Will the Lack of DX10 on XP Spur OpenGL Dev? 168
Sparr0 asks: "Microsoft has announcement that DirectX 10 will not be released for Windows XP (which means no Shader Model 4.0 and no Geometry Shaders). I have since been waiting for news of game developers switching to OpenGL, in order to get the best graphics on the best hardware on the most popular gaming OS, however there is nary a whisper of such. Will such a shift occur, even if only in small amounts? When? Why not? It is probably safe to say that Unreal Tournament 3 (AKA UT2007) will have OpenGL as an option in Windows, but that is both unsurprising and also a long way off. Ditto for Quake Wars, and most other games that are planning a native Linux clients. Where are all of the other big names with Windows-only offerings? Why haven't we heard from Valve, Blizzard, Sony, or EA, to name a few?"
Seriously? (Score:2)
Will the Lack of DX10 on XP Spur OpenGL Dev? (Score:4, Insightful)
Unfortunately, most game developers will probably continue writing for DX9.0c until the majority of users are running Vista and have DX10 capable video cards.
The exceptions, as listed in the summary, will be those developers that intend for their games to be cross-platform and run on Linux and OSX as well as Visa.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Sheesh, a lot of titles shipping today still have DX 8 codepaths and look pretty damn good on DX 8 hardware.
Pass me that pipe you're smoking
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Every DX10 card must support every DX10 feature. You might see something like physics acceleration appearing outside the DX10 framework. But you will have a more stable platform for development.
The DX10 card at $150-$180 should hit the market in about a month or two.
Beyond DX10 you have a common development platform for Windows and the XBox 360. Much closer ties in Vista between the PC and the console gamer. That is something OGL, OSX and Linux can't deliver.
Hardware an issue? (Score:2)
Though I may have misunderstood the question...
Re: (Score:2)
DX9 (Score:3, Interesting)
Seriously, I doubt that companies like Valve will switch to OpenGL for winxp releases. They already have extensive directx know-how and will probably just build in DX9 and DX10 support just like they currently build in support for DX7, 8 and 9.
In the end, most people will upgrade to vista. Either because they want to or because they need it for a certain program to run or simply because it came pre-installed on their shiny new Dell. It is inevitable.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Really? Because their notebooks aren't doing so hot. [arstechnica.com] I'm pretty sure the same principle could apply to Apple's line of desktops as well.
Re: (Score:2)
It doesn't make sense to compare Q1 to Q4, necessarily, especially when a manufacturer just experienced major growth. See this comment attached to that story:
Apple's FY 1Q07 notebook sales dipped 2% from their FY 4Q06 sales because they had a huge 4Q due to education sales. FY4Q is usually Apple's strongest quarter for computer sales, not FY1Q. This whole issue is like being surprised there's a downturn in retail sales after the holiday season. What is surprising is that t
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Nope. (Score:5, Insightful)
The fact is that if you are developing Windows games, why would you support two APIs when you could support a single one and D9 users would just have to deal with not having the latest bells and whistles? And this doesn't even take into account that D3d is now a more advanced API than OpenGL (which has been mentioned already).
RonB
Re:Nope. (Score:5, Informative)
DirectX info [wikipedia.org]
WDDM [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I have experience porting our companiy's graphics engine (the OpenGL part of it) to the Wii, and it's not trivial.
A Turning Tide (Score:2, Interesting)
well (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Blizzard/EA do use cross-platform games (Score:4, Interesting)
Sorry, but only one is windows only. Last I checked, World of Warcraft, Warcraft 3, and Diablo II run on Mac. And in the case of WC3, the CD has a Mac and windows version on the same CD. Amazon.com tells me that EA's #1 game (The Sims 2) also runs on the Mac. Can anyone tell me a Windows game Sony makes? The only windows software I can think of is SoundForge and their CD DRM, but the latter I don't think I want to work cross-platform;) That leaves Valve, which is run bun a former MS hotshot, so I think that might have something to do with the company's founder preferring Direct3D.
I think many developers are already using OpenGL, but of course, that's only one part of being cross platform. Network, sound, and input also need to be implemented cross-platform....
Re: (Score:2)
Ok, I'll take this one.
http://www.station.sony.com/ [sony.com]
Check the "PC Games" column. Not a single non-Windows compatible game there. They are all Sony products.
