Which Windows graphics libary do you use more often?

I use DirectX because it is very powerful and -every- new video card supports DirectX, I like OpenGL too, but...... nah!

Oskilian

Allegro! very nice & easy (no windows code needed)

Std windows app - hold the extras. GDI only, thank you!

OpenGL only, i doubt you wan't to hear the personal and or the capability/flexibility/(everything else) reasons so, i will spare you.

Sealab Thing

This isn't much, but mouse, keyboard, scrolling text, sound, and bitmap movement with buffered flipping takes a lot more than 104 lines to do in Direct X.

it refuses to run on my system, is it DOS based? i use XP, no dos.

Allegro compiles as a wrapper for Direct X or a standard graphics library for dos or linux, it could be that either way it has dos "pieces" in it.

added:
oh yeah, did you make sure it and the sealab.dat file were together in a directory? otherwise bad things can happen.

I tried Allegro, but it has no 3D acceleration, which can be a good thing, because it might run on any computer, but if you want to do complex stuff, like 1000 or more triangles each frame, it won't run smoothly on any computer, even if it has a good 3D accelerator!
OpenGL is nice, it's very elegant, but it's features are not supported by all video cards!, I think DirectX is the most interesting one because every card supports it

I know that a simple thing as putting a triangle in Inmediate mode takes more than 100 lines, but I think that's a good thing because you have more control of what you're doing because most functions are low-level.

Oskilian

>OpenGL is nice, it's very elegant, but it's features are not supported by all video cards!, <

this only applies to older cards.

>
I know that a simple thing as putting a triangle in Inmediate mode takes more than 100 lines, but I think that's a good thing because you have more control of what you're doing because most functions are low-level.
<

i disagree i With GL can go infinitly lower level that D-X since i actually can get the Source to OpenGL, and write my own custom implementation.

but, using OpenGL, you can't do the new things you can do on DirectX, such as
- Pixel Shading
- Vertex shading
- Full-scene antialiasing
- Multisample effects such as motion blur, depth-of-field, etc.
- Range-attenuation in per-pixel lighting
- Volume atmospheric effects
- Easy texturing of very complex geometry

and wait until DX 9 comes up!

on the other side DirectX is far more complete than OpenGL, you have DirectSound3D, DirectMusic, DirectPlay, DirectShow, DirectInput and DirectSetup.

Sorry man

Oskilian

WHAT?!!!!!!

opengl can do nativly

- Vertex shading
- Full-scene antialiasing
- Multisample effects such as motion blur, depth-of-field, etc.
- Volume atmospheric effects

and with extensions or with a little brain power

- Pixel Shading
- Range-attenuation in per-pixel lighting
- Easy texturing of very complex geometry - this can be done with a little know how.

what OpenGL spec are you reading? pre OpenGL -1.0(note the negative)

how bout some features D-X deosn't have that are very useful.

two sided polygons,
OS independence,
Two sided lighting,
Volume Textures,
Hardware independant Z buffers,
Accumulation Buffer,
Stereo Rendering,
Point and line sizing,
Picking without utilities,
Parametric Curves and Surfaces,
Plus GL looks Clearer and better.

Direct 3D is no comparison to GL, period. even the possibility extension make that point even stronger

>
on the other side DirectX is far more complete than OpenGL, you have DirectSound3D, DirectMusic, DirectPlay, DirectShow, DirectInput and DirectSetup.
<

OPENGL IS GRAPHICS ONLY!!!!!! WHY CAN PEOPLE GET THIS STRAIGHT!!!

I get it, it's graphics only, so if you wanna make a game that uses joysticks with force feedback, or real-time music rendering, or 3d sound, you have to use both opengl and directx, or another library!

I didn't know that OpenGL was open source, but if you implement a new feature, no video card at all would support it!

Besides, all the major Video card manufacturers (ATI, nVidia, S3, Trident) are spending more money developing their boards to have more DirectX support rather than OpenGL support.

and NO!!!, DirectX is clearer than OpenGL! My card supports both DirectX and OpenGL, I have a 3D Benchmark which can be selected to run on OpenGL or DirectX, and it looks better on DirectX, not to mention faster (93 fps vs 42 fps)

Oskilian

Direct X is good if you don't need portability across platforms, and you need more than just graphics.

OpenGL is nice for 3d, and it gives you cross-platform support.

