I’m not intending to flame the famous debate D3D vs. OGL but I want your opinions programmers, hobbies and experts about the future of OpenGL under Windows/Microsoft forthcoming platforms.
I know that all Quake series are all OpenGL based engines. And that’s why they run damn fast.
I’m not sure about DOOM 3 if it’s Direct3D and what’s the reason for that, maybe for the XBox version.
My question would not be faster and more efficinet to implement the engine using one API, and optimize for it. It’s more efficinet since there would be no restriction on the rendering path due to switching between multiple APIs?
Serious Sam engine started with only and only OpenGL! but then again it becomes Direct3D too.
What’s the point? I dunno! Card support? I suspect that since the 99% of gamers will be running GeForces and the unlucky one percent running ATIs
and both support OpenGL though not at the same level. So adding the overhead and restriction to the rendering path by providing more than API is pointless at least we still have OpenGL drivers for Windows. Though they are not updated on the client side, OpenGL32.dll.
I prefer to use OpenGL for everything but if I had to choose between supporting Direct3D as well, I would choose Direct3D as the only API on Windows.
Gamers want speedy games not multiple APIs who cares?
As a matter of fact, most games choose only one API, only few support both.
The Quake/Doom series uses OpenGL for the obvious reason that there is no Direct3D on Linux, and as you already mentioned, there is no point in writing multiple renderers for both APIs except supporting some graphics cards that have less than 1% market share in the gaming sector
Doom3 is 100% OpenGL on PC.
For the XBOX, well, dunno. I read something about JC refusing to port to Direct3D just for this, so maybe that’s why another company did the Xbox version ?
Personally I think the real choice is portability. If you really want to port then you want to start with a graphic subsystem which is well supported and there’s no choice.
I must say however, I would be happy to try out D3D if I could support win32 only. While I like GL, D3D has some very interesting functionalities which could be really useful.
As a side note, I already use DirectInput and DirectAudio and I feel pretty good with them.
Maybe they did GL/D3D ports to workaround problems which are present on a driver path and not on another or to just show some kind of flexibility - look, we don’t care about the API.
I remember of a game I played years ago which was way faster on GL but at the time, GL drivers were so ugly they used to crash a bit or to render horrible things.
I don’t know if it was a problem of bad design or what, but D3D didn’t show this behaviour, altough it was pretty slower.
Originally posted by wismak: I dunno! Card support? I suspect that since the 99% of gamers will be running GeForces and the unlucky one percent running ATIs
and both support OpenGL though not at the same level.
You have some odd notions. Using GL doesn’t make Quake damn faster. That’s a game engine that’s designed to reduce work for the graphics card and it’s pretty decent, but you pay the price in CPU power.
According to Steam (Valve), 50% are Nvidia, 50% is ATI, and some few people have garbage.
ATI’s GL drivers are very solid. They were weak like 5 years ago but times change.
Originally posted by wismak:
[b]Linux runs OpenGL
Mac runs OpenGL
PC runs OpenGL
PS3 runs OpenGL
Why does not MS admit it? Direct3D has many disadvantages:
Ugly API
COM based
Only Windows
Not flexible for IHV to optimize
Owned by only one company and not open standard
And another thing, can we say the same for OpenAL and DirectAudio?[/b]
I thought OpenAL where bugged, but Id Software used it on Linux Doom3 port.
The COM base is not a disadvantage for certain person, because it’s a ‘structured’ API, and let a bigger control of hardware to developpers when OpenGL let it to drivers
I’ve tried quake iii arena under both windows and linux and could not notice any difference between both in performance or game play, not even graphics.
the linux version as we know uses x windows system calls and oss which are native to the linux os.
the windows version uses directx for sound and input.
so what’s the point of using directx while we can get input and program sound using core os apis?
why games are tageted to windows, i think it’s the wrong platform. why? I tell u
because the majority of gamers are poor kids (i mean cannot afford buying windows and it’s crappy software) so the linux should be the right choice for them.
Originally posted by wismak:
[b]let me put it this way:
so what’s the point of using directx while we can get input and program sound using core os apis?[/b]
The point is that directx allows to use features that are not exposed by core os api or whose support in core api is limited. For example hardware acceleration of 3d sound positioning or EAX effects.
Originally posted by wismak:
[b]let me put it this way:
why games are tageted to windows, i think it’s the wrong platform. why? I tell u
because the majority of gamers are poor kids (i mean cannot afford buying windows and it’s crappy software) so the linux should be the right choice for them.[/b]
Games are targeted on windows because most gamers are using windows. Most gamers are using windows because most games are made for windows and because they or theirs parents know at least to some degree how to use windows. Also maybe they or theirs parents may need to have windows anyway to be compatible with coworkers if one computer is used for both work and gaming.
If gamer is too poor so it cannot afford to buy OEM windows with new computer, it is probably too poor to buy many games so imho he is not too much interesting for game publishers.
