The Dilema

OpenGL

If I was to choose within the spectrum of Window''s APIs or self made drawing rootines (like in the good old day of game programming), what would be my best bet?

Jonathan

OpenGL

Try it, but if you want absolute max performance, use your own code and optimize the hell out of it.

OpenGL suggesters: I think it''s obvious he doesn''t want to or can''t use a 3D API for whatever reason.

- JQ
Full Speed Games. Are back.

quote:

---

Try it, but if you want absolute max performance, use your own code and optimize the hell out of it.

---

How is that possible? Unless the poor guy wants to program a full 3D API and develop brand new drivers that will interact with all the hardware out there, there is no way he will even get close to OpenGL and DirectX performances.

---

So ageny6, you have basically three choices:

- GDI
- DirectX
- OpenGL

GDI is slow as hell. Unless you don't care about speed, it is a poor choice. If you don't give a shnitz about performance, that's probably the simplest you could find.

It seems you refuse to use DirectX for some reason. Direct3D is the fastest API you could find (along with OpenGL) and the easier to use with programmable pipeline. However, the COM interface could be a pain in the ass at the beggining.

OpenGL is almost as fast if not equal to Direct3D (depending on hardware and software implementation). Some people say it's easier to use. Could be true if you use things such a GLU to help you. Also, stay away from programmable pipeline with OGL unless you don't care about making a different implementation for each hardware vendor.

quote:

---

If I was to choose within the spectrum of Window's APIs or self made drawing rootines (like in the good old day of game programming), what would be my best bet?

---

Reinventing the wheel is no longer the way to go in software programming these days. Corporations and associations such as ARB and Microsoft invest millions and even billions to make your life easier. Throwing that through the window because you prefer to do everything yourself a-la DOS will make you loose precious time and money at reinventing things that are already widely used. Unless you have a freaking good reason, you should stick to either OGL or DX for high performance.

EDIT : Removed error
______________________________
Oooh, you found the horadric cube!

[edited by - Coincoin on January 5, 2003 9:14:37 AM]

I was not talking about hardware acceleration. Someone posted OpenGL and he basically just said he was looking for a software solution. How is DX or OpenGL faster when doing software rendering?

- JQ
Full Speed Games. Are back.

Allow to clear things up.

Not that I don''t want to use DX or OGL, but I want to understand the concepts of 3D graphics myself instead of taking some of the OpenGl and DX functions for granted, regardless of processing speed. It just a conceptual idea that I have given myself in order to better understand. But, as another message I posted explains, I can''t seem to do this successfully (and it is kinda frustrating me!). I asked this question simply to know if there was another alternative for drawing surfaces than the OpenGL and DX, regardless of proccessing speed (althought the fastest option would be nice).

Thank you for your concern. I will still take though other ideas as to answer my original question.



Jonathan

OpenGL absolutely forces upon you the need to fully understand the entire gamut of 3d graphics programming. If you think rasterizing a polygon into pixels is what 3d graphics is all about, you are mistaken. That is the lowest of the low level for 3d graphics. One step above that is matrix transformations. And that''s pretty much all OpenGL does for you. The point of OpenGL is to provide a clean common interface to the hardware for those tasks.

OpenGL is basically to 3d graphics what printf () is to text output. Do you really care about the hardware specific parts of printf ()?

Go ahead and learn about triangle rasterization. That''s what OpenGL does. But that isn''t 3d graphics. If you think coding a replacement for OpenGL in software is going to teach you about 3d graphcis, you''re wrong. It will teach you about rasterizing triangles.

If you think by using OpenGL, you are shielding yourself from learning 3d, you are wrong. You''ll still have to learn about transformation hierarchies, filtering and sampling, octrees, interpolation, intersection tests, bounding volumes, procedural shading, fractals, L-systems, bump mapping, radiosity, ray tracing, spline interpolation, camera transformations, coordinate systems, geometry, topology, bones, skeletons, LOD, triangulation...

Interesting! I was misinformed about OGL. I was told differently. Thanks for the Heads-Up on the API.

And a tangent to this original topic. Which API is faster? OGL or DX?

Thanks

Jonathan

That''s a question you must not ask on these forum. This is highly flamable content and will start a OGL vs D3D war. You should read the article on begining 3D, differences between the APIs are clearly stated so that you can make a choice depending on your needs.

The speed difference is so little that if you end up needing this speed gain, you are in big trouble an should think a little bit more about your design.

500 x 1

______________________________
Oooh, you found the horadric cube!

Okay, i''ll try to remember that! Thanks for the tip!

Jonathan