Printable View
So, I want to eventually learn a graphics API, and I was wondering if I should learn OpenGL or DX?
What are the pros and cons of each API?
I know DX supports more than just graphics. But on one forum I'm on, they think that DX is the crappiest API there is, and the Microsoft should die for making it.
And how would coding with each API be?
You could try a search: google.ca/search?q=directx+opengl
You forum people and your searching... :P
Anyways, thanks for the links. :D
I'll probably end up using OpenGL with a combination the SDL or OpenAL.
1. Microsoft didn't originally make it
2. OpenGL because it's portable. [1]
Consider reading http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct3D_vs._OpenGL
[1] I'd rather not have someone tell me off about, "omgz DirectX runzezez on my 1337 xbox".
Quote:
Originally Posted by michaelp
A lot of people think a lot of things, that being one of the sillier things to think. A lot of great things have been made in both APIs, OpenGL has the benifit of being able to be ported to every OS, and there's a great book on the subject, "The Complete OpenGL programming Guide" (aka "The Red Book"). It's nice and not too difficult if you accompany it with a multi-platform windowing/sound API like GLFW, SDL, or wxWidgets.
:P
Starting to lean toward DX a little for a couple of reasons now:
1. I use Windows and don't plan on changing that anytime soon.
2. Most people don't buy a Mac or get Linux to play games. :P
3. Most games are coded using DX.
4. The API can't be as bad as those people think. I hope. :)
5. It's more than just a GFX API.
So, I will probably try and use DX for those reasons. Just need to find the SDK and latest version for XP now.
Only 1 of your reasons seem to be for what you need. The rest have no effect on your decision.
Whether or not people use max or linux to buy/play games is not effected by the multiplatform nature of OpenGL. if you make a program for windows, you can very well use it exclusively on windows, someone else who may want it on mac could compile/code it for mac. It's open source friendly in that regard.
Also most people don't buy mac or linux to play games, but these are GRAPHICS APIs, not Game Development Frameworks. They can be used to make a wide variety of graphics applications, from 2D CAD, to 3D modeling, to image manipulation programs, etc etc. People do buy Macs for that.
Just make informed decisions, not ones based on other people's opinions.
Still, I don't plan on making applications with C++. More games. Still planning to go for DX, even though you proved most of my points wrong. :o
Anyone know a tutorial that shows how to set up DX 9.0c for XP? (That is the latest version for XP, right?)
I'd rethink the "not use C++" - nearly all modern games use C++ because it's a very efficient language for making games.
--
Mats
You're using C#?
I can think of another argument for DirectX. At least it's my opinion, everyone might not agree, but since DX is privately owned, it means that, unlike OpenGL, the API develops very quickly. If DX was an open standard, it would be at version 2.0 now (like OpenGL!) or even less.
In the near future, DirectX might just surpass OpenGL in functionality.
If it were fully open source that may not be the case, it's not unusually common for closed applications to be as updated as DirectX, but since, as it was addressed, MS licences their technology for commercial use, they have to keep it updated and supported. One thing I like about MS, even with their express editions of their software they provide a lot of support and resources.
And OpenGL is a bit of an ugly bastad, but It's my ugly bastard.
The point is, due to Microsoft owning DirectX, it's updated frequently and fast. But OpenGL, not being owned, like C++, progress in the API goes verrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrry slowly.
lol, whoops. I meant to type OpenGL, not C++. :PQuote:
Originally Posted by matsp
One bad thing about it being constantly updated is now the newest version is only available for Vista. Oh well. :P
Yes, Microsoft monopoly, unfortunately. Until someone backports it to XP. IIRC someone is already doing that, but I don't know how well it's going / how well it can be done.
Yup. :rolleyes:
And my computer (the one I usually use for my programming) is quite old. 400mhz, 198mb ram.
I'm hoping I can fit the DX SDK and DX9.0c onto the hard drive.
Wow. What game do you expect to make to run on that machine?
Not really sure... Still setting it up.
Will probably be making small things, then when I get into bigger things, I will move my programs down to this computer. (Much faster)
I would still use it for coding, compiling, simple things.
I've tried doing so many of those XP tweaking guides on the internet... :D
edit: Although Microsoft does make it for new machines, they are probably one of the biggest companies in the world, so the API won't go out of date. Like OpenGL, it hasn't been updated in a while.
> Like OpenGL, it hasn't been updated in a while.
OpenGL is merely a specification. There have been a lot of OpenGL extensions and developments recently, and OpenGL 3.0 is on the way.
I feel that DirectX gives me the most bang for my buck, or lack thereof, because it entails sound, input, and the whole enchilada. Direct3D is just one portion of DirectX and to judge DirectX solely in the context of Direct3D is a misstep.
But you use whatever API aids you the most and what you feel comfortable with. We could give you all kinds of advice and opinions for and against both but in the end the choice is yours.
You will not get slammed for using DirectX, OpenGL, Allegro, SDL, etc, on these boards. You will get slammed if you use those with no forethought as to the underlying principles. A fancy API is nothing without knowing how to apply it.
Your first question should not be what's the easy and quick route unless this is a product that is dependent on money and thus time. Your question should be which API offers the most for your specific project. Don't choose DX, GL, Allegro, or SDL just because one is easier than the other. They are all about the same as far as difficulty goes. Game programming is not easy, period. But it is some of the most enjoyable code I've written (when it works) and the satsfaction of seeing your game code running is worth all the fuss.
Cool. ;)
Thanks for the help everyone, I've chosen DX and have set it up with Dev-Cpp. :D
Sorry for double post.Quote:
Originally Posted by Elysia
I have a had quite a few good games be able to run on the computer.
Age of Empires 1 and 2 could run on it.
A game called "G-Nome", which now that I think about it, has very impressive graphics for he computer it is ran on. Under system requirements for it, it only needed 16MB of ram.
Google "G-Nome" for images.
Sure, games can run, but can your games run on the old hardware? Or are you specializing in old games that run regardless of hardware? ;)
I won't know until I start to make some. :)
But I'm sure I will be able to make something half-decent (maybe not as good as G-Nome) on my computer.
And G-Nome was made using DX 3. :O
How about Pong... with a colored ball. :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Elysia
I found it odd that you're running a DX on a pretty low-tech computer on an almost unsupported IDE system.
You make it sound like 400 MHz is the stone age. Bah. Most of the best games I know would run flawlessly there.
Compared to today's hardware, it is! :D But I'm more concerned over the poor capabilities of the graphics card.
400 mHz is just a step away from Babbage's difference engine, it's not the stone age, more like the Jurassic period!...Quote:
Originally Posted by CornedBee
yeah... a 400 Mhz step...Quote:
Originally Posted by Neo1
Don't hurt it's feelings!
As long as it can at least make simple things, like "pong with a coloured ball", I'm fine with it. I guess. :)