Whats better?
Please Post why you think your choice is best
Printable View
Whats better?
Please Post why you think your choice is best
And so starts another flamewar!
Shutcha mouth!
Geez won't you people just shutup about all these 'flame wars?'
I think DirectX is the best because it is more common...and with OpenGL so many people don't have the right video card or graphics card all the time. I put an OpenGL game on a CD and used it on several different computers in my house. They all ran differently...way different then the way I expected them to run.
People haveing OpenGL video cards is not a problem these days, any system up to 2 years old should have good OpenGL support.
And no hardware company could market a card if it didnt have OpenGL support anymore.
From a programmers viewpoint I perfer OpenGL because its easier to learn.
>Whats better?
Neither, they're both rubbish.
>Please Post why you think your choice is best
Because I'm right, and everyone who disagrees is wrong.
Seriously, here's one of the more technical comparisons that you can find using a search engine that will more informative than the rubbish likely to be written here.
Unlike Sorenson, I don't think they're both Rubbish. However, that was a very informed article. These are the definitely the things you know when making a choice. Of course, it's always best to learn more than method of implementing things.
I Voted for OpenGL though, because that's what I'm learning at moment, it's easy, and some of the demos I've seen look amazing. Although, DirectX supports some other features, like DirectPlay, that OpenGL doesn't .
Tried a bit of OpenGL, a bit of DirectX...
I picked OpenGL for it's better ease of use. Combined with SDL (for 2d) and you've got one hell of a combination.
yeah maybe that answers the coding part of the question, but what about performance? DirectX!
Direct3D and OpenGL have minor differences in performance and looks, but they are on level ground.
Performance between the 2 is highly dependant on the graphics card. I.E a GeForce (or any nVida card) will probably preform better with openGL, while a ATI card will most likely do better with DirectX
but more cards are meant for DirectX. Face it--its true.
I wouldn't say a card is "meant" for DX or OGL. Every card for the past 3 or so years has had support for both APIs -- it's true.
I almost made a rude comment, but you should just check some facts before you post stupid stuff 12 year old programmer.
BS! It's true! I have eight computers in my house, all since 1997 and only two out of the eight work correctly with OpenGL! So why don't you try it out for yourself with all sorts of computers, fat college kid! Thats right! ive seen your pictures!
Well I've programmed in OpenGL and I thinks it's a very easy, intuitive and flexible way of graphics programming. I've never used DirectX, etc but on my mate's PC Unreal Tournament looks much better in OpenGL (albeit a little darker).
You know, just because you have video cards from 1997 doesn't mean you have to use drivers from 1997...:rolleyes:Quote:
Originally posted by Xterria
BS! It's true! I have eight computers in my house, all since 1997 and only two out of the eight work correctly with OpenGL! So why don't you try it out for yourself with all sorts of computers, fat college kid! Thats right! ive seen your pictures!
Sorensen,
while the article was informative it is out of date and WRONG and a tad biased(or limited one) the ARB extension ARE part of the standard and ARE hardware independant so they MUST be allowed in any comparison, secondly OpenGL is a 1.3 now, third that hardly covers the feature set of either especially OpenGL
>Because I'm right, and everyone who disagrees is wrong.
excellent reasoning, my thoughts exactly.
>yeah maybe that answers the coding part of the question, but what about performance? DirectX!
100% wrong!
> dirkduck
110% right
>but more cards are meant for DirectX. Face it--its true.
50% wrong, why? first you have to count high end cards second ALL new card are made for both or GL
>leech-,
RIGHT! update the drivers and get a tweaker! then talk.
anyway sorry people for nitpicking everything.
but with OpenGL 2.0 in the works Direct-3D's(in it current form anyway) days are numbered.
Great article.
Yup, great article, but i still feel OpenGL has the edge due to it's ease of use...
200 lines for one polygon? Holy Crap. And I'm in the middle of DirectX Programming. This really sucks. I never knew that.
lol
how bout allegro?;) I find it to my likeing
Sorry, the link was pulled more or less at random from google. It wasn't my intention to mis-represent OpenGL, I'm not really bothered one way or the other what API people use.Quote:
Sorensen,
while the article was informative it is out of date and WRONG and a tad biased(or limited one) the ARB extension ARE part of the standard and ARE hardware independant so they MUST be allowed in any comparison, secondly OpenGL is a 1.3 now, third that hardly covers the feature set of either especially OpenGL
gamegod3001,
excellent article gamegod.
Sorensen,
well then please forgive my explosion, i did not realize that. I apologise.
now give him a hug...:)
Don't forget directX also includes sound and multiplayer. I personally use openGL because thats what my teacher knew and taught. A lousy reason I know but I'm happy :cool:
>now give him a hug...
i would smack you, but i don't know where you are.
>Don't forget directX also includes sound and multiplayer.
ok people, get it straight, THATS BESIDE THE POINT!!! The comparison is ment to be Direct-3D vs, OpenGL NOT the whole Direct-X API!