(Yeah yeah, Sony didn't originally make many of them, but they own and develop them now, so they are Sony's.)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
However, since EA writes games for Nintendo, Sony, and Microsoft consoles, I suspect they are familiar with both OpenGL and Direct X.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
http://www.station.sony.com/ [sony.com]
Two Render Paths (Score:2)
Remember that Vista doesn't automatically confer DX10 either you need a card that supports DX10 and those are VERY new still the installed base is still mostly DX9 cards reguardless of OS. There are still some users running on DX8 cards as well, which are still well supported in many even new games. The Source engine is ev
Library choice not always exclusive (Score:2, Informative)
Multiple Render Paths (Score:2, Insightful)
As for OpenGL getting a bump out of this, I doubt developers will suddenly add an O
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The worse they can do I think, is pull an Nvidia like the Geforce FX: officialy, and technically support something, but have a totally horrible implementation.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
i also remember intel not implementing all the functions of amd64 on their first 64bit capable x86 chips...
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps I am showing my ignorance here... (Score:2)
It seems silly to me Microsoft would come up with something they think will be such a big improvement for games, and yet not try to get the same tech on the 360...or am I just showing my ignorance here...
Re: (Score:2)
Kids these days. (Score:2)
The Xbox360 platform shares API details with both Windows and DirectX.
Unless you're seeking cross-platform compatibility and don't the latest and greatest feature, sure go for OpenGL.
In other words, Vista doesn't run well on my current hardware, XP does. Will this make me switch to Ubuntu or something? No, it won't.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sorry, where was the link to the SDK? Thats right. The latest and greatest SDK for the most bleeding edge hardware isn't even released yet. This puts your post well into the FUD category. Thanks for playing!
Quoting Wikipedia's 'Directx' topic:
* Direct3D 9Ex (previously known as 9.0L): allows full access to the new capabilities of WDDM while maintaining compatibility for existing Direct3D applications by putting it in a separate AP
Re: (Score:2)
Could've been one post, but I have obsessive compulsive Submit clicking disorder.
That said I don't consider leading a dialog by replying to comments extensively to be an indication a "nerve" was struck or something. We're leading a dialog. Plus I don't proofread my comments so I'm really fast and producing them..
Blizzard... Owned by MS... (Score:2, Troll)
So MS decided that since this was going to
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I suspect a performance hit is typical for a new OS with immature drivers running on (mostly) legacy hardware. I also suspect FPS is as much a myth in graphics performance as MHz is in CPU performance.
OpenGL likely to see improvements due to lockin-DX (Score:2)
Probably not... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Bad decision (Score:2)
I've never been a big Microsoft hater... for example, when they stopped suppporting Windows 95, Windows 2000, and so on previous
Re: (Score:2)
Now mayhap the OP is writing about Direct3D... in that case, even DirectX 9.x's version of Direct3d features a LOT more functionality than OpenGL's most recent revision contains.
Anyone else able to confirm this? I'm no developer so I'm fairly ignorant on the matter. However, when someone that goes by MSFanBoi2 says that MS's proprietary product is better than an open standard, I take it with a grain of salt.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
http://www.gamedev.net/reference/articles/article1 775.asp [gamedev.net]
http://www.xmission.com/~legalize/d3d-vs-opengl.ht ml [xmission.com] (this one is a bit out of date and only covers OpenGL 1.2 and DirectX 8
Re: (Score:2)
So you give one Wikipedia link, and two out of date links regardiunbg 2 generation old versions of OpenGL and DX.
Since Wikipedia is basically worthless as an authoritative source we have to throw that one out right off. The others are completely out of date, and the gamedev link even talks about Windows 95 and DOS games!
C-mon. If you want to back up your argument, at least use up-to-date information and non-wikipedia links.
Note that I'm not saying you are wrong. You may very well be correct that DX i
Re:How many times does it need to be said... (Score:5, Insightful)
Comparing OpenGL and DirectX is like comparing Abiword (just a word processor) and OpenOffice (a word processor, a spreadsheet, a vector graphics editor, a presentation designer, etc).
Comparing OpenGL to Direct3D is an apples-to-apples comparison. That's usually what people mean when they talk about comparing DX and GL (since it's the only comparison that makes sense). But that's intellectual laziness.
Re: (Score:2)
AllegroGL (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
False. MSFanBoi2 wrote:
Re: (Score:2)
You wouldn't find an intelligent poster here who wouldn't say that Word and Excel have more functionality than OpenOffice.org.
Does that make them better?
Re: (Score:2)
In this case it does, though, as you're comparing Shader model 2/3 vs. Shader model 4. It's like comparing 2x 512MB of Corsair Dual Channel DDR2 667 RAM vs 2x 1GB of Corsair Dual Channel DDR2 800 RAM.
It's fairly obvious which one is better.
