Interesting article, but pasting articles in their entirety is generally frowned upon (especially when you don't take the time to fix the formatting). It's better to just include a link and write some comments of your own to get a discussion going.
Also, this should probably have been posted in the Off-Topic section.
I didn't read the post, but just want to note that I believe a lot of people DO NOT develop for openGL not because the performance is better on it, but because it communicates with your hardware slower, causing input lag
And it's probably an ultimate decision
Small performance gain or input lag? Which would our userbase prefer?
And since most people probably get amazing frames on such things, they will go with the D3D option
Unless they'd prefer not to be locked into using Windows.
Also, where'd you get the bit about input lag? PS3 uses OpenGL, as does every 3D game on everything not made by Microsoft. All id-tech is OpenGL.
I'd have to find the thread about it, believe it was some type of official post as well (not here) by a game developer explaining how D3D communicates for all of your hardware faster
On the topic of DirectX vs OpenGL, people will tell you that DirectX is proprietary and Windows only, while OpenGL is multiplatform and, well, open, so it's like good vs. evil.
However, I have read that DirectX 11 brought multithreaded rendering which may be a big deal in some games (I know about one game that uses it for sure in DX11 mode, and that is Civilization 5).
OpenGL allegedly does not support this, as it is geared towards professional rendering in CADS etc. rather than gaming.
On the topic of DirectX vs OpenGL, people will tell you that DirectX is proprietary and Windows only, while OpenGL is multiplatform and, well, open, so it's like good vs. evil.
However, I have read that DirectX 11 brought multithreaded rendering which may be a big deal in some games (I know about one game that uses it for sure in DX11 mode, and that is Civilization 5).
OpenGL allegedly does not support this, as it is geared towards professional rendering in CADS etc. rather than gaming.
I've read that OpenGL actually supported dx11 features before dx, its just all about marketing.
"We were expecting a lot from OpenGL 3, and as you can tell by reading this article, we’re disappointed—both in the API itself (with the disappearance of promised features) and in the way it’s been handled (a year-long delay and a lack of clear communication on the part of the Khronos group). With this version, OpenGL barely keeps up with Direct3D 10, and at a time when Microsoft has chosen to publicize the first details of version 11 of its own API."
This article compares OpenGL 3.0 vs. DX 11, and obviously, DX11 supported multithreaded rendering while OpenGL 3.0 did not, which contradicts your statement. According to what I read OpenGL supports it only from OpenGL 4.2, which is the latest version supported only by the latest cards.
Interesting read. But did you wrote it yourself?
And I miss the connection to NS2.
No I made it very clear in 3 places that this was NOT written by me.
Can you please point me to the form rule that shows what you are talking about, as I gave full credit to the author and it's an important read.
I think he's going by general rules based on quoting/citing works in any media (e.g. reports, articles, books, etc). Specifically, its generally accepted to be ok to quote or excerpt small portions of a written work (e.g. a section of an article or several paragraphs of a book). However, proper citation doesn't give you carte blanche to copy and paste the entirety of someone's work.
How much of someone else's work can I use without getting permission?
Under the fair use doctrine of the U.S. copyright statute, it is permissible to use limited portions of a work including quotes, for purposes such as commentary, criticism, news reporting, and scholarly reports. There are no legal rules permitting the use of a specific number of words, a certain number of musical notes, or percentage of a work. Whether a particular use qualifies as fair use depends on all the circumstances. See FL 102, Fair Use, and Circular 21, Reproductions of Copyrighted Works by Educators and Librarians.
There is no hard and fast rule on how much of any protected document can be used without permission of the rightsholder. The best guidance at the moment is that the excerpt must be appropriate in kind and amount, and it must be transformative.
