My 1st non-inflammatory post: Is OpenGL a dying API?

[Mr. Cold]

Would anyone say that OpenGL is a dying API for games? Personally, I just ignore all OpenGL-based games out on the market and only buy DirectX 7 optimized games w/ EAX support.

What do you all think? Should game developers latch on to the Microsoft-only DirectX API's or stick with relatively open standards such as OpenGL and A3D?

[Raptor^]

IMHO OpenGL is very dated and in need of some form of update. It is already becoming obsolete and is only kept alive by the likes of ID who can't be bothered to learn anything new.

If OpenGL isnt updated soon it will be eclipsed by D3D, despite its portability.

Not sure what this has got to do with Matrox Hardware tho...

[This message has been edited by Raptor^ (edited 16 May 2000).]

[dZeus]

Since multi-platfor development is getting more and more important nowadays, OpenGL is much better to develop for than direct3d, when porting to other OS'es.... just give me the name of one OS other than windows that does direct3d

[Buuri]

Raptor's right. OpenGL sure needs a face lift and soon.

dZeus, are you perhaps referring to those 4 or so games available for Linux? It's a question of choosing between API that supports all the latest features that hardware has to give and an out-dated one that happens to be portable.
I'm sure though, that the out-dated API will do just perfect for the Linux community but that isn't something industry should hang on to. Is anyone here worshipping 5,25" disks because so much good software used to fit on it?

ANSI-C is extremely portable but give me a name of a good app written using only it. (I bet the best of Unix apps actually are, LOL )


:
B

[Wombat]

OpenGL does need some changes, but it's hardly an "outdated" API. It's definitely something that the industry should hold on to, especially considering the alternatives (N.B. Microsoft is NOT "the industry").

Also, there's more to life than games. If CAD and animation were limited to DirectX....ick.

Buuri: Your disk drive example is a poor one. Those are both open standards, with one better than the other. It would be better to compare VHS to Beta, or some other "open v. closed" scenario.

Most kernels are written in C, actually. *nix, *BSD. Why? It's fast and stable. Give me the name of an OS not written in C: Windows.

I'll take C, thank you very much.

[Snake-Eyes]

Sorry Wombat, but I think even Windows was written in C, or at least the earlier versions were, anyway (16 bit / Win9x for sure). Ever look at the original Windows API? It's in C, despite MS selling everyone on its VB and other high order development languages.

------------------
Ace

[Buuri]

Wombat, you missed the point.
1) You make it sound like OpenGL being open is some kind of an blessing. Well I can tell you there is a down side to that.
That down side is that while no centralized organization controls the development of the API, every manufactorer can add extensions as sees the best. And that is just what has happened.
For a programmer, that's a ticket to the DOS age. If one wants to use the latest features of the hardware, a tremendous extra work is needed because every device needs is own code and testing. And only John Carmack enjoys that.
Needless to say, this is not the case with DirectX.

2) I didn't bash C. I bashed ANSI-C. You can't do much more that "Hello World!"s with that, but it's extremely portable
(no threads, no sophisticated file access, no sub-second timer..)

:
B

[Wombat]

Ace: I really doubt that you can run the Windows source code through your standard compiler, which is what I meant. MS would be fools not to use something at least derived from C.
To be fair, I am a Linux advocate, and acknowledge that the kernel isn't quite up to POSIX standards either, but it's getting there (and at least I can go and look).

Buuri: It IS a blessing. And if you're looking for people to control the direction of OpenGL, check http://www.sgi.com/software/opengl/ and http://www.opengl.org/

It's true that extensions can be created as needed, but they can also be incorporated into the standard as well. That's the point.

So, what kind of programming do you do?

[Himself]

Multi-platform, isn't that like when you can run the same program on Win95 and Win98 and Win2K and WinNT and WinCE?

[Damien Green]

Mr Cold - nice to see you have bacome 'level headed' I do apologise for my reply to your last topic, but it was a matter that I felt strongly about.

I think that opengl is indeed a dying API, Direct X oppers many features above and beyond what opengl can provide, and I think that by DirectX 8 the gap will be siginficant. Direct X isn't just a graphics library - it can control most of the multimedia functions of the pc allowing for richer and richer software.

What will undoubtedly happen is that Opengl will return to its rightful place - as an Api for high end graphics applications (remember it was never meant to be a games programming library - this was just something popularised by the clever programmers at ID software when they found the DirecX API didn't meet their needs)

And Kruzin - I understand your point - it was the aggressive manner in which Mr. Cold wrote his last post that set myself and others into a torrant of rage - I've been there and have worked hard as a programmer and I feel sympathy with those who get flamed for incompetance when such suggestions aren't warrented.

[This message has been edited by Damien Green (edited 16 May 2000).]

[This message has been edited by Damien Green (edited 17 May 2000).]

[Ashley]

My 1st non-inflammatory post: Is OpenGL a dying API?

This is a non-inflammatory post?

[Wombat]

Am I the only one here that recognizes that there are other operating systems? DirectX doesn't run on anything but Windows, and more and more computers are going to be running something else as time goes on.

Ignoring the OS quality debate (it's just too big to talk about here), computer prices continue to drop.
When computers started to show up in the sub-$1000, it was big news. As we hit sub-$500 and lower, how many people will be willing to include a $90 OS in the price?

