character). cNumber is obviously a character, so I can easily remember to convert it.

This is just a very simple example, "Hungarian notation" is very useful.

cartoonit · Post by **cartoonit** » Sat Apr 02, 2005 11:32 pm

I personally use my own form of hungarian notation and find it easy to remember, does make variables a little more long winded... It is down to personally preference, but I think its more so that the code is standardised within DirectX and MS products rather than anything else. I would get the impression that any company/project would encourage coding standards. So I suppose what I'm trying to say is that you've just gotta get use to it, unless your working within the Open Source industry, but then it would still be helpful to have a standard on the same project for writing code. Ok, I've gone round in a circle, but I think you all know what I mean

...

etcaptor · Post by **etcaptor** » Sun Apr 03, 2005 1:33 am

@ Fraza, you can uninstall DirectX runtime with "Add or remove Programs"?? Strange... I've never got this before and use only opensource uninstallers
Take a look here at first about Microsoft opinition about this:

Q How do I uninstall DirectX?
A

DirectX 9.0 is a system component and cannot be uninstalled. If there is a problem with the DirectX installation, it can normally be resolved by shutting down all running applications and reinstalling. As mentioned previously, DirectX 9.0 is fully backward-compatible with titles written for previous versions of DirectX. If you are having other problems after installing DirectX 9.0, these can often be resolved by installing updated drivers for your display card, audio card, or input device.

As with most software, users of Windows ME and Windows XP have the option of creating a "System Restore point" before installing. System Restore points allow you to roll back your operating system to a time before the software was installed. If you feel there are special circumstances which may necessitate removal of DirectX. It is recommended that you create a System Restore point. Windows 98, Windows 98 SE, and Windows 2000 do not support the "System Restore" feature.
•

Windows Millennium Edition: Microsoft Knowledge Base article 267951
•

Windows XP: Microsoft Knowledge Base article 310405

http://go.microsoft.com/?linkid=664008

Fraza · Post by **Fraza** » Sun Apr 03, 2005 8:12 am

Anonymous wrote:Taking from what I have seen of both DirectX and Opengl through Irrlicht. I don't really see much difference. The only problem I have found so far is when I play an AVI file in DirectX mode I get 400fps while in Opengl I get only 35fps but it does not seem to impact anything of importance.

How many FPS was the AVI? perhaps it's just a different coding style, i.e. OpenGL uodates when there would be a change DirectX updates when possible.

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Sun Apr 03, 2005 8:42 pm

You do know the reason DX is faster at realtime videos do you not?
One of Microsoft's ways of promoting DX and crushung OpenGL is to handle the video memory in a slappy mannor. It can tell the DX program that it slashed the texture but it doesnt do that for OpenGL. what OpenGL has todo is to tell windows that it has HALF the video ram it realy does have and then when you upload a image it copys the image to the other half of the memroy. this way Windows will not touch it.

DX suports this seemingly random texture trashing.
OpenGL does not suport it.

This is how it was explained to me. i hope you have learned something today.

Nemesis · Post by **Nemesis** » Mon Apr 04, 2005 10:28 am

Wow, Your opinions are that OpenGL is more appreciate

! But just a moment, if with OpenGL a company can create a game like Doom3

(this is shocking for me, I believe the renderer was DirectX), with DirectX rend another company can create Half-Life 2( I've heard that game have this rendering type)...

afecelis · Post by **afecelis** » Mon Apr 04, 2005 1:42 pm

yup, and epic creates UT2004 and the Unreal engine3 in DX.

It's all a matter of marketing!

every single Id game that uses OpenGl, from Doom modded versions, to quake3, to doom3 run nice and smooth in linux whereas HL2 is not natively supported.

Unreal has been ported to linux succesfully but this is because they've always kept Opengl in their minds and somehow release opengl versions of their games, only that $$$$ pulls them more towards DX, hehehehe. As a matter of fact, in the Unreal and UT days you used to be able the opengl dlls of unreal so that you could pick your renderer. I haven't seen this in UT2k3 and4.

in other words, if it's opengl it'll run on any machine with any os!

FlyHigh · Post by **FlyHigh** » Mon Apr 04, 2005 2:17 pm

You do know that DirectX includes other (non-graphics) parts such as DirectPlay, DirectSound, DirectInput etc...

However comparing Direct3d against Opengl:
They both do the same things at near enough same speed in different ways, mainly its a choice of which style you prefer, OOP = DX, Procedural = OGL...

I prefer OGL because I find it easier to think of the graphics card working in a state machine sort of way as opposed to with objects.