Re: (Score:2)
I AM a developer and I can safely say that.... (Score:2)
OpenGL is nicer, Direct3D is a bit more in direct contact with the hardware. Performance on a modern graphics card is also very similar (as it should be, it's not like they're really doing anything differently).
The main reason Direct3D is used more for games is that Microsoft goes around inviting game company bosses to lunch whereas OpenGL is a committee.
As pointed out, "DirectX" covers a lot more ground - sound
Re: (Score:2)
However, as another poster pointed out, these links are pretty dated and do not include the latest OpenGL or DX10. From what I gathered from your links and my own quick and inadequate research is this:
DirectX10 is much easier to write for due to the mana
Re: (Score:2)
Re:How many times does it need to be said... (Score:5, Informative)
I've had experience using both API's and I can tell you that OpenGL is much easier to work with. But I can understand why companies would want to use Direct3d if they need to create a really effeicent graphics engine.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
It also depends on what kind of programming paradigm you're used to. Direct3d is OO. OpenGL is not.
Re: (Score:2)
D3D is a very tiny share of the 3d market even cons
Re: (Score:2)
I'd say it will hurt the popularity of DirectX 10, but not affect the popularity of DirectX 9 at all. Once the installed base of Vista increased in 12-18 months, you might start to see some games out there that really demand DX10.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:How many times does it need to be said... (Score:5, Informative)
A major advantage of DirectX is programmable pixel and vertex shaders. The syntax has cleaned up considerably in the past two or three versions so it's now as easy or easier than OpenGL. Also, if you know DirectX it's nice because then you can use DirectInput and DirectSound which have a similar structure and use the COM model. As an API, it's pretty nice to develop in. Once you get it, I can see not wanting to migrate to OpenGL.
OpenGL is nice because it's portable and it's an open standard. It's also a little leaner then DirectX. With the newer extensions you have most of the functions that DirectX has, but are missing some key ones. It's also a little more obtuse and it's not updated very much anymore.
Both are stable if written right. Both are fast if written right.
This all being said, they are both very complex API's with lots of extensions (OpenGL) and updates (DirectX) so the differences are there and I've just touched on them. Overall the functionality is close but they just differ in the way they do things.
Games are moving to DirectX for a reason in my eyes. It is somewhat better.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Both APIs allow you to use a high level language to write programmable vertex and fragment shaders (HLSL for Direct3D, GLSL for OpenGL).
Re:How many times does it need to be said... (Score:5, Informative)
One "good" part of OpenGL is that graphics companies don't need to wait for approval to include new features. They can release access to cutting edge features using vendor specific extensions. This was really important in the early days of consumer 3d graphics, and helped spur game development.
Of course this makes programming hard as the extensions are different between vendors and may even vary between different cards in a family (usually they try to just add on). This requires developers to create completely unique rendering paths for each card they want to support to get the best speed/features. Over time though Microsoft's Direct3D caught up with OpenGL and sort of sucked up all the good extensions into their API.
Direct3D 10's advantage is that it puts out a spec and requires all cards fully implement it. Unlike previous versions of DX you can't be DX 10 compatible and leave out features. This really helps eliminate the need for separate rendering paths to make any specific feature work, and so makes development much easier.
So the short of it is they can both do the same stuff, it's just more difficult at the moment with OpenGL.
(Another interesting thing to note is that I have heard rumors that once Direct3d came out Microsoft, who also happens to sit on the OpenGL ARB, slowed down the adoption of some features into the main OpenGL spec. This left them ramping Direct3D at a faster rate.)
Re: (Score:2)
Not to mention the whole Farenheit [wikipedia.org] boondoggle, which in retrospect looks suspiciously like microsoft playing their usual game of slowing down and screwing up competitors by pretending to cooperate with them (but really putting their effort into a m
Re:How many times does it need to be said... (Score:4, Informative)
DX is more than just a graphics library - its a framework for engine development.
OGL is only a graphics library - and it only lets you use the hardware you have (DX has quite a few handy emulation layers).
Unfortunately, OGL doesn't have the kind of supplemental stuff you'd really expect when prototyping or developing a game from scratch - i'm taking about as native format mesh loaders and converters (everything found in d3dx). Interestingly (and frustratingly), many of the d3dx routines aren't perfect and have their odd quirks. Some are plain not reliable, and most rarely return more than a null hDC when things do go wrong (this doesnt help debugging a mesh LOD reduction!)
OGL does support integer and float based indexing, whereas, afaik, DX only supports float.
Both support a wide range of colour formats - as expected.
Personally, the OGL viewports are easier to manipulate.
