Page 1 of 1

OpenGL vs DirectX - A game developers view.

Posted: Fri Jan 08, 2010 6:52 pm
by rtownsend
IMHO, a good article on why you should use (or be willing to learn) OpenGL:

http://blog.wolfire.com/2010/01/Why-you ... ot-DirectX

One of the many reasons I like Blender.
Often, when we meet other game developers and say that we use OpenGL for our game Overgrowth, we're met with stares of disbelief -- why would anyone use OpenGL? DirectX is the future. When we tell graphics card representatives that we use OpenGL, the temperature of the room drops by ten degrees.

This baffles us. It's common geek wisdom that standards-based websites, for instance, trounce Silverlight, Flash, or ActiveX. Cross-platform development is laudable and smart. No self-respecting geek enjoys dealing with closed-standard Word documents or Exchange servers. What kind of bizarro world is this where engineers are not only going crazy over Microsoft's latest proprietary API, but actively denouncing its open-standard competitor?

Re: OpenGL vs DirectX - A game developers view.

Posted: Mon Jan 18, 2010 7:07 pm
by Kangaroux
After reading that article a few weeks ago, I went to the store and picked up a book of OpenGL. I had actually just started on DirectX, but OpenGL is so much easier. I'm glad I saw that article. Thanks for sharing, by the way!

Posted: Tue Jan 19, 2010 1:29 am
by SirTwilight
At least it should be much easier than DirectX to port from one platform to another...

:)

Posted: Mon Feb 08, 2010 12:44 pm
by Grandmaster B
Im watching the race for more then ten years now and im still puzzled what Microsoft is trying to belief us.

The biggest difference is probably that Direct3D is a little, loud, annoying kid and OpenGL is a mature, settled, nice grownup.

I use OpenGL though i started with Direct3D.

Posted: Wed Feb 10, 2010 3:53 am
by joeedh
Grandmaster B wrote:Im watching the race for more then ten years now and im still puzzled what Microsoft is trying to belief us.

The biggest difference is probably that Direct3D is a little, loud, annoying kid and OpenGL is a mature, settled, nice grownup.

I use OpenGL though i started with Direct3D.
DirectX does tend to have some new developments before OGL (access to FSAS samples come to mind, and um I think it had geometry shaders first, can't remember). Not that I like or use DirectX, but lets be honest, OGL isn't geared toward gaming in the same way DirectX is, so there is occasionally lag in functionality.

So I can see why there'd be that reaction.

Posted: Wed Feb 10, 2010 11:58 am
by Grandmaster B
DirectX 10 was feature-wise in advance when they released it because of the implementation of geometry shaders.

But usually new features are first available in OpenGL so i can not understand your point. There is definately no lack of features and OpenGL is developed to deliver cutting edge graphics for games or applications.

Basically if one API seems to get the upper hand the other catches up, in the end they are both just an interface to the graphics card - nothing more, nothing less.

Posted: Sun Sep 19, 2010 8:58 am
by cnajon
Man were you write, I was just getting ready to learn Directx, came across this thread, http://blog.wolfire.com/2010/01/Why-you ... L-and-not-cna training-Directx wayyyy easier. Appreciate it

Re: OpenGL vs DirectX - A game developers view.

Posted: Sun Sep 19, 2010 3:42 pm
by skurdakov
there is also one feature of OpenGL - much more open sourced engines.

For example OpenSceneGraph http://forum.openscenegraph.org/ now supports ( in dev code ) OpenGl 3.0+ OpenGL ES , shader composition, many importers ( including support for Blender ) etc.

To develop the same functionality basing on DX would take years of efforts of several high end developers.

Instead it is possible to start to develop rich game content by team of several beginners ( using for example http://www.delta3d.org/ which has some additional features for OSG such as sound, networking etc ).

So open nature of OpenGL brings more opportunities.
and after OpenGL 3.0 is out one might be sure - that it will not lag DX more than by one year ( currently as of version 4.1 it is even ahead )

Posted: Sat Jan 15, 2011 5:24 am
by DeadtomGC
Hmmm, maybe this would not be the best place to post about my problem with the directx exporter only exporting one sided meshes.

Quick question, can openGL use physX by nvidia and a physX enabled GPU?
Not like I'm about to switch to it. I just like being informed.

Posted: Tue Jan 18, 2011 12:21 am
by skurdakov
DeadtomGC wrote:Hmmm, maybe this would not be the best place to post about my problem with the directx exporter only exporting one sided meshes.

Quick question, can openGL use physX by nvidia and a physX enabled GPU?
Not like I'm about to switch to it. I just like being informed.
OpenGL has nothing to do with physX, but there is at least one implementation with both OpenGL and PhysX - it is delta3d engine. Grab it and see how it goes.

Posted: Thu Sep 22, 2011 9:24 am
by scottyY
skurdakov wrote:
DeadtomGC wrote:Hmmm, maybe this would not be the best place to post about my problem with the directx exporter only exporting one sided meshes.

Quick question, can openGL use physX by nvidia and a physX enabled GPU?
Not like I'm about to switch to it. I just like being informed.
OpenGL has nothing to do with physX, but there is at least one implementation with both OpenGL and PhysX - it is delta3d engine. Grab it and see how it goes.
Where did you get that idea that openGL has nothing to do with physX i wonder? I've read about the two working smoothly with each other.. forums.developer.nvidia.com/index.php?showtopic=3228