Yeah really, its hard for opengl to compete with how it handels joystick input, or sound. Because it was NOT designed to do those things.
I have several text books on openGL and several text books on directX API, the text books on directX all have Direct 3D in it. The point is that it would be easier to learn Direct 3D if you already have the text books.
The majority of people here would defend openGL or Direct 3D based on what they have already know. Most people don't want to be shown that they made the wrong choice and therefor they will defend their own choice, there may be the odd person who learns both and can make an informed decision. Personally, I learnt openGL and don't wish to learn direct 3D because I feel that their are other things that I can do with my time. Do I prefer openGL? I can't say because I have never used direct 3D.
Direct3D has always looked prettier on all my video cards (Currently a nVidia TNT2)
Direct3D seems like the choice for professional game developers, I can't say I know why.. but they must have a very good reason.
In conclusion, I've choosen to learn Direct3D.
>Direct3D has always looked prettier on all my video cards (Currently a nVidia TNT2)
i had a TNT 2 for years and i would state the opposite, but thats my opinion!
>
Direct3D seems like the choice for professional game developers, I can't say I know why.. but they must have a very good reason.
In conclusion, I've choosen to learn Direct3D.
<
this is not the best way to decide important things... but then again i didn't really know why C was the best when i chose to learn it!
>Thanks everyone for the comments, I was quite surpised no one mechoned it here before me.
thanks for pointing out!
i don't unfortunatlly get to go gamedev enough keep up with the articles.
"Now..
C++ is to VB as Direct3D is to ______
(Hint, it's 6 letters)"
Actually, the reverse would be more true.
C++ is to VB as OpenGL is to Direct3d
C++ is an open standard (as is OpenGL)
VB is controlled exclusively by Microsoft (as is DirectX)
C++ is portable, running on many more operating systems than windows.
VB is stuck to windows, not running on any other platforms.
OpenGL is portable, running on a variety of platforms.
Direct3d runs exclusively on windows.
Actually, it also runs on Linux.
Not reliably.
I simply corrected your mistake. To say it is unreilable, is completly opinionated. I have no problems with it what-so-ever. Explain that?Quote:
Direct3d runs exclusively on windows.
Christ!!
I even more unsure about which to learn than when I started reading this thread.
Saying Direct3d works in linux is like saying windows works on linux. It has a partial implementation. If you write code in DirectX assuming it was going to run in linux, you are simply naive.
No, It's certainly not. I suggest you re-think your analogies. Writing code in DirectX and assuming it would run on Linux? Yes, because I know for a fact it does. Naive? Refer to previous statement.Quote:
Originally posted by SilentStrike
Saying Direct3d works in linux is like saying windows works on linux. It has a partial implementation. If you write code in DirectX assuming it was going to run in linux, you are simply naive.
Ok, get some reasonably complex game with DirectX running in windows, and then see how much extra work it takes to get running with the same stability on linux.
hello....the point of this thread is to get mad at each other
I've only skimmed the thread but..
With Allegro wrapping it all up you don't have to change a single line of code and compile for Linux, Windows, BeOS, DOS, and soon many more including such hopefuls as Mac, WindowsCE, PalmOS, and Dreamcast. And you can use DirectX with OpenGL when applicable... just a thought. ;) :pQuote:
Ok, get some reasonably complex game with DirectX running in windows, and then see how much extra work it takes to get running with the same stability on linux.
Acting your age again I see :rolleyes:Quote:
hello....the point of this thread is to get mad at each other
Everytime graphics libraries are mentioned, even in the slightest, you jump in with Allegro. Are you being paid?Quote:
With Allegro wrapping it all up
I'm not even going to say it.Quote:
and Dreamcast
There is a difference between programming with DirectX, and programming with libraries that might wrap it on the windows platform. That is portability, the ease of getting it to run on platforms other than window, and it's why I favor OpenGL over DirectX.
Sure; none. Well, it was already compiled, so I couldn't change anything... but it worked, so I guess there was no need.Quote:
Ok, get some reasonably complex game with DirectX running in windows, and then see how much extra work it takes to get running with the same stability on linux.
What game was that?
I'd like to know that as well.Quote:
Originally posted by SilentStrike
What game was that?
LOL, I should be shouldn't I!?!? Er... :p I'll shut up now.Quote:
Everytime graphics libraries are mentioned, even in the slightest, you jump in with Allegro. Are you being paid?
BTW, with Wine running on SuSE 7.2 or higher I have been able to play many DirectX games at reasonably fast to faster speeds, but I wouldn't really call it a native port or anything.. it is basically being interpreted. Linux just does it really well (most of the time).
Both of them are great but at the moment im using OpenGL and i have done some good things in it. OpenGL is more easier than Direct X8. All im saying is i use OpenGL for graphics and DirectX for everything else such as Direct play, sound, input.