If you aren't really concerned with learning a big API with tons of advanced features Allegro can be nice because it lets me focus on the game itself, rather than dealing with what the API will and won't do.

>
Besides, all the major Video card manufacturers (ATI, nVidia, S3, Trident) are spending more money developing their boards to have more DirectX support rather than OpenGL support.
<

um, Wrong... look at ATI's new cards the 8500 chipset ones look at all the GL features... they just support DX they can't add extensions... same goes for nVidia, besides they realize GL is growing faster now that DX since people are realizng its capabilities and using it more.

>
and NO!!!, DirectX is clearer than OpenGL! My card supports both DirectX and OpenGL, I have a 3D Benchmark which can be selected to run on OpenGL or DirectX, and it looks better on DirectX, not to mention faster (93 fps vs 42 fps)
<

what kind of card? how old? is it tweaked?are the drivers up to date?

a properly set up, up to date card with good drivers will always run faster in GL.PERIOD... its a fact.

ask anyone who know GL is better looking by design even MS admist this freely, read up on their design histories and you will see GL is built for looks whilst DX is built for speed, yet GL still out preforms it.

G-Force 2 10-25 FPS faster in GL, ATI 10-20 FPS faster in GL...

i have an ATI Radeon and a friend has a GF2 they both run Faster in GL... on anything.

if Direct-X is better then ask yourself this,

Why do all Professional 3-D Renders use OpenGL?

It runs better and faster for DirectX than in OpenGL in my ATI All-In-Wonder 128 PRO 32MB PCI, in my new ATI Radeon 7200, and in mu nVidia gForce 3, And my PC is 512 Mb RAM, 1.7 GHz

I don´t think so, and if you do, look at the poll, more people use DirectX than OpenGL

Sorry man

Oskilian

are the cards tweaked properly?
if so that kind of FPS difference is impossible.

>I don´t think so, and if you do, look at the poll, more people use DirectX than OpenGL

our audience is limited, and Direct-X has a head start, but i guarentee you OpenGL is growing far more rapidly, and if even part of 3D-Labs proposal goes through, then say good bye to DX.

and in any case it all comes down to a difference of opinion or what you need at the particular time, if you need a good graphics/(everything else) API and are not worried about the points previously stated, then DX is for you, but i believe OpenGL is far superior.

It´s not my problem, People use directX, if you don´t beleive in that, look at all the games out there.

THEY´RE ALL MADE IN DX

and, as I said before, if you wanna make force feedback, or 3D audio, or easy multiplayer capabilities, OpenGL is OUT

but, don´t worry, keep on using OpenGL, you´ll sink with it.


Oskilian

I´m extremely sorry for DX, but it´s the most limited lib because it only works on Wind*ws, If anyone is seeking for a good lib the choice must be portable, that´s the final word. No more could be said.






Camilo

Besides, What do you expect from a bunch of crazy coders whose wonderful day in their life is the announcement day of dx9?

It's already been anounced, go to microsoft´s page.

If you´re gonna say something, first look if it´s true...
DUH! :rolleyes:

Oskilian

I´ve never said if dx9 was announced or not, so, please, go and buy a Palm, so you could try to organize your brain.

c'mon, you could waste less time saying say that directly to me.

(He´s sitting right in front of me in the same room)

So, anyway, if you say that you didn´t mention if it´s announced or not, then.


What's your point?

Oskilian

Wow!, nice topic, it was the first one i posted and it´s already two pages long...

Cool :)


Oskilian

>
It´s not my problem, People use directX, if you don´t beleive in that, look at all the games out there.
<

have i said otherwise??????? READ MY POSTS!!!
lots of people use Direct-X i havn't stated otherwise!!
but the ratre of growth is quite different.

>
and, as I said before, if you wanna make force feedback, or 3D audio, or easy multiplayer capabilities, OpenGL is OUT
<

first DOES OPENGL CLAIM THOSE ABILTIES NO!!! SECOND LIMIT THIS DISCUSSION THE THE RELEVANT PARTS!! OPENGL CAN BE USE WITH MOST OF DIRECT-X JUST AS WELL AS DIRECT-3D CAN!!!

>but, don´t worry, keep on using OpenGL, you´ll sink with it.

BWAAAAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHAHHAAHHAAHAHA!!!!

you keep tellin yourself that one...hahahaha.

