hey aeluned,
money is only the root of all evil if you do not have enough of it.
here in germany, we are now having a lucky guy who won 21 million euros in the lottery, last weekend. imagine what it’s like to have more money than you can spend? i can only talk for myself, but i think i’d be in a neverending state of being totally relaxed…which doesn’t seem evil to me.
but, to be serious:
hey hey, my my, opengl will never die!
if you think of games, well, i admit direct %)$#§
is superior. because there is not only direct3d, but also directsound, directwhatever.
but opengl came from the industry, and there it will remain. i for example work close to BMW in munich, and in research and development they are running linux. they use windows emulators to make their shiny powerpoint stuff, and maybe fill in their time sheets, but nothing more.
and after i’ve read mark kilgard’s post:
first, i like the way you are enthusiastic about your employer 
but, as i said before: in the industry, windows is only used for making impressive transparencies. real work is done with linux (or unix, which is disappearing because sgi workstations are way too expensive compared with pcs).
linux rules not only because of opengl, but it has lots of tools like free editors, compilers etc. if you’re an engineer you love command-line-tools like <grep>; only using the pipe helps you a lot.
i could not imagine my every-day-work being done in windows. and i agree, nvidia is providing fast, stable drivers. at my company- and at BMW, too- we are running linux with intel xeon and nvidia quadro xgl cards. keep up the good work!
“real work” is hard to be defined so,
when you consider the games industry I would say most is done on windows/d3d.
though thx to ogl es and the new playstations this might shift a bit.
ogl will continue to have its lead in any “non game 3d apps” I guess.
and about nvidia, they certainly give a bit more love to ogl than others (when it comes to gaming stuff) but it doesnt help when it only runs on their hardware… I hope CgFX will be fixed to run on ATI, and I wished Cg runtime would be extendable so that some people could write “inofficial” profiles for say ATI FS or whatever… it is also weird that nvidia makes fx composer for d3d but no IDE for their own shading language Cg (although its almost same to hlsl), but I hope that ps3 will change this and give Cg a bit of a push.
for game stuff ogl clearly lost to d3d because of the lack of ARB extensions for really important features, but I think ogl ES will fight back cause it will be cleaner and less bloated, and actually be what people hoped 2.0 to be. I am still quite a noob on this stuff but thats my 2 cent
Originally posted by RigidBody:
but, as i said before: in the industry, windows is only used for making impressive transparencies. real work is done with linux (or unix, which is disappearing because sgi workstations are way too expensive compared with pcs).
Which industry would this be?
/A.B.
first of all: real work is what I do 
Which industry would this be?
automotive, for example…aerospace…any industry, which produces real stuff in big buildings with smoking chimneys.
most CAE/CAD software came originally from unix and is now ported to linux because of the comparably low hardware costs. somewhere in this forum there was a post of a guy from boeing who said they want to switch to linux.
i looked around the web and found ati and nvidia cards from 30-500 euros, which are good for gamers.
but in the high-end there is only nvidia with their quadro fx. the price STARTS at about 300,- for quadro 580 xgl and goes up to 5400,- for quadro fx 4000. there may be less engineers than gamers in the world, but if you compare the average price of their hardware, it may pay for nvidia. and of course, they cannot sell a 5000 euro card without offering a driver. which must be available under linux for the reasons which i gave before.
It may be true for BMW and VW where Windows is banned. In the US, the automakers are mostly windows based.
Originally posted by daveperman:
[quote]Originally posted by Zak McKrakem:
Who will be next? Mark Kilgard? Jon Leech?
or me? please?[/QUOTE]somehow its depressing to see someone abusing the fact that no one can spell my nick correctly… grmbl.
well, i continue to support opengl, but i’m no one big, so…
but i don’t see dx as ‘the dark side’. just… the other side.
<QUOTE>
but i don’t see dx as ‘the dark side’. just… the other side.
</QUOTE>
Yes, the side you are on in your afterlife if you were a really bad guy:)
And now serious.
From my (hobbyst) point of view OpenGL is great. Easy to learn, easy to use. I used a bit of DirectX one time(long ago) through some Delphi components (was it DelphiX or something?), but it was not enough. I started browsing the source code. It was awfull. There was no chance for me learning it. So I choose OpenGL.I heard DX has changed a bit since then though…
DirectSound? OpenAL is also fine and integrates well. There is also DevIL. Almost everything I need for my humble purposes. I could be happy to have more time:)
I think the future of non-proffesional OpenGL is in ATI’s and nVidia’s hands - if they both implement something, it’s there. And it’s only the extensions (in my opinion) that OpenGL may lack. I am still waiting for ATI’s FBO.
Cheers!
Personally, I would like to see more games released using no part of DX and written in a portable way.
The biggest issue facing GL is PR : convincing companies to use it in favor of D3D.