[C=64]

Ack! OpenGL a dying API? Well, color me inflamed.

First off, OpenGL is a STANDARDIZED API with a CENTRAL committee. It is not a haphazardly thrown together mish-mash of commands that someone pray's fits together. The ability for vendors to supply their own extensions is a FEATURE, NOT a weakness of the API. What if Microsoft didn't want to support a specific feature set, or ended up going a "different direction" (say, S3's texture compression). It just doesn't make sense to hand over total control of a system to a company accused of abusing their power because of their current control of a system, does it?

And how is the use of OpenGL extensions a worse solution to the issue than the capability bits that Direct3D uses?

OpenGL has a uniform and directed vision of what it is suppose to be. It does not change at the whimsy of a single party (cough, Microsoft, cough). Ever try playing with the first batch of Direct3D calls back in the days of Retained Mode? Ugh. DirectX is allowed, and because of the methods used to derive it, required, to be able to completely redefine itself.

I ask of you, what is OpenGL truly lacking as an API right now? Better memory management of textures? That's the Windows 9x architecture's fault since it can't warn the driver till after texture memory has been trashed. Better drivers? That ain't OpenGL's department. Take that up with your video card manufacturer (cough, Matrox, cough). I'd love to see Multi-Texturing move in as a required feature, along with other niceties like matrix blending, but I can make do for now, and can wait till it can be incorporated in a sensible and reasonable manner.

Direct3D has come a long way to get to the usable state that it's at now. Good. But OpenGL has been sitting there for quite some time now. And it hasn't been sitting there because it's not willing to keep up. It's been sitting still because it was well designed in the first place.

To the claim that OpenGL wasn't meant to handling gaming issues from the ground up as opposed DirectX and so it shouldn't is a poor one. Remember Microsoft's failed Talisman initiative? It spawned the first version of Direct3D, and its full, loving embrace of retained mode. Microsoft didn't see the likes of 3Dfx, with a truly usable fill-rate, coming, and was caught with its pants down. So, in essence, Direct3D wasn't designed with the current crop of gaming issues in mind, either . iD found OpenGL to be usable because, will, it is!

Maybe if MS's OpenGL division was allowed to evangelize like the Direct3D division was allowed to do, this type of sentiment wouldn't exist. But alas they weren't. Why weren't they? The more paranoid portions of my psyche sometimes think the reason MS did this was so they could keep games, a true sign of a consumer level os, as tightly sewn to their (and only their) system as physically possible. If Microsoft really believed the API was broken, well, they are on OpenGL's committee. Why not fix it?

To close, I am no open source zealot. I run Windows just like the majority of you do.
I don't hate Microsoft. Hell, I even interned there last summer.
But to attack OpenGL... that really hurts... sniff... sniff...


C=64

[This message has been edited by C=64 (edited 17 May 2000).]

[Kruzin]

Unless other OS's become more user freindly, and easier to install, Winblows will continue to have a hold of the masses. No matter how many other OSs there are, or how good they are at the core does not matter. If Joe Enduser has no clue how to even install it, he will go with MicroSloth, and their simple "click on setup.exe" OS's. And game developers know that. No matter what the potential of OGL is, D3D IS the industry standard for games. The only reason OGL is even considered for games is because of ID software, and the Quake series of games. Every other game maker is sticking to D3D as their primary API.

Go to any store that stocks game software.
Read the labels.
How many of those games are OGL?
How many are D3D?
There's the answer to the original question of the thread...

[This message has been edited by Kruzin (edited 17 May 2000).]

[C=64]

Unless other OS's become more user freindly, and easier to install, Winblows will continue to have a hold of the masses.

And I'll completely agree with you on this point. But I think applying that type of logic to this a dangerous gamble.

To expound: To say that developers should only concentrate on what is the most popular OS, and to hell with the rest, leads into a vicious circle of users using the OS with the most software, causing developers to only concentrate on (I think you can see where this is going)...

I'll put it this way; If we don't think of portability now, we won't have to think about it ever. Period.

For arguments sake, lets say that some generous and talented members of the Linux community are able to meet said requirement for mass acceptance (and as I said, I do indeed believe it to be a requirement). Now what? Everything is still locked on Microsoft. Now, you might go ahead and say that people will start porting their wares then. But why? By this point in time we are locked in.

Look at C++. It has a good amount of dirty bits in it because of the baggage of its C compatibility. But why saddle it like that in the first place? Simple. PEOPLE DO NOT LIKE SUDDEN CHANGE. One of the primary reasons what C++ has succeeded where so many other languages had failed is because it was able to leverage familiarity, previous works, and established skill sets from its simpler predecessor.

I think our beloved graphics card companies have forced us into a similar cycle. Microsoft has heavily evangelized Direct3D. So... we develop D3D drivers. Not so many use OpenGL, so we'll be a little lax with those. Then the developers are forced to examine the situation, see the state of the drivers, and respond appropriately, so they concentrate their efforts onto Direct3D. And so the cycles goes.

I don't mean to villainize the graphics card companies, though. I guess this is out of necessity, considering the hyper-accelerated pace they're flying by at. I just wish they wouldn't near abandon everything before their newest addition to the pile.

Every other game maker is sticking to D3D as their primary API.

Umm... Right off the top of my head, Epic comes to mind.


C=64

[This message has been edited by C=64 (edited 17 May 2000).]