Fraza · Post by **Fraza** » Thu Apr 07, 2005 10:56 pm

DirectX is just so obviously better, it astonishes me to see al these replies in favour of OpenGL. OpenGL is Open Graphics Library, it only handles graphics! DirectX on the other hand has DirectInput, DirectSound, DirectMusic, DirectDraw, Direct3D and DirectNetwork. All of these are designed to free the programmer of having to deal with hardware, the libraries and windows do this for you. The only thing OpenGL has that DirectX lacks is it runs on many OSes. But DirectX was designed by MicroSoft, why would they build it for another rival OS? This is not an offensive thing to do as some (quite a lot actually) of you seem to suggest. Also, DirectX is free, yes, I know OpenGL is, but DirectX is faster and smoother for graphics and does SO much more in general.

Windows is the OS for gaming, there is no competition. Windows multitasks and multithreads the best out of all the OSes which is unbelievably useful. I am willing to bet that the reason Quake III and Doom III were written with OpenGL was because of the extra money they would make from Mac and Linux.

If you are making a game, by yourself, and it is non-commercial, and you are on Windows, you should really consider DirectX more seriously than OpenGL.

I have nothing against OpenGL though, it is an excellent idea for non-windows OSes and it does the job very well. This, however, alone is no good reason to say OpenGL is better than DirectX. Also, it is not a good reason to say OpenGL is better because it is easier to make programs with OpenGL, that isn't the question!

This is my personal opinion, it is much shorter than my full opinion and has much less swearwords aimed at those oposing my opinion (lol!). If I have made any mistakes about factual content please let me know, I have only heard these things from non-reliable resources!

What I am sure of though, is this:

DirectX on my system can run all the techdemoes provided with Irrlicht faster and smoother, as a higher quality than OpenGL can and DirectX has been on pretty much every computer I have ever used ('cept the Mac OS X ones, never seen a Linux OS before).

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Thu Apr 07, 2005 11:15 pm

ummm, Is there really one good definitive answer for this question? Is this not a different strokes for different folks question.

Fraza · Post by **Fraza** » Thu Apr 07, 2005 11:17 pm

@Guest, nah, I thought that at first, but then I realised. It is infact a simple logic question, DirectX is better is the correct answer.

FlyHigh · Post by **FlyHigh** » Fri Apr 08, 2005 2:33 pm

I understand your point about DirectX having all the other components DInput, DSound etc. (oh its DirectPlay not DirectNetwork btw) but OGL is as you said a graphics API so why would it need a Sound API, and if you if wanted a sound API you could use OpenAL, many API's use OGL syntax so its not like learning something completely different

The Irrlicht engine runs the samples faster in DX than OGL? Well There could be any number of reasons why. What graphics card do you have? Some manufacturers favour different API's. Did you run the programs in a controlled environment. And the main reason probably is the difference in the irrlicht renderer.

Have you tried running a textured spinning cube in DX and OGL (without irrlicht?) and seeing which is faster?

And also have you used DirectSound? the API is very hard to use and is a very steep learning curve when OpenAL handles everything so much smoother and takes alot less code, because your not bound by DX COM stuff.

And also OGL can read the extensions supported by a card much before it becomes a standard in DX

Heres a non-bias review here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct3D_vs._OpenGL

cartoonit · Post by **cartoonit** » Sat Apr 09, 2005 3:26 pm

Windows multitasks and multithreads the best out of all the OSes which is unbelievably useful.

I've done some research in to how Linux and Windows deal with multitasks and concurrency, but I couldn't really see a difference between them. I mean the way in which Linux deals with it is different yes, but not specifically worse or better than Windows.

Windows is the OS for gaming, there is no competition.

Surely this is because Windows is comparably "easier" to use than Linux, and has some massive marketing men forcing it down peoples throats. I don't think I've ever seen a laptop sold with Linux installed on to it, I don't even think 80% of the computer (beginner) using World know what Linux is... Stifling, and non-competition comes to mind, which is essentially illegal, but MS have got away with it for so long, that they are now above the law because they have so much money. I am defiantely not anti-MS just don't understand some of the comments you have made, there are specific reasons for the relevant comments you have made.

These things are totally opionated, I could say many reasons why IE, is better than Firefox, and I could say many reasons for vice versa. I mean people even argue about security under Linux and Windows, this could be argued that hackers attack Windows because it is soo popular or it has more holes in it...

Irrlicht Engine

DirectX vs OpenGL

Who's the best?