Don't worry OpenGL is lost, and there´s nothing you can do about it

It's a lost war
:rolleyes:

And if you still don´t beleive me, why don´t 3D game programmers (i mean successful 3D game programming) don't use OpenGL

and Camilo:
you know the only windows programming you do is Visual Basic, you know you have never used C++ for windows and the only graphics programming for windows you've done is BitBlitting from VB.

If you don´t beleive me, I've known him since I was 5, and we study at the same school.

Oskilian

why don't you take a look at workstations?

you ever seen a $5000(and thats a cheap one) video card for FRIGGEN DIRECT-X!!!! NO!! and it will never happen!!
They support GL!! Why????!! Cause Direct-3D is inferior!!!

take a clue...until Direct-3D can meet the basic abilities of OpenGL it will remain that way.

anyways GL has lost nothing will lose nothing, and is soon to be majorly updated, besides More Developers are turning to OpenGL as we speak.

and i reiterate, since nothing i say sems to get through,
if Direct-3D is so muxh better,
Why do ALL Professional 2D/3D Rendering App's use GL???

Im not using any of them so I can't tell whats best. Although I know that all Cad/Cam sytems use Open GL.

~barjor

OK, people who use GL make top of the line graphics, so what, maybe they work on some sofware which is not available for windows. (I'm talking about the graphical capabilities, not the software, because software can be excellent, whether it's made on Allegro, OpenGL, DirectX, GDI or just Assembler, I JUST DON'T CARE ABOUT GRAPHICS SOFTWARE)

and the again

WHY DO YOU THINK 3D GAME PROGRAMMERS DO DIRECTX? LOOK AT REMEDY, ELECTRONIC ARTS, BLIZZARD, MICROPROSE, MICROSOFT(of course), MAXIS, RED STORM.... BLAH BLAH BLAh........ I could keep on for hours!

These people are in the business on making money! can't you understand that? they can't afford to use bad libraries, such as OpenGL (and look at it, it's free and thay still don't choose it).

I don't know why you keep on insisting.....


Oskilian

Note how 90% of these companies also write in GL.

heres your reason WHY! they use Direct-3D,
Microsoft, Plain and simple, they produced a crapy implementaion
of GL, that made it look like lees than it was an slower, and that held Developers back from using GL when Direct-3D came out, thusly forcing their product on the market, that is why video cards all support Direct-3D and not untill recently did the support GL, and only because of SGI's diligence and producing a decent implemntation forcing MS to make a almost acceptable implementation did GL once again become viable.

so to put is simply the only reason they use Direct-3D is because MS forced it on them just like the do with Windows and every other product they make, this however is changing.

DO SOME FRIGGEN RESEARCH BEFORE YOU MAKE ASSUMPTIONS!

Ok, Impress me..

How can you force someone to use your library?

And by the way, I dodn't know those companies developed with OpelGL too... maybe they did, and then they found out how bad it is, because their main products (not to mention BEST) are made in DirectX, not OpenGL...


And please, since english is not my mother tongue, please DO SOME FRIGGIN SPELLING LESSONS

Oskilian

I already answered that in the previous post, BUT i'll state it again,

By producing a purposly slow and buggy implementation of OpenGL MS guarenteed there was no viable competition, thusly destroying all competition and forcing developers to go for the only remaining alternative Direct-3D.

but you don't believe thats forcing it on them do you? "they could have used nothing!! or gone back to DOS!!!", and lost their buisness too.

>
And by the way, I dodn't know those companies developed with OpelGL too... maybe they did, and then they found out how bad it is, because their main products (not to mention BEST) are made in DirectX, not OpenGL...
<

most are made to use both...

>
And please, since english is not my mother tongue, please DO SOME FRIGGIN SPELLING LESSONS
<

EXCUSE MY FRIGGEN TYPOS!!!!

you should see me, I'm laughing my *** off because i got you mad... :)

c'mon, man, don't take it seriously, but if you look at the reality, even YOU know that you can't convince me that OpenGL is better, and I can't convince you that DirectX is better, just use yours and I´ll use mine.

I´m sure that OpenGL must be better than DirectX in some things, but DirectX must be better in other things that OpenGL.

The reason i wrote this is because I'm growing tired of arguing this way, I'd rather argue with someone I can speak directly too (I think you know why).

By the way, I still don´t understand how did Microsoft forced them to use their software, and NO, I haven´t seen games in OpenGL (well, maybe 1 or 2).

