EVOEx

I think it's time for a flamewar - erm discussion between OpenGL and DirectX.

Myself, I only do OpenGL. This has mostly to do with the portability (the fact that I only code in Linux may have something to do with it ;-) and I really dislike Microsoft. While I've used DirectX many years ago, I think they're pretty much the same thing and technically, I have no idea what the upsides or downsides of both are.

But like I said, for me, portability is most important. So I'll always stick to OpenGL ;-).


So what do you guys think?

BuzzBuzz

I'm not at the level to actually program in either yet, but from an experience point of view of both platforms in terms of gaming OpenGL based games have always been better than directx as far as I'm concerned.

It could be that there are more skilled OpenGL programmers rather than it being a better platform though. Until we get some input from OpenGL/directx gurus we won't know if that is true or not....

__________________
Currently working through:
"C++ Primer Plus"

Shakti

I think you need to search.

Seriously, this has been debated, debated, flamed and then debated some more on these boards.

These threads serves no purpose and IMO are completely useless since they all end up with pretty much the same conclusion.

And to say OpenGL games are better is purely subjective, and holds no merit whatsoever. That together with the fact that the same game could be written using DirectX shows that neither is better than the other. This coming from a guy who programs OpenGL but I also realize that both have their uses and what you choose is more a matter of what you are familiar with and depends on each projects goal rather than a limitation within the API.

Bubba

I say use what works for you.
This is being moved to the GD forum.

__________________
If you aim at everything you will hit something but you won't know what it is.

MK27

Spoil sport!

__________________

"A man can't just sit around." -- Larry Walters

Yarin

Making another GL vs DX flamewar thread is worse than re-inventing the wheel.

When it comes down to it - they both to the same things to the same hardware. One isn't "better" than the other. But I do like GL better because it's easier to impliment (I may be saying this simply cause I learned it before DX, though I'm not very expericenced with either), it's alot more compact (while DX needs a huge distro package, GL has a few small DLLs at most), and it's cross-platform. I honestly don't know why anyone still uses DX, I mean, you get the same stuff as with GL, only with alot more headache.

__________________
May the Source be with you.

Yarin

Also, OpenGL and DirectX aren't comparable. DirectX does more than draw 3D, it has a lot of other game dev stuff. Direct3D is the target here.

__________________
May the Source be with you.

Akkernight

Yarin, and I don't understand how anyone can program in OpenGL...

I've been in such 'wars' so often, I'm getting tired of them, still I feel a need to join each one of them xP

If you search on Wikipedia for DirectX vs. OpenGL, you'll see that it says clearly - DirectX is better for games while OpenGL is better for rendering like movies and such.

Comparison of OpenGL and Direct3D - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Also, DirectX comes with a way wider range of documentation than OpenGL, I'm thinking mostly of the DirectX SDK now, but on google too...
And DirectX gives you the .dds texture format, which is better than .tga... (Don't think .png is a texture format)... Ok, the texture format was maybe a bit too random xP
But still. I believe this 'war' always comes down to personal preference...

__________________
Currently research OpenGL

MK27

I've never been in one so now's my chance! LX

That's a good article, but it does not even seem to imply that, much less say it clearly. LX

I think five or six massive books in print (including a boxed set!) should about do it. After all, if you are going to spend a quadzillion hours programming with the API, it would seem just plain stupid not to dish out the $50. LX

Also, openGL has a great, very active programmer forum. LX

Except that microsoft may be making that choice for you. Philosophically, I think it is better to have at least two of "something that does something" in the computer world fully developed and widely used. But since the MS money grubbing proprietary model can only hamper better programming, philosophically, I don't think it should be part of any of them. LX

__________________

"A man can't just sit around." -- Larry Walters

Akkernight

I like Microsoft and their products
Also, I remember it saying it kinda clearly, since I used it in another flame war recently... Maybe I can dig up the quote again...

And MS only trying to get money and stuff is a made up lie! ESPECIALLY saying that DirectX 10 was only to get people's money since it did only work for Vista and now DirectX 11(?) for Win7, which is mostly the same... I believe it had something to do with DirectX 10 working with Vista's architecture, and not just to get peoples money... Still, this is just something I overheard from Elysia, not sure if I got it right...

http://developer.download.nvidia.com...iggraph-06.pdf Nice resource showing some improvements for DirectX 10, got this of NVIDIA Developer Web Site - Tools, Presentations, Whitepapers

__________________
Currently research OpenGL

MK27

Better dig hard. I have not read the whole thing, but I've looked at it closely enough to say that it does not "clearly" espouse one over the other. It's a good article in that there is not much "editorializing". LX

My point about MS is about vs. open source. I cannot believe that as a programmer, you would want to use an operating system for which you cannot access the source code, unless of course you are dedicated to making software for that OS, in which case I guess that makes sense.

Microsoft is money grubbing. There is nothing wrong with making money with computers, but the proprietary model (which in essence means keeping code secret) is bad for users, is bad for programmers, is bad for security, and in fact the only reason to do so is because the "proprietors" believe this is the best way to secure their position as the money makers (maybe it is, but maybe it's not even good for that*, and the industry still clings to it well, just because!) LX

That is money grubbing -- and they do not deny it, either. The video chipset manufacturers are even worse, and it certainly does not benefit their product (but because they all behave this way, "the best video card" is still bound to use proprietary drivers). Distributing executables without accessible source code will one day be considered ridiculous, and all the hardware + drivers that you think are so great today will be even better for it. LX

*There are open source billionaires, I believe, eg at Google.

__________________

"A man can't just sit around." -- Larry Walters

lruc

I say OpenGL because I can't stand microsoft. I really can't see how anybody likes their products.

__________________
-Kernel Sanders

cyberfish

Nothing wrong with Microsoft money-grubing. That's what businesses do, and Microsoft is a business.

But denying that is stupid.

MK27

What's stupid is not using your brain If I kidnapped your family because I could sell them, then got paid to cut your legs off, no one would deny that is a business, but few people would think there was "nothing wrong with it".

I'm against regulating the industry, but the one law I would go for: No distributing executables unless the source code is public. In a slightly smarter universe, it would have been that way from the beginning.

__________________

"A man can't just sit around." -- Larry Walters

cyberfish

Haha I see.

What I meant is, there is nothing inherently wrong with "making money".