Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

AMD Says There Will Be No DirectX 12 — Ever

Soulskill posted about a year and a half ago | from the pulling-a-reverse-firefox dept.

AMD 305

mikejuk writes "This is a strange story. AMD Vice President of Global Channel Sales Roy Taylor has said there will be no DirectX12 at any time in the future. In an interview with German magazine Heise.de, Taylor discussed the new trend for graphics card manufacturers to release top quality game bundles registered to the serial number of the card. One of the reasons for this, he said, is that the DirectX update cycle is no longer driving the market. 'There will be no DirectX 12. That's it.' (Google translation of German original.) Last January there was another hint that things weren't fine with DirectX when Microsoft sent an email to its MVPs saying, 'DirectX is no longer evolving as a technology.' That statement was quickly corrected, but without mentioning any prospect of DirectX 12. So, is this just another error or rumor? Can we dismiss something AMD is basing its future strategy on?"

cancel ×

305 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

no DirectX 12 (5, Funny)

BigMike (122378) | about a year and a half ago | (#43435095)

... it only goes to 11

Re:no DirectX 12 (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43435165)

... it only goes to 11

They're saying there WON'T be a Direct X12.

Re:no DirectX 12 (5, Informative)

GregC63 (1564363) | about a year and a half ago | (#43435217)

Obviously didn't get the "Spinal Tap" reference...

Re:no DirectX 12 (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43435385)

Obviously didn't get the "Spinal Tap" reference...

Obviously. These whipper snappers...

Hey, it's tufu pepperoni pizza and banana pudding night, let's pop the Spinal Tap VHS into the VCR in the TV room, and play Delta....or something or another on the Apple ][ in the rec room and reminisce about programming Integer Basic on the Apple ][ ... in the snow ... uphill ...both ways ... and how after hours of programming BASIC, pokes and peeks, our eyes saw red in everything ... including the snow we had to program in.

Oh, the days! When a 1200 baud modem was the cat's pajamas ... Van Halen was making great music .... MTV had music videos....

Captain to the Seamen: (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43435375)

Brace yourself, brace yourself for twelve!

Re:no DirectX 12 (1)

AaronLS (1804210) | about a year and a half ago | (#43435503)

It's one more prettier.

We did it! (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43435101)

We did it everyone! OpenGL won, good job everybody. Highest of fives all 'round.

Re:We did it! (4, Insightful)

ArcadeMan (2766669) | about a year and a half ago | (#43435137)

Only Microsoft uses DirectX, everyone else on the planet uses OpenGL.

Re:We did it! (4, Insightful)

MacGyver2210 (1053110) | about a year and a half ago | (#43435383)

Only Microsoft uses DirectX, everyone else on the planet uses OpenGL.

Except, you know, most top-selling games and other 3D applications on the market which all use DirectX - even if some also use OpenGL.

Even if the numbers don't keep ticking up, as long as it is the preferred graphics/multimedia API for Windows and XBox, it will stay relevant. Discounting it and saying the other common option 'won' is only demonstrating your lack of understanding and versatility as a developer.

When it comes down to it, OGL and DX are about the same thing, just with different platform-specific options. At some point, both will inevitably cease to progress. Given MS's propensity to push toward tablet-style computing and discontinue functional, widely-loved software, I am not surprised they cut out of the race first.

Re:We did it! (3, Insightful)

AaronLS (1804210) | about a year and a half ago | (#43435577)

I agree, most top games are primarily DirectX. Even if a game supports both, usually it will opt for DirectX if available.

DirectX was kind of an after thought addition to Windows anyhow, when they shut out the low level access that was being used previously for game graphics. I suppose that is where the name "Direct" came from, to emphasize it was the replacement that gave them similar direct access.

Hopefully this will shift things towards OpenGL and we can see more+better frameworks in more languages available for OpenGL.

On the other hand, you hit on potentially another reason for the decline of DirectX, and possibly OpenGL: the "demise of the PC". I do NOT believe the PC will die off anytime soon, but I can't deny that there are alot of casual users that no longer have any desire to put themselves through dealing with a PC, especially if they sit in front of one all day at work. A declining user base will mean commercial efforts shifted elsewhere, which won't be a good thing for the rest of us PC users.

FFS, you really didn't think, did you. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43435687)

"Most games" on the PC are written for the Windows OS, which means if you make it DirectX, you get marketing money from Microsoft.

When those games are cross-platform but only to the XBox, it has to be DirectX, because that's all that's available.

Neither indicate that Direct X is what would have been chosen in a free market.

It is only "preferred" by Microsoft, who PAY YOU to write games to DirectX.

Re:FFS, you really didn't think, did you. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43435739)

I think you're confusing MS with AMD and NVIDIA, whom will pay for 'priority' within game titles.

