Page 1 of 2

stupid question of the day.

Posted: Fri Jan 13, 2006 6:03 pm
by thebestkeptone
Why doesnt blender use direct3d or directx instead of opengl?

Posted: Fri Jan 13, 2006 6:48 pm
by Jacks_Depression
I might just be stupid too... But isn't directX Microsoft? Not a good choice for making a cross-platform program.

Posted: Fri Jan 13, 2006 7:24 pm
by an-toni
yah, there is no directx for linux, mac, sun .. not to meantion Irix, a SGI unix that Blender was developed on in the early days iirc .. it is a windows only thing, and opengl is nice, so no need for it

~Toni

Posted: Sat Jan 14, 2006 3:47 am
by z3r0_d
directx? you mean direct3d?

I think blender's already using directx for sound and joystick input [through sdl], but it is using opengl for graphics not direct3d.

Posted: Sat Jan 14, 2006 11:05 pm
by joeri
When Blender was developed there was no directX. Only green on black text for dos.
When Blender was ported from Irix to Intel there was no directX, only some OPEN gl format.
When Blender was ported from Linux to Windows there still was no direct3d. DirectX was a thing Microsoft tought might be a good idea after OpenGL became a succes.

Posted: Sun Jan 15, 2006 6:27 am
by thebestkeptone
is there ever going to be a windows only version of blender that uses directx?

Posted: Sun Jan 15, 2006 8:55 am
by erwin
When Microsoft developed dos there was no Blender.

:)

Posted: Sun Jan 15, 2006 12:49 pm
by -efbie-
thebestkeptone wrote:is there ever going to be a windows only version of blender that uses directx?
If you program it then yes. So I guess it's no.

Posted: Sun Jan 15, 2006 3:23 pm
by LetterRip
Magic eightball says no :)

Seriously though - why do you desire a directx version - is there a good reason why we should be interested in doing one?

LetterRip

Posted: Mon Jan 16, 2006 4:25 pm
by thebestkeptone
because you have to have a savvy opengl card to run opengl programs, while with directx your video card doesnt have to be that great.

Posted: Mon Jan 16, 2006 7:16 pm
by an-toni
err, what functionality has such differences?

whether you e.g. put textures to the cards memory using direct3d or opengl, it does not change the fact that for large textures you need to have enough memory.

i know there are all kinds of cool things for games in direct3d, but is there something with dealing with display list like things or something that would make a difference for e.g. the speed of mesh editmode in blender?

btw e.g. ogre supports both opengl and direct3d, but that is pretty natural as it is a gfx engine targeted for games

~Toni

Posted: Mon Jan 16, 2006 10:01 pm
by joeri
erwin wrote:When Microsoft developed dos there was no Blender.
:)
Only in the kitchen.

But you are right, a horse has four legs, but not everything with 4 legs is a horse.
erwin wrote:because you have to have a savvy opengl card to run opengl programs, while with directx your video card doesnt have to be that great.
That is not the true. You don't need a gfx card to run openGl programs.
Maybe with blender 3.0 the drawing and the logic/workflow can be split more, so it would be easier to get any drawing engine into place.

As for the game-engine... Well Erwin? How hard would it be to port that to directX? I bet you can do it in a day! Can you remember why the player was made in OpenGl? Was that for the Linux Netscape web-plugin? Or was that a must from Ton?

Posted: Tue Jan 17, 2006 1:28 am
by thebestkeptone
from the opengl official website...

Q. Do I need an OpenGL-savvy graphics card to run my 3D game?

A. The short answer is yes. Almost all of today's high-powered, effects-filled games require that you use an OpenGL-savvy graphics card and almost all modern graphics cards support OpenGL. Some games may run in software only mode, but only very very slowly. Many games will simply not run without an OpenGL 3D graphics card.

Posted: Wed Jan 18, 2006 10:23 am
by fobsta
joeri wrote:
erwin wrote:When Microsoft developed dos there was no Blender.
:)
Only in the kitchen.

But you are right, a horse has four legs, but not everything with 4 legs is a horse.
erwin wrote:because you have to have a savvy opengl card to run opengl programs, while with directx your video card doesnt have to be that great.
That is not the true. You don't need a gfx card to run openGl programs.
Maybe with blender 3.0 the drawing and the logic/workflow can be split more, so it would be easier to get any drawing engine into place.

As for the game-engine... Well Erwin? How hard would it be to port that to directX? I bet you can do it in a day! Can you remember why the player was made in OpenGl? Was that for the Linux Netscape web-plugin? Or was that a must from Ton?
THe SGI workstations that Blender was originally developed on used IrisGL and later OpenGL. The first versions of Direct X were horrible though now apparently it's much improved to program with. It's still a bad joke for 3D/CAD/CAM software though.

Posted: Wed Jan 18, 2006 6:32 pm
by Pierre-Luc_Auclair
It always makes me laugh when people compare OpenGL and DirectX directly. OpenGL does graphics, while DirectX does sound, inputs, graphics, and more. To assemble a feature set you have to add libraries like SDL.

OpenGL and Direct3D are equivalents, but Direct3D has the great disadvantage of being MS-WIN only. I think it's a good enough reason to keep Blender away of this.