SGI vs. Microsoft WAR

Hmm...if that were the case, what''s the difference between two programming languages? They produce roughly similar machine code, so why do people usually like some languages over other languages?

A lot of Direct3D and OpenGL are implemented in drivers, so even on the same card, they can give quite different results.

- Andy Oxfeld

Some people are opinionated. Some people are fanatical (they have something which is "theirs" and anything different is violently attacked by them). Some people are just plain stupid.

OpenGL and Direct3D use the same hardware, same functions, just with a different interface layer. The speed of either API is entirely dependent on the hardware and its driver. For instance early ATI 3D accelerators had pretty poor OpenGL driver implementations (which meant OpenGL apps where usually slower and buggier). At the same time NVidia is currently lagging behind in hardware support for DirectX 9, meaning its current top of the line cards may not perform as well for DirectX 9 games as compared to the Radeon 9700 Pro.

So does that mean that OpenGL is better? It doesn''t seem as though OpenGL gurus are very friendly with that "other" API. I''m actually studying both just to be versatile. I think they are both great interfaces and I''m just curious what all the ruckus is about. I guess it''s just as opinionated as the next thing, eh? Assembly language anyone?

-Lewis [m80]
Play QUADz MX @
www.m80produxions.com

It depends on what you're doing. Without starting a flamewar... conventional wisdom is that OpenGL is a bit easier, but Direct3D is a bit more powerful (keeps up with technology better). Although keep in mind that Direct3D limits you to Windows programming, while OpenGL allows you to program your games for almost every mainstream operating system. But in the long run, just pick an API and stick with it, and you'll be fine.

- Andy Oxfeld

[edited by - AndyOxfeld on December 8, 2002 7:15:32 PM]

I''ve been looking into OpenGL quite a bit lately for some stuff I''m doing but I''ve traditionally be the D3D guys. I have to say tho, it''s much easier to do stuff in Direct3D than OpenGl. I know a lot of people won''t agree but I think that OpenGL is a mess with all it''s extensions and whatnot. 2.0 might be better of course but right now I''d go with Direct3D if I was targeting Windows only. Just a 2cents... I''m not really in favor one API or another in the global scheme of things but I think it''s easier to do stuff in Direct3D, even if it takes an extra 50 lines to get it started.

Please check the article here.

[ MSVC Fixes | STL | SDL | Game AI | Sockets | C++ Faq Lite | Boost | Asking Questions | Organising code files | My stuff ]

quote:

---

Original post by Anonymous Poster
You call it SGI''s opengl, given the $60million odd transaction quite sometime ago, this should be caleld Microsoft''s OPENGL. They are the intellectual owners.

---

Nonsense. Microsoft bought algorithm patents from SGI. The name OpenGL is still owned by SGI, and OpenGL''s future is still owned by the ARB board.

quote:

---

and OpenGL''s future is still owned by the ARB board

---

Yup.

Which is also independent of *both* companies and contains members from both companies

However I''m failing to see any relevence to DirectX in any of this thread except reigniting the same old "my API is better than your API" nonsense .



--
Simon O''Connor
Creative Asylum Ltd
www.creative-asylum.com

One of the few differences that I see in Direct3D and OpenGL are that OpenGL is more of a procedural API, and Direct3D is a MOOP(Microsoft Object-Oriented Programming a.k.a. COM) API. You might feel a little bit better starting out with OpenGL if you''ve been programming procedurally for a long time. Direct3D might be easier if you are using OOP.

I just can''t wait for OpenGL 2.0 to come out. I think that will be much better than ANYTHING Microsoft can throw at it. Funny, though, how Microsoft is on the ARB...

RTFM   STFW   EMFP
---------------------
[  c o d e &nbspm a t r i x  ]

quote:

---

Original post by Anonymous Poster
Your comments on cards are absolute bullshit so not worth the comment.

---

But... you... commented...

I think his comments answered your concerns. The reason that some cards have problems is that some cards have dubious drivers, as stated... Also, some games are written badly. That''s one of the many things that makes OpenGL vs. D3D wars so silly - the fact that a version of a game or a version of a driver is good or bad has very little bearing on whether or not an API is bad, except in the extreme case where a majority of vendors support something badly. This is the case with neither OpenGL nor Direct3D.




Author, "Real Time Rendering Tricks and Techniques in DirectX", "Focus on Curves and Surfaces"

My company is currently working with Renderware as an engine platform and I have to tell you that the OpenGL vs DirectX debate is way too overhyped. Often times, I switch from one library to the next and back to see if there are performance gains. It could be the Renderware API but I wouldn''t think it is entirely. I notice very little difference between the two APIs when I do this. Most of the differences can only be explained because of the way DirectX or OpenGL implements its floating point logic. Rounding errors account for most of the visual difference. My app gets the same frame rate regardless of the library being used underneath it.

Kressilac

ps Interesting thing to note, is that using OpenGL and DirectInput 3.0, I have even made the application work on NT 4.0.
Go figure.

The debate of DX vs OGL is getting old. There''s merits to both systems that warrent using either - it''s just up to everybody to decide which they like best for the job at hand. Thread closed.