Why doing OpelGL games?

[maxie]

I cant understand it.
First, there is lots more problems with OpelGL, bad drivers, bad performance, not just with Matrox, every graphiccard manufacturer seems to have problem with a good OGL implementation.
DirectX just works, not often any problem and the performance is great with most cards.
Average users often have problem to get OGL stuff to work. (I know, I am into computersupport)
Lots of things not implemented in OGL, bumpmapping for exemple.
DirectX is made for games and MS and game devopers work closely together to make it better. How often do we have a new version of OGL???
Some says the performance is bad in DX and good in OGL. BS, most games with great graphics are using DX.
Easier to develop for OGL? Oh, maybe but so what, that is what we pay them for..
OGL more portable? Yes, but so what again? Most people uses Windows on a AMD/Intel CPU, and will never touch any Alpha, Unix, Linux or whatever.

Now I´m gonna get flamed again, but I dont care. This is my opinion.
I think DX and Windows is the future.

[red2]

I don't, and I really hope you are wrong.

[maxie]

Why? Is there anything you dont like with DX that is better in OGL?
If DX makes things easier for users, why not concentrate on DX?

[GD]

Hi,

The answer is obvious... DirectX is Microsoft's! Who wants a microsoft API? I prefer SGI's. Anyway OpenGL has nearly 8000 lines of code whereas DirectX has almost half of that. And Glide has half the code of DirectX's. Anyway DirectX is always a step behind in new technologies. Silicon Graphics is a specialist in the 3D universe whereas Microsoft concentrates on other products.

[tish beta2]

And when it comes to performance...

There is something called "control lag". That's the time it takes for the computer to respond to your mouse/joystick-movements. The length of the lag depends on your computer setup (speed, driver/os version etc) and the game/app code.

This in my case is as follows:
System shock 2 has a long control lag, making it a little "slow" and "heavy" to play. This don't matter much cus it's a RPG/adventure game.

Now, when it comes to Quake 3, the control lag is almos zero. This is nesessary when it comes to online deatchmach gaming.

SS2 use D3D, while quake3 use OGL. I've seen D3D games having a short control lag. Also, Half-life is based on the Quake2 enging, which is coded for OGL. Now, that game does have a long control lag. At least on my system. That's because of the extra effects and new code added by valve.

OpenGL in general has a shorter control lag when added effects are present, while D3D are more sensitive. why? ask M$.

One last thing... this is not any 3D relatet. The mouse cursor at the menuscreen of need for speed 2 is so laggy I have to stop, aim, stop aim and then click (just like MechWarrior3's super-fancy menuscreen).
But NFS2 don't have so much effects, so I tried to test it in win2k just to see... and whatayaknow! zero lag.

I just hope all this EMBM don't introduce a longer control lag on my system.

[billko]

The most meaningful arguement (for me) is portability. It takes minimum effort to port an OpenGL based game from one platform to the next. All technical issues aside, it's easier for the programmers and better for the consumer.

Bill

[Scout255]

dx has around 50-60% more cpu useage than opengl...

[MM]

Comparing OpenGL to DirectX is like comparing oranges to apples!

DirectX is an API that was designed to work on ANY video card. It has extensive support for querying video card's capabilities and falling back on lower level machines. It was never designed with ease of use in mind. It was designed to WORK with anything on the market, which it does rather nicely.

OpenGL on the other hand was never designed for games in mind. It was designed for professional graphics done on professional workstations using professional video cards that support all the features required by the OpenGL. Sure there are extensions, but that's all they are - extensions.

This is reason number one why OGL is much easier to program (you don't work for hardware, it works for you) and why DirectX works on so much more different configurations (not the same as platforms!).

What should actually happen is a merger. The "easy" OGL API merged with the more forgiving DX framework. That, I believe is called Farenheit project... SGI + M$ venture that will show up sometimes in the near future... a year or two.

I don't think OpenGL support in drivers is harder to implement than DirectX. It's just that most of the manufacturers target DX because it sells much better - we (almost) all do use Windows for games after all... Those firms that target OpenGL instead have a way better OGL but not as good DX support... sure I'd like to see both in great shape, but that's just not what is out there right now.

I think G400MAX gives you a very respectable OGL with excelent DX. A pretty nice mix in one card.... if you are a performance freak, get 2 cards, one for OGL and another for DX.



------------------
P2c-300a/450, 192MB PC125 SDRAM, Quantum Fireball Plus KA 18.2GB 7200rpm, Panasonic 7502B x4/x8 Ultra SCSI CD-R, Tekram DC-390U2W Ultra2Wide SCSI controller, Diamond MX300 (Vortex2), Creative Labs AWE64 Gold Sound Blaster, A-Trend Voodoo II 12MB, Matrox Millennium G400Max, 19" Hitachi SuperScan 752 and some other fancy stuff

[Cloudy]

If OpenGL sucks so much and DirectX is so good, why the hell did M$ make their screensavers in OpenGL and not DirectX ???
OpenGL has a much better picture quality, better pipeline etc. etc. etc.
Bugs ??? ICD's are buggd, check high end OpenGL dedicated cards and look for bugs - good luck. On the other hand, check D3D for bugs and you'll find a million.
OpenGL knows how to use your graphic adapter processor and send tasks for it to process in parallel with your CPU, this is why 3D programs like 3D Studio Max, Lightwave 3D etc. use OpenGL. D3D is for games, that's it. OpenGL on the other hand is for everything that is 3D. If all the effort that was put into D3D would have been moved to OpenGL, we'd have superior graphics by now. ID software know what they are talking about. D3D is no match for OpenGL.
Besides - BeOS, Linux, MacOS don't use D3D, they use OpenGL and they are way ahead of Windoze 9x.

------------------
Cloudy
Asus P2B-DS, 2 x Celeron 400@75Mhz, 128Mb Ram, Xitel Storm Platinum,
2 x IBM 4.3Gb scsi, Pioneer DVD rom scsi, ati rage fury.

[Buuri]

You can't pull id software into this because Carmack is the man behind their products and he knew OpenGL before there was any Direct3D.
It's just one man who won't change his style, and that can't be used against any API even if he was the greatest guru who ever lived!

And I'm not taking sides but that is no excuse against D3D.

_
B