Why not have two dlls one for directx and one for opengl with optimized for each api?
But OpenGL is ISO!
DirectX vs OpenGL
Again seem that OpenGL is the best 
... But why the programmers of commercial games usually use DirectX(message"directx 9.0c is required to play") Why this preference, for licence matters or simply for more usefuls renderer options?
P.S.:I don't want do write stupid things, but only directx can support all in one sounds(directsound), joysticks(directinput), and other useful things(directdraw,directmusic,direct3d,directplay[network])?
... But why the programmers of commercial games usually use DirectX(message"directx 9.0c is required to play") Why this preference, for licence matters or simply for more usefuls renderer options?P.S.:I don't want do write stupid things, but only directx can support all in one sounds(directsound), joysticks(directinput), and other useful things(directdraw,directmusic,direct3d,directplay[network])?
S.T.A.R.S.! (Resident Evil 3)
-
Guest
I thought it was just poll with Direct3D & OpenGl as main characters, not a whole DirecX pack. This is insane! Just think of DirectX as many API's with simmilar coding style but under the same name. OpenAL also has simmilar coding style to OpenGL, but it has different name. Does it mean they can't be considered as a single "OpenX" pack 
?
?The reason Windows is the OS for gaming, in my opinion, is becuase of the fact it is so common (lol). Most people have windows, most people want to game, DirectX is good with windows and IBM, games get designed for windows and IBM.
That said, I still think the general public has made the right choice, Mac focuses too much on appearances and has some quite ilogical operations if I remember using it (dragging the CD drive to trash ejects the CD LOL!).
Linux is absolutely amazing, I am very very impressed! But, windows has had more time and resources poured into it (as an OS) and Microsoft on the whole produce very well engineered software that use the events and threads very well.
Lots of people oppose this opinion, but that's only because they're too 1337 for microsoft (7|-|4+'5 700 1337 ph0|2 |V|1k|20Ph+, j00 |\|00|320|25!!!!!!1111!1!!ONE!!!11!).
DirectX has run better on every machine I have ever owned (always IBM with Windows) so that's why I would choose DirectX.
That said, I still think the general public has made the right choice, Mac focuses too much on appearances and has some quite ilogical operations if I remember using it (dragging the CD drive to trash ejects the CD LOL!).
Linux is absolutely amazing, I am very very impressed! But, windows has had more time and resources poured into it (as an OS) and Microsoft on the whole produce very well engineered software that use the events and threads very well.
Lots of people oppose this opinion, but that's only because they're too 1337 for microsoft (7|-|4+'5 700 1337 ph0|2 |V|1k|20Ph+, j00 |\|00|320|25!!!!!!1111!1!!ONE!!!11!).
DirectX has run better on every machine I have ever owned (always IBM with Windows) so that's why I would choose DirectX.
Code: Select all
____ _______
/ ___\/ \__ \ \
/ /__ / ^ \/ / \
/ ___// ___ \/| \ \
/ / /\ \/ /\ \|_|\ \
/_/_/ /\_\ \_\_\_\ \_\
So how many people have worked on Linux over the past 20 years then through the different versions, compared to that of MS. Your making quite wide comments there with not a lot of proof IMHO, however, the quality "well engineered" section is again totally opinionated. Unless you have direct access to the source code of Windows, I personally don't think you could make this assumption... "Many eyeballs" et al for Linux... I'm not an MS hater but don't find some of there applications very good, look at IE, for me I could no longer run it on my old installed Windows, had to reinstall, or use Firefox. Like someone has said before though, its different strokes for different "blokes", (sorry girls)...But, windows has had more time and resources poured into it (as an OS) and Microsoft on the whole produce very well engineered software that use the events and threads very well.
Its all quite opinionated, and comparisons are quite awkward between MS and Open Source products because of the lack of inside knowledge in to MS products...
I'm not proficient with either API, but I think it's a matter of preferred coding style. I know some OGL, and except for perhaps some more complex texturing operations, I find it easy and intuitive. I've looked at some DX code, and the style has scared me away. I don't think DX is easier. Both have their pecularities.OpenGL is harder to use
You do a lot of programming? Really? I try to get some in, but the debugging keeps me pretty busy.