TalesinOur own little well of hateJoin Date: 2002-11-08Member: 7710NS1 Playtester, Forum Moderators
edited April 2013
As an occasional coder, the most compelling reason to go with DX is that it offers a unified interface for input, graphics and sound. There's less documentation to read, fewer interactions/'gotchas' to be concerned about, and the biggest reason to go with OGL is that some of the code will need less modification when porting to other platforms. Less of an issue, with how small of a market segment Linux is as far as gaming is concerned (servers aside), not to even mention Mac.
OpenGL is a decent standard. It performs well, and has most of the same functionality as DX; each has things the other is lacking as far as functions. But the lack of OpenInput and OpenSound mean developing something in-house to deal with it, or using DX. At which point... why use OGL at all, when D3D is right there?
If you have other preferences or reasons to use it, it will work fine. But from a business sense, it's easier to go with an all-in-one to simplify the production and development channel.
But the lack of OpenInput and OpenSound mean developing something in-house to deal with it, or using DX. At which point... why use OGL at all, when D3D is right there?
Usually, it means using SDL rather than developing an in-house solution. Though you're probably correct about the simplified way the DX package handles that stuff in a more streamlined/integrated manner.
But, then, to the average (I'm assuming here) gamer, DirectX is what they associate with pretty graphics, not sound or input, and I think most debates such as this focus on that aspect (Direct3D). Also, the thread specifies D3D vs OpenGL, not DX.
TalesinOur own little well of hateJoin Date: 2002-11-08Member: 7710NS1 Playtester, Forum Moderators
True, public perception of OGL (to those who even know the difference) is that it's an older, weaker standard. I ended up spending half an hour arguing with an nVidia rep (hired to stand at a local Fry's and guide people away from the cheaper, higher-performance ATi cards of the age) when Doom3 came out, as he refused to believe that it wasn't DX10, as it looked *incredible*.
Restricting it to D3D vs OGL only though? OGL is definitely the better standard if only for its portability and functionality. The DX umbrella is the main reason to use D3D. With no DX12 (supposedly) planned, it's going to be interesting to see if 11 just gets patched up to extend the functionality, or if OGL may become more of a go-to when its feature set starts to significantly surpass D3D.
Then again, MS may retract that statement when it becomes clear to management that just how badly Windows Phone: Desktop Edition is tanking isn't just PR or sensationalism. (Worse than Vista, worse than Windows ME even. It's an outright travesty.)
Then again, MS may retract that statement when it becomes clear to management that just how badly Windows Phone: Desktop Edition is tanking isn't just PR or sensationalism. (Worse than Vista, worse than Windows ME even. It's an outright travesty.)
But then how am I going to use the Bing app to search for how to install Linux until this monstrosity can be quietly euthanized?
Or maybe MS will just adopt OpenGL as the standard for hardware accelerated graphics on Windows because then developers (developers, developers, developers, DEVELOPERS!! *takes breath*) only have to learn one API for all hardware/OS combinations.
TalesinOur own little well of hateJoin Date: 2002-11-08Member: 7710NS1 Playtester, Forum Moderators
edited April 2013
Yeah, and maybe they'll open-source Windows.
Having a lock-down on a standard to modify as they like, one that is virtually exclusive to their OS line, and being one of the most popular solutions for game development is bringing in money and retarding any adoption of Linux, BSD, or other alternative OS offerings. Maybe if Gates was still at the reins, as he's become more and more of a philanthropist over the last 15 years... but not with the chair-chucker still in the picture. You'd sooner have gotten Jobs to shower regularly.
I'll assume the last bit was sarcasm though, as I'm sure there's still plenty of hardware out there that still doesn't deal with OGL.
Comments
And I miss the connection to NS2.
Also, this should probably have been posted in the Off-Topic section.
Unless the original article goes down.
It's a bit dated now (like how xp is the most popular OS for gamers) but a lot of it is still true. There are sequels to that article if you want to read more.
The game they're working on looks really cool, I'll probably buy it when I tire of the games I'm playing.
And it's probably an ultimate decision
Small performance gain or input lag? Which would our userbase prefer?
And since most people probably get amazing frames on such things, they will go with the D3D option
Just my input on it!