Oskilian

I am going to write here just as said by a guy that wrote a book concerning 3D Graphics, I'm not going to say his name 'cause I don't want to involve him:

Why use Direct3D? Why not use OpenGL?
For those of you who have never used it, OpenGL is another graphics API, Silicon Graphicsdesigned it in the early '90s for use on their high-end graphics workstations. It has been ported to countless platforms and operating systems. Outside of the games industry, in areas like simulation and academic research, OpenGL is de facto standard for doing computer graphics. It is a simple, elegant and fast API. Check out www.opengl.org for more information.

But it isn't perfect. First of all, OpenGL has a large amount of functionality in it. Making the interface so simple requires that the implementation take care of a lot of ugly details to make sure everything works correctly. Because of the way drivers are implemented, each company that makes a 3-D card has to support the entire OpenGL feature set in order to have a fully compliant OpenGL driver. These drivers are extremely difficult to implement correctly, and the performance on equal hardware can vary wildly based on driver quality. In addition, DirectX has the added advantage of being able to move quicker to accommodate new hardware features. DirectX is controlled by Microsoft (which can be a good or bad thing, depending on your view of it) while OpenGL extensions need to be deliberated by comittees.



Oskilian

been to busy to relpy to the previous post so i will now,

>you should see me, I'm laughing my *** off because i got you mad...

Im not mad in the slightest.

>
c'mon, man, don't take it seriously, but if you look at the reality, even YOU know that you can't convince me that OpenGL is better, and I can't convince you that DirectX is better, just use yours and I´ll use mine.
<

i've know from post 2,

>
The reason i wrote this is because I'm growing tired of arguing this way, I'd rather argue with someone I can speak directly too (I think you know why).
<

i agree.

>
y the way, I still don´t understand how did Microsoft forced them to use their software,
<

ok, ill try again,
Don't you think that purposly producing a driver to slow down and ugilify the ONLY alternative to your product is forcing it on the user? Not to mention not supporting it on any drivers that ship with your product, even though you have an agreement to do so!

>and NO, I haven´t seen games in OpenGL (well, maybe 1 or 2).

you will if you look.

to the second post,

>First of all, OpenGL has a large amount of functionality in it.

THIS IS BAD!?!?!!?!?!

>
Making the interface so simple requires that the implementation take care of a lot of ugly details to make sure everything works correctly.
<

this is a very good thing...it allows for greater speed, flexibility, and functionality from one implementation to another, it can be tailored to a particular need.

>
Because of the way drivers are implemented, each company that makes a 3-D card has to support the entire OpenGL feature set in order to have a fully compliant OpenGL driver.
<

same goes for Direct-X.
look at the wording "compliant" means that it meets the ENTIRE standard so DUH!! it requires a full implementation,

and this is not entirly true a full implementation is not neccessary to use GL.

>
drivers are extremely difficult to implement correctly, and the performance on equal hardware can vary wildly based on driver quality.
<

once again a good thing, this allows hardware to accelerate a needed feature more that say another crappy manufacturer.

>
addition, DirectX has the added advantage of being able to move quicker to accommodate new hardware features.
<

OpenGL is quite capable but the ARB is lazy so...

>
DirectX is controlled by Microsoft (which can be a good or bad thing, depending on your view of it)
<

bad, very bad this holds it back.

>while OpenGL extensions need to be deliberated by comittees.

note the word "dileberated", the only comitte dileberating at the board is MS itself.

I didn't write that, I just typed it directly from the book!

look harder, well, I'll try and find GL games...

and, I'm growing a little tired of this thread.

Oskilian

consider it ended then, i was just responding to his points.

Last time I checked, id Software decided to port Quake III to OpenGL to conveniently miss certain inabilities in DirectX.

actually there was no port, Id Software has developed all their games exclusively in GL since quake i think... maybe earlier.

yeah, all teh quakes were origionally made with openGL...
I get it, it's graphics only, so if you wanna make a game that uses joysticks with force feedback, or real-time music rendering, or 3d sound, you have to use both opengl and directx, or another library! "

you could use openGL, openAL, openIL, SDL...etc to make a 'complete' game, that is portable, and doesnt use directX

> you could use openGL, openAL, openIL, SDL...etc to make a 'complete' game, that is portable, and doesnt use directX <

What is OpenAL, OpenIL and SDL? and why can they make your game ´complete´ ?

Oskilian

As complete as Direct-X can...
sept maybe networking, does the SDL support that yet? i think its in an upcomming version, though C++ will support networking natively soon.