Crucible of Stars
Crucible of Stars
-
Bot_Builder
- Posts: 23
- Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2005 6:59 pm
- Location: Bushland
IMHO opengl is way easier to use, but perhaps this is based mostly on which one you have put effort into learning. 
The poll should have been comparing Direct3d and OpenGL, which is what I am comparing when I vote and post. OpenGl and DirectX have the same abilities, given a few ogl extensions. One problem is that many people dont actually have a decent version of OpenGL on their comp, and as such are alienated towards it because of slow rendering. Windows XP comes with a software driver for OGL and hardware drivers for directX, promoting the myth that directX is somehow faster and better than opengl. OpenGL Superbible has a rather nice section on the history of OGL/DX and the vicious way microsoft managed to promote its own, platform specific engine.
The key advantage of openGL is obviously that it is cross platform. Since it is the only major graphics API for mac and linux, on these platforms it is fast and efficient. On windows with recent drivers, it is as well. Another advantage is that the way in which opengl is used doesn't change. If you write your program for OpenGL 1.2 (version on windows computers) It'll work on all 3 platforms (given proper initialization code), versions 1.2 through the most recent, 2.0. You defenitly canot say the same for directx.
The poll should have been comparing Direct3d and OpenGL, which is what I am comparing when I vote and post. OpenGl and DirectX have the same abilities, given a few ogl extensions. One problem is that many people dont actually have a decent version of OpenGL on their comp, and as such are alienated towards it because of slow rendering. Windows XP comes with a software driver for OGL and hardware drivers for directX, promoting the myth that directX is somehow faster and better than opengl. OpenGL Superbible has a rather nice section on the history of OGL/DX and the vicious way microsoft managed to promote its own, platform specific engine.
The key advantage of openGL is obviously that it is cross platform. Since it is the only major graphics API for mac and linux, on these platforms it is fast and efficient. On windows with recent drivers, it is as well. Another advantage is that the way in which opengl is used doesn't change. If you write your program for OpenGL 1.2 (version on windows computers) It'll work on all 3 platforms (given proper initialization code), versions 1.2 through the most recent, 2.0. You defenitly canot say the same for directx.
XP SP2, AMD Athlon 64 3500+, 1GB HyperX RAM, Radeon X700 Pro (PCI-e), 120GB SATA drive 
I have one question about all this dx vs ogl debate.
If opengl is suppose to be on par with that of dx in terms of feature and performance than why is it that the ogl component of irrlicht is so incomplete compared to that of directx? I'm not prefering one over the other but this was something that I"ve noticed. My post here is one example of it. water transparency works just fine in dx but not in ogl. In addition, the irrlicht api has numerous places where things are implemented and working in dx but not in ogl.
If opengl is suppose to be on par with that of dx in terms of feature and performance than why is it that the ogl component of irrlicht is so incomplete compared to that of directx? I'm not prefering one over the other but this was something that I"ve noticed. My post here is one example of it. water transparency works just fine in dx but not in ogl. In addition, the irrlicht api has numerous places where things are implemented and working in dx but not in ogl.
This has nothing to do with the API's itself, this is merely irrlichts implementation of them,Greatwolf wrote:If opengl is suppose to be on par with that of dx in
terms of feature and performance than why is it that the ogl component of irrlicht is so incomplete compared to that of directx?
(I know its irrelevant but: As I was talking about DirectPlay earlier, did you people know that DirectPlay part of DX is now depriciated 'and may be removed from future versions?', so that makes DDraw(kinda), DShow and DPlay now (hope your games aren't too dependant on it Fraza
))-
Michele
DirectX vs. OpenGL
This is a really old and rather ridiculous argument that has never nor will ever be settled. The real meat and potatoes of it comes down to philosophy. The truth is that Microsoft really put out a steaming load of crap with the first few releases of Direct X. It was no where near OpenGL because OpenGL comes from an SGI api, and at the time SGI was the leader in graphics hardware and software. AS time went on, Microsoft listened carefully to developers and hired some smarter people that were more in tune with the game industry and put together a graphics API that eventually surpassed OpenGL in terms of features. The OpenGL review board got together and increased the frequency of updates to something resembling normal, and today we are left with two API's that are fairly equal in terms of features. The performance of the API's has nothing to do with the vendors who hold the standards themselves. Direct X and OpenGL are not really pieces of code written by Microsoft and the ARB, they are standards, and the various hardware vendors develop the actual code. It is reasonable to assume that different cards will lend themselves better architecturally to different software engineering paradigms, and so despite the best efforts of vendors, one API or the other is likely to be faster on a given card, but its anyone's guess which is faster on which card.