I find the continual loss of device in DX (through 'apparently' random context switching) annoying. You have to have a fairly large and complex recovery structure/path to commit states back to the gfx hardware.
I would say that OGL is consistent in its API naming, but as-is DX.
OGL is consistent in its interaction with GLSL (the pixel and vertex shader lanauge). I would also say DX is consistent with vertex and pixel shader manipulation too - except considering nVidia's quirky interaction between the sheets after compile (there's some kind of intermediate language and translation going on here, DX tends to break more than OGL - not something i've experienced myself tho).
If I was to code a game now, I would be happier using DX with D3DX, STL, and maybe some boost stuff rather than OGL, because I would have to code less of the engine - less loading/common manipulation routines - thanks to greater library support in DX...
Hths,
Matt
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I stopped reading there, as this is completely backwards.
Re: (Score:2)
OpenGL is a graphics API.
I can't comment on how Direct3D's functionality compares with OpenGL's, but the OP's first assertion at least is entirely correct; OGL is not a direct replacement for DX in any way.
Re: (Score:2)
Important question: "Do games/applications really need all this?"
To me it often looks like Intel in 486/Pentium times: Intel was investing heavily in different CPU intensive applications as to spur processor sales.
Now M$/nVidia/ATI are making run for DX10/DX11/DX12/etc - but the question is why they need all the new crap if Doom3 runs fine even with (very old) OpenGL 1.3??? Beats me.
Re:How many times does it need to be said... (Score:4, Insightful)
Hmmm... Forgive me if I am just a TAD skeptical about claims of DX's superiority from someone named MSFanBoi2.
Of course, you could be just engaging in a little humorous sock-puppetry and I'm not getting it.
Either way, I was under the distinct impression that OpenGL was and has been MUCH more advanced than Direct X for many years, and DX-10 doesn't really up the ante much.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
It's more capable. That's all there is to it. We wouldn't screw with it if it wasn't.
I'm not a programmer so don't ask me for implementation specifics in this- I am in production.
Vista
Console ports (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, I nearly choked at this. The PS3 supports OpenGL ES, which is basically a version of OpenGL for embedded systems (hence the ES). It doesn't "closely resemble" OpenGL, it *is* OpenGL
NeoThermic
Investment? (Score:2)
It seems to me like it might be a good investment to create a good, solid, cross-platform engine (using OpenGL), and maintain that indefinitely. It may be harder to create initially, but I imagine it would not be significantly harder to maintain in the long run.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Usually each extension will appear as a vendor specific extension GL_NV_xxxx, GL_ATI_xxxx, then become introduced as a standard extension GL_ARB_xxxx.
Re: (Score:2)
Your trolling right?
DX-10 is like an operating system unto itself. The Direct3D part has memory management and context switching of shaders built in extracting away all the tricky texture and shader management stuff. It's like someone just took all the really painful stuff out of my job. With all the other Sound and I/O stuff built in and usable in a consistent way I just don't think I could bring myself to go back to OpenGL. Well, I would if I had to, but I would like
Re: (Score:2)
I think the word you're looking for is "abstracting". If so, what's stopping you from abstracting similarly on top of OpenGL?
(Sound and I/O is another problem, for another library. SDL isn't great, but it's there, and OpenAL is looking better and better.)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
A lot of smalle
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Now mayhap the OP is writing about Direct3D... in that case, even DirectX 9.x's version of Direct3d features a LOT more functionality than OpenGL's most recent revision contains.
*sigh* - don't feed the trolls...
There's pretty much feature parity between Direct3D in DirectX 10 and Open GL. Advanced shaders, advanced extensions - they are all in there. Now you may be looking at an OpenGL driver from a manufacturer who doesn't keep up to the spec, but the NVidia OpenGL implementation can access every part of the hardware that Direct3D does.
Now, DirectX covers keyboard handling, spatial sound management and other stuff beyond the actual display. Other platforms tend to use other
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
EXCEPT GEOMETRY SHADERS, which was the entire point of the OP.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:No solution (Score:4, Informative)
OpenAL (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
The only thing Creative has to offer over the integrated audio on a Vista board ia aimulated surround sound. Tell mw why I need that when I can feed real multichannel audio directly to my Yamaha receiver.
Re: (Score:2)
so replace the Yamaha with surround sound headphones, a wireless Logitech Z 5450, or whatever other PC or home theater sound system floats your boat.
Re: (Score:2)
The mere possibility of porting to other platforms should make OpenGL more sensible choice from the very beginning. Of course porting is going to be a big and rare effort if you always have to rewrite the graphics stuff. I'm not just talking about Mac and Linux, but consoles and mobile devices as well.