Also, where'd you get the bit about input lag? PS3 uses OpenGL, as does every 3D game on everything not made by Microsoft. All id-tech is OpenGL.
I'd have to find the thread about it, believe it was some type of official post as well (not here) by a game developer explaining how D3D communicates for all of your hardware faster
However, I have read that DirectX 11 brought multithreaded rendering which may be a big deal in some games (I know about one game that uses it for sure in DX11 mode, and that is Civilization 5).
OpenGL allegedly does not support this, as it is geared towards professional rendering in CADS etc. rather than gaming.
I've read that OpenGL actually supported dx11 features before dx, its just all about marketing.
Also,
http://blogs.valvesoftware.com/linux/faster-zombies/
This article does not agree with you:
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/opengl-directx,2019.html
Quoting:
"We were expecting a lot from OpenGL 3, and as you can tell by reading this article, we’re disappointed—both in the API itself (with the disappearance of promised features) and in the way it’s been handled (a year-long delay and a lack of clear communication on the part of the Khronos group). With this version, OpenGL barely keeps up with Direct3D 10, and at a time when Microsoft has chosen to publicize the first details of version 11 of its own API."
This article compares OpenGL 3.0 vs. DX 11, and obviously, DX11 supported multithreaded rendering while OpenGL 3.0 did not, which contradicts your statement. According to what I read OpenGL supports it only from OpenGL 4.2, which is the latest version supported only by the latest cards.
No I made it very clear in 3 places that this was NOT written by me.
Can you please point me to the form rule that shows what you are talking about, as I gave full credit to the author and it's an important read.
_Necro_ wrote: »
Interesting read. But did you wrote it yourself?
And I miss the connection to NS2.
No I made it very clear in 3 places that this was NOT written by me.
Can you please point me to the form rule that shows what you are talking about, as I gave full credit to the author and it's an important read.
What's wrong with being in off-topic?
Edit: Here's a much more technical definition of the situation.
Double Edit: Here is more plain language and specific guidelines:
Even if I think Uwe do not push really hard in that direction, it's never good to do that.
Regardless I hope devs find it interesting.
OpenGL is a decent standard. It performs well, and has most of the same functionality as DX; each has things the other is lacking as far as functions. But the lack of OpenInput and OpenSound mean developing something in-house to deal with it, or using DX. At which point... why use OGL at all, when D3D is right there?
If you have other preferences or reasons to use it, it will work fine. But from a business sense, it's easier to go with an all-in-one to simplify the production and development channel.
Usually, it means using SDL rather than developing an in-house solution. Though you're probably correct about the simplified way the DX package handles that stuff in a more streamlined/integrated manner.
But, then, to the average (I'm assuming here) gamer, DirectX is what they associate with pretty graphics, not sound or input, and I think most debates such as this focus on that aspect (Direct3D). Also, the thread specifies D3D vs OpenGL, not DX.
Restricting it to D3D vs OGL only though? OGL is definitely the better standard if only for its portability and functionality. The DX umbrella is the main reason to use D3D. With no DX12 (supposedly) planned, it's going to be interesting to see if 11 just gets patched up to extend the functionality, or if OGL may become more of a go-to when its feature set starts to significantly surpass D3D.
Then again, MS may retract that statement when it becomes clear to management that just how badly Windows Phone: Desktop Edition is tanking isn't just PR or sensationalism. (Worse than Vista, worse than Windows ME even. It's an outright travesty.)
Having a lock-down on a standard to modify as they like, one that is virtually exclusive to their OS line, and being one of the most popular solutions for game development is bringing in money and retarding any adoption of Linux, BSD, or other alternative OS offerings. Maybe if Gates was still at the reins, as he's become more and more of a philanthropist over the last 15 years... but not with the chair-chucker still in the picture. You'd sooner have gotten Jobs to shower regularly.
I'll assume the last bit was sarcasm though, as I'm sure there's still plenty of hardware out there that still doesn't deal with OGL.