I use DirectX because it is very powerful and -every- new video card supports DirectX, I like OpenGL too, but...... nah!
Oskilian
DirectX
OpenGL
Just the Win32 GDI
Other
Nah... I just don't like Graphics programming
I've never done any graphics programming
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.
ADVISORY: This users posts are rated CP-MA, for Mature Audiences only.
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.
ADVISORY: This users posts are rated CP-MA, for Mature Audiences only.
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.
ADVISORY: This users posts are rated CP-MA, for Mature Audiences only.
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!!!
Last edited by no-one; 10-07-2001 at 08:50 PM.
ADVISORY: This users posts are rated CP-MA, for Mature Audiences only.
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?
ADVISORY: This users posts are rated CP-MA, for Mature Audiences only.
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 donīt think so, and if you do, look at the poll, more people use DirectX than OpenGL
Sorry man
Oskilian