Not sure why there is so much Direct X hate around here, It's more efficient, better graphics and gets updates faster compared opengl. Opengl seems to be more of a mobile platform now, then a desktop one.
@Murkurie The thing is that if you listen to OpenGL developers they will tell you exact opposite thing. Apparently OpenGL is technically superior but years of Microsoft propaganda has led people to think otherwise. That's what they say, I'm not technical enough to know if it's true or not, one thing I do know is that ID games have always been OpenGL-based (including the upcoming Rage) and they've always looked pretty incredible to me.
@Murkurie OpenGL supports the ability for nVidia, ATI, et al. to create their own extensions. This means OpenGL _is_ the absolute cutting edge, but it requires that developers continue to learn and utilize these extensions. DirectX... you get what Microsoft gives you. Most game developer studios today in trying to keep costs low don't employ developers that really study these things. They hire Jimmy Richparents from Microsoft sponsored game schools who are trained on DirectX and don't really know any better.
@Jack You are once again arguing about the "openness" of the product and not it's performance. It doesn't matter if it runs on everything if it's performance is subpar. When I see something written in OpenGL that compares to Crysis I'll pay attention.
@Murkurie 3D graphics is all about shader programs and hardware features right now. The API around it is just a convenience for developers, so they don't have to write different code for different cards. That said, DirectX and OpenGL have exactly the same capabilities on the same hardware. DirectX has a much wider API that better matches current hardware features and provides better fallbacks, since Microsoft and GPU designers work together to sync their hardware and software releases. OpenGL does cutting-edge stuff through proprietary extensions, which means a little extra work for developers, but not much, ATI and Nvidia are basically the only ones making hardware that's ahead of the current OpenGL standards. That said, many developers -including me- find OpenGL a much nicer API to program to. Easy to learn, concise, portable, efficient, less hairy than DirectX in general. On mobile platforms OpenGL (ES) is the only way to go.
Anyway, to repeat myself: DirectX is not more powerful or more advanced than OpenGL or vice versa, just quicker to incorporate hardware developments directly into the API.
@VampireHunterZ You use Open Office and MS Office as comparisons for 3D APIs that run on the same hardware using the same under the cover calls? OpenGL can do everything Direct3D can and more. Period. The only thing these versions do is consolidate some of the previously existing vendor specific extensions into a singular interface. OpenGL is almost always the first API to get these features, but since they come from various vendors it's not necessarily easier to implement, but it's still "ahead" of Direct3D. With D3D you have to wait for Microsoft to give you an interface to perform that feature.
Now that we've thrown 'em off the trail, use the form below to get in touch with the people at Engadget. Please fill in all of the required fields because they're required.
Not sure why there is so much Direct X hate around here, It's more efficient, better graphics and gets updates faster compared opengl. Opengl seems to be more of a mobile platform now, then a desktop one.
@Murkurie
Isn't it obvious? DirectX is closed and proprietary, OpenGL is open.
@Murkurie The thing is that if you listen to OpenGL developers they will tell you exact opposite thing. Apparently OpenGL is technically superior but years of Microsoft propaganda has led people to think otherwise.
That's what they say, I'm not technical enough to know if it's true or not, one thing I do know is that ID games have always been OpenGL-based (including the upcoming Rage) and they've always looked pretty incredible to me.
@Jack, that's not really that big of a plus. The advancements with XNA and DX seems a lot more impressive than simply having something open.
It is good to see them back on track 3.0 was a disaster in terms of advancing games (it was like they only cared about cad softwares).
@Templarian
Advancements in XNA and DX don't do anything to make DX run on anything but Windows. Like I said, DirectX is closed and proprietary, OpenGL is open.
How is having DX locked down to a single OS a plus?
@Jack MS should port DirectX to Linux and OSX so they could claim the 1% of the PC gaming market that they don't already own.
@Murkurie OpenGL supports the ability for nVidia, ATI, et al. to create their own extensions. This means OpenGL _is_ the absolute cutting edge, but it requires that developers continue to learn and utilize these extensions. DirectX... you get what Microsoft gives you. Most game developer studios today in trying to keep costs low don't employ developers that really study these things. They hire Jimmy Richparents from Microsoft sponsored game schools who are trained on DirectX and don't really know any better.
@Jack Being "open" doesn't make something better. DirectX is way ahead of openGL. Look at OpenOffice, it's crap compared to Microsoft Office.
@VampireHunterZ
How is DX better if it doesn't work on your machine? Answer that and you'll see why OpenGL is better.
@Jack You are once again arguing about the "openness" of the product and not it's performance. It doesn't matter if it runs on everything if it's performance is subpar. When I see something written in OpenGL that compares to Crysis I'll pay attention.
@Murkurie
3D graphics is all about shader programs and hardware features right now. The API around it is just a convenience for developers, so they don't have to write different code for different cards. That said, DirectX and OpenGL have exactly the same capabilities on the same hardware. DirectX has a much wider API that better matches current hardware features and provides better fallbacks, since Microsoft and GPU designers work together to sync their hardware and software releases. OpenGL does cutting-edge stuff through proprietary extensions, which means a little extra work for developers, but not much, ATI and Nvidia are basically the only ones making hardware that's ahead of the current OpenGL standards. That said, many developers -including me- find OpenGL a much nicer API to program to. Easy to learn, concise, portable, efficient, less hairy than DirectX in general. On mobile platforms OpenGL (ES) is the only way to go.
Anyway, to repeat myself: DirectX is not more powerful or more advanced than OpenGL or vice versa, just quicker to incorporate hardware developments directly into the API.
@VampireHunterZ You use Open Office and MS Office as comparisons for 3D APIs that run on the same hardware using the same under the cover calls? OpenGL can do everything Direct3D can and more. Period. The only thing these versions do is consolidate some of the previously existing vendor specific extensions into a singular interface. OpenGL is almost always the first API to get these features, but since they come from various vendors it's not necessarily easier to implement, but it's still "ahead" of Direct3D. With D3D you have to wait for Microsoft to give you an interface to perform that feature.