What this old battle is really about is the rather villanous methods that Microsoft has employed to maintain their status in the software industry. Ask yourselves why Microsoft cared about a game API anyways. Sure, they have made some money on their own games, but the truth is that through the nineties, computer hardware purchases were driven by the hardcore gaming market, and Windows really was not a viable game platform.
To maintain the Windows/Intel Monopoly that filled the coffers of Microsoft, they had to effect some change, and keep games on their platform. That is what has happened too.
Windows is the dominant Gaming OS even though BEOS is the fastest Multimedia operating system in the world. If BEOS is better, why do we all use Windows? Because Microsoft makes it impractical to use anything else. They have a weopon. Most of the installed computer base in the world is windows. To keep it, they just have to make it costly to develop cross platform software. And they have. No one will ever play mainstream games on BEOS, no matter how good it is.
Linux has had some success, largely due to the grassroots open source movement, and the decisions of many Governments to use Linux because of its lower cost and increased reliability over Windows.
Thats right, no matter how much you like windows, Air Traffic Control Systems cannot run Windows because it will crash. I am an Industrial Engineer, and we cannot use windows for any PC based control systems because it will crash. It might sound unfair, and maybe people on this forum have not had such bad luck with it, but Industry has spoken.
Windows is fine in an office where you have the luxury of re-installing every six months as needed, but not where reliability is really an issue.
So what is the answer? If you want to know which is faster, benchmark your app and make the appropriate call for you. If you wonder which is easier to use, quit yapping here and go get some debug/coding time in with them on a real project or 10, and make the call.
If its about ethics in the software industry, its likely you already prefer an Open standard to a proprietary one, and you are smiling as you read my post.
It all really comes down to the user. So lets end this thread, never have this argument again, and thank God that we all have enough money for a computer; because in Brazil, the government won't use Microsoft anymore because one copy of Windows costs as much as 60 bags of soy there. Thats a lot of mouths that could be fed in a developing country with tough choices.
Its your call.
What this old battle is really about is the rather villanous methods that Microsoft has employed to maintain their status in the software industry. Ask yourselves why Microsoft cared about a game API anyways. Sure, they have made some money on their own games, but the truth is that through the nineties, computer hardware purchases were driven by the hardcore gaming market, and Windows really was not a viable game platform.
To maintain the Windows/Intel Monopoly that filled the coffers of Microsoft, they had to effect some change, and keep games on their platform. That is what has happened too.
Windows is the dominant Gaming OS even though BEOS is the fastest Multimedia operating system in the world. If BEOS is better, why do we all use Windows? Because Microsoft makes it impractical to use anything else. They have a weopon. Most of the installed computer base in the world is windows. To keep it, they just have to make it costly to develop cross platform software. And they have. No one will ever play mainstream games on BEOS, no matter how good it is.
Linux has had some success, largely due to the grassroots open source movement, and the decisions of many Governments to use Linux because of its lower cost and increased reliability over Windows.
Thats right, no matter how much you like windows, Air Traffic Control Systems cannot run Windows because it will crash. I am an Industrial Engineer, and we cannot use windows for any PC based control systems because it will crash. It might sound unfair, and maybe people on this forum have not had such bad luck with it, but Industry has spoken.
Windows is fine in an office where you have the luxury of re-installing every six months as needed, but not where reliability is really an issue.
So what is the answer? If you want to know which is faster, benchmark your app and make the appropriate call for you. If you wonder which is easier to use, quit yapping here and go get some debug/coding time in with them on a real project or 10, and make the call.
If its about ethics in the software industry, its likely you already prefer an Open standard to a proprietary one, and you are smiling as you read my post.
It all really comes down to the user. So lets end this thread, never have this argument again, and thank God that we all have enough money for a computer; because in Brazil, the government won't use Microsoft anymore because one copy of Windows costs as much as 60 bags of soy there. Thats a lot of mouths that could be fed in a developing country with tough choices.
Its your call.