Most of those guys running them companies think Windows is where the money is and they don’t need to look farther than DX. Too bad Valve switched.
Originally posted by V-man:
Too bad Valve switched.
I wouldn’t worry about Valve. What else would you expect from the company that
On the other hand, if you get their leaked code (may the gods forgive you) you’ll see they must have ratained some strange sentiment to the OGL way :rolleyes:
as a hobbyist as well imo where dx currently surpasses ogl is
“really nice sdk”
there is no real ogl sdk… or help or whatever, you have to dig up everything yourself, tutorials, specs and those oh so simple to use extensions specs. dx has a really good sdk imo, also comes with alot of extra tools.
one might say there is glut, but its not updated anymore and not “official”.
“no extension wrangling”
you can use shaders more reasily and dont have to check for extensions, compilers… especially on older hardware (no ps1_x on gl)
gl too much is individual company’s testbed, less united. of course that comes from the way it is, democracy is always harder than dictatorship hehe
so while gl is easier in the beginning (gl 1.1, redbook) once you want to do more it gets alot more troublesome to work with, unless you want to limit on vendor X
there is no initiative to push gl to more user friendlyness or better use, cause there is no official head, everything needs to be decided on in the arb, which takes too much time and seems to be in the background.
then again one should probably just accept that gl isnt meant for gaming.
one should also accept that with flexibility comes complexity.
The good points in gl are impossible without the bad points you’ve highlighted.
Maybe it’s not meant for hobbyists - it’s not a “3d-game construction kit” that’s for sure.
Originally posted by 3k0j:
[b] [quote]Originally posted by V-man:
Too bad Valve switched.
I wouldn’t worry about Valve. What else would you expect from the company that
On the other hand, if you get their leaked code (may the gods forgive you) you’ll see they must have ratained some strange sentiment to the OGL way :rolleyes: [/b][/QUOTE]Since their game is so popular, they should be convinced to use GL and the rest of the industry will follow suit. A lot of people are like lemmings.
EA is the worst cause they put out so many games and I think 99% are D3D. They are the biggest game company I think??? They pull over 2 Billion$ per year. That’s enough money to do anything.
I have never seen an interview where they are asked about this stuff, except for Carmack and we all know what he said.
true knackered, the “fast access to latest tech” only works with the extensions, thats definetely a big plus. just leaves issues when it doesnt end up as ARB extension or no equivalent exists.
so the extension stuff and such will stay as is, cause of the nature of "open"GL
Originally posted by CrazyButcher:
[b]“real work” is hard to be defined so,
when you consider the games industry I would say most is done on windows/d3d.
though thx to ogl es and the new playstations this might shift a bit.
[/b]
AFAIK is the market of PC games much smaller as the console one. So I don’t think DX is important.
coconut-
i tried to reply before, but my post was deleted like it seems.
i didn’t say there is no windows at BMW or VW. but it’s only used for making fancy slides or other secretaries’ stuff.
CAE/CAD is done with UNIX or LINUX. and somehow i can’t imagine it’s different in the us. tools like msc nastran, ls-dyna or pamcrash, which are used for stiffness and crash calculations, were ported to windows some years ago. but only for small companies which can’t afford to buy a 20.000,- workstation.
Originally posted by CrazyButcher:
true knackered, the “fast access to latest tech” only works with the extensions, thats definetely a big plus. just leaves issues when it doesnt end up as ARB extension or no equivalent exists.
so the extension stuff and such will stay as is, cause of the nature of "open"GL
There’s also the backwards compatibilty that opengl’s extension mechanism guarantees effortlessly. I can use a drawing method I programmed years ago that uses register combiners & texture shaders in the same application that uses drawing methods that use GLSL and VBO. This would be impossible with d3d - you have to throw the baby out with the bath water each time microsoft deem to release a new version of dx. That means you can’t use your old dx8 drawing code if you want to exploit newer dx9 features, which is madness if you think about it.
I prefer backwards compatibility to constant redesign.
you’re right marco, the masses of games in total comes from consoles. and opengl/es should give gl a boost in games.
and knackered, while backwards compatibility surely is a plus, how much can you really “not reuse” in dx that you can reuse in ogl, something as vendor specific like nvi texture/rcs doesnt exist in d3d or ? so they go around this problem using more standardized tech or ? however as I know less d3d than ogl its more of an impression not really knowing…
oooooooooo, butcher. The innocence of youth. They virtually redesign the whole thing with each new major version. I am not exagerating.
Microsoft are only interested in backwards compatibility for the end-user, not the developer at all. So, dx6 stuff still runs fine even though you’ve got dx9 installed (the dx6 interfaces are hanging off the back of the dx9 runtime via COM), but dx6 stuff will not compile unless you compile against the dx6 sdk…which means you won’t be able to use anything out of any later versions of dx.