DirectX is good if you're using an ATI card (IE: Raedeon Series), simply because ATI cards leave a lot to be diesred in the court of speed when it comes to renering OpenGL, and that makes debugging levels on an ATI Raedeon card painful (Like 10 FPS for my game at 1024x768 on a Raedeon 9200!!!!!)
OpenGL is better (for me) because it is portable, runs faster on my Laptop (i81x Chipset), runs faster on all of my team member's computers (They have nVidia cards), comes pre-compiled with the DevCPP version if the Irrlicht DLL (I'm lazy what can I say
)
Funny, I've had the *nix vs. Windows multi-tasking debate with many M$ freaks. And before that it was the OS/2 vs. M$ debate. OS/2 Rocked!
OpenGL is better (for me) because it is portable, runs faster on my Laptop (i81x Chipset), runs faster on all of my team member's computers (They have nVidia cards), comes pre-compiled with the DevCPP version if the Irrlicht DLL (I'm lazy what can I say
)Funny, I've had the *nix vs. Windows multi-tasking debate with many M$ freaks. And before that it was the OS/2 vs. M$ debate. OS/2 Rocked!
There is no such thing as a stupid question, ...
There are quite inquisitive idiots however...
There are quite inquisitive idiots however...
-
Osimbo
After reading the thread, there is only one thing that noone has said. Direct3D is the API of MS, and it wants to sell more Windows to make more money. There is also OpenGL which can run in windows and linux, *BSD, OSX, and more o.s. If MS allow OpenGL be better than Direct3D (actually is a 'who is faster' race ), no one will buy windows for gaming, because the same game can run in 0$ cost o.s. So, if MS forces OpenGL to run slower than Direct3D in windows, the gamemakers will use Direct3D, because windows games are theirs primary market.
And yes, i really think that when windows receives an OpenGL call or must do something with OpenGL (or any other technology that can rivalice with MS one's,--> JAVA) it makes little delays for slow it.
And yes, i really think that when windows receives an OpenGL call or must do something with OpenGL (or any other technology that can rivalice with MS one's,--> JAVA) it makes little delays for slow it.
-
Guest
I am not getting into this debate, but I wanted to post this PLEA to niko to not drop DX8 support (if indeed he ever planned to), Ogre is dropping DX7 support and has no DX8 support - and as much as we "hate on" DX and MS the fact remains, for a large portion of older systems and users of many types of shareware games on WINDOWS - DirectX has much better support (open gl is useless on a lot of older systems due to bad bad drivers) on these older machines. These people, as much as their lack of updating drivers may annoy, are all but stuck with DX7 or possibly DX8 now Winxp is more common.. but DX9 only (such as Ogre is heading to) makes it non viable for many target audiences of shareware.
Of course DX9 is fine for guys like us, and more hardcore indiependent games.
Personally it would be great to even see a DX7 renderer in Irrlicht to really save the day.. at least for the next 2 years or so. And yes I am aware of the lack of shaders and advanced stuff in DX7.
I just hope people realise that supporting DX8 *AND* DX9 is not redundancy, and Irrlicht could possible gain a lot of support from devs like myself who require older compatibility as well as a good, stable, well featured engine.
Also we are hearing of mucho complications with DX9 sdk usage and the dx installed version of the end user. DX8.1 (winxp+) is a very safe bet for the forseeable future.. don't loose it.. please!
Oh.. and Open GL ROCKS on all other systems and on well supported windows drivers, but the reality is MS have certain segments of the market sown up with old DX and Lack of decent OGL support in drivers.
Of course DX9 is fine for guys like us, and more hardcore indiependent games.
Personally it would be great to even see a DX7 renderer in Irrlicht to really save the day.. at least for the next 2 years or so. And yes I am aware of the lack of shaders and advanced stuff in DX7.
I just hope people realise that supporting DX8 *AND* DX9 is not redundancy, and Irrlicht could possible gain a lot of support from devs like myself who require older compatibility as well as a good, stable, well featured engine.
Also we are hearing of mucho complications with DX9 sdk usage and the dx installed version of the end user. DX8.1 (winxp+) is a very safe bet for the forseeable future.. don't loose it.. please!
Oh.. and Open GL ROCKS on all other systems and on well supported windows drivers, but the reality is MS have certain segments of the market sown up with old DX and Lack of decent OGL support in drivers.