Re:We did it! (1)

JamesA (164074) | about a year and a half ago | (#43435717)

Didn't I hear this same rationalization about 5-10 years ago in regards to Internet Explorer?

Re:We did it! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43435763)

MS split the PC market with the have/have not for directX 10/11 with Windows 7. You would have thought that OpenGL would have become popular because of that, but that have no happened.

Given that most of the games are developed for consoles and port to Windows, that's what mainstream are and will be developing for.

Guess what? Xbox uses directX. The new PS4 will have directX 11.1.

http://www.geek.com/games/sony-iimprove-directx-11-for-the-ps4-blu-ray-1544364/ [geek.com]

Re:We did it! (1)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | about a year and a half ago | (#43435171)

Hell yeah!

Seriously, this could be what it means. DirectX was the awful glue sticking gaming to Windows!

Re:We did it! (1, Insightful)

alen (225700) | about a year and a half ago | (#43435225)

actually it did. more gamers use OpenGL today then Direct X
OpenGL was crap in the 90's but Apple, nvidia and a few others did the work to make it a viable gaming API

why spend money on your own API when someone will do the work for you?

Re:We did it! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43435437)

> why spend money on your own API when someone will do the work for you?

Lock-in? It's not like the first few version of direct X were better than the current version of opengl.

Re:We did it! (5, Insightful)

MacGyver2210 (1053110) | about a year and a half ago | (#43435439)

more gamers use OpenGL today then Direct X

[citation needed]

Actually, if you're going to give credit to someone for OGL, Apple is about the LAST company you should be thanking. Other than the fact that OGL was the only graphics API that worked on Mac, Apple has done ZERO to help promote, regulate, or stabilize OpenGL in the market. They have not contributed useful code, or participated in the ARB in any meaningful way.

Re:We did it! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43435527)

more gamers use OpenGL today then Direct X

[citation needed]

Actually, if you're going to give credit to someone for OGL, Apple is about the LAST company you should be thanking. Other than the fact that OGL was the only graphics API that worked on Mac, Apple has done ZERO to help promote, regulate, or stabilize OpenGL in the market. They have not contributed useful code, or participated in the ARB in any meaningful way.

Same with USB I suppose. Apple had absolutely nothing to do with it...other than being the first major computer manufacturer to standardize on it and make it viable for peripheral makers to start building for thereby overcoming the chicken/egg problem fairly efficiently. Same with OpenGL, they've done nothing!

Re:We did it! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43435655)

I'm pretty sure USB was an evolution of the Apple Desktop Bus with intel and apple collaborating.

Re:We did it! (5, Informative)

phantomfive (622387) | about a year and a half ago | (#43435445)

OpenGL was crap in the 90's but Apple

Uh, I remember OpenGL being fairly amazing in the 90s. I saw stuff on the O2s that no one else was doing. The 90s were when John Carmack made his famous rants about how much better OpenGL was than DirectX.

You're probably thinking of the mid 2000s, when OpenGL lost its way and was kind of directionless.....

Re:We did it! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43435705)

Uh, I remember OpenGL being fairly amazing in the 90s....You're probably thinking of the mid 2000s

that's exactly what i was thinking!
(Posting anon because i modded you up.)

Re:We did it! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43435769)

OpenGL went from superior in most areas, to absolute garbage, to only recently really being viable again. The OpenGL group would probably sent a record in incompetence during the early 21st century.

Re:We did it! (1)

multi io (640409) | about a year and a half ago | (#43435755)

why spend money on your own API when someone will do the work for you?

If Microsoft thought like that, DirectX never would have happened in the first place.

Re:We did it! (2, Funny)

Dunge (922521) | about a year and a half ago | (#43435335)

You guys just follow a circlejerk and don't know what you are talking about. DirectX development is much easier and well done than OpenGL.

Re:We did it! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43435455)

From a strictly a layman's point of view, I'm not a developer, it seems to me that's because DirectX is designed for just one platform. Where as OpenGL is usable on many different ones. I would assume this would introduce some significant complexity. On the other hand, if you're going to support more than just Windows, it would likely be easier to develop in OpenGL. With Steam now on Linux, the Steambox, and the PS4 being OpenGL based (or a variant there-of) it seems to me that OpenGL has many advantages.

Re:We did it! (5, Interesting)

Dunge (922521) | about a year and a half ago | (#43435651)

Yes, it is multiplatform, but from a developers perspective, DirectX gives a nice SDK with documentation, samples, debugging tools, detailed error messages, and produce a clean code. OpenGL is like a "here is the header files, sort yourself out".

Re:We did it! (1)

geekoid (135745) | about a year and a half ago | (#43435669)

No, it isn't. I have no clue why you would think it is in any practical manner.

Re:We did it! (1)

Gr8Apes (679165) | about a year and a half ago | (#43435693)

Yep, John Carmack must not know what he's talking about.

'fraid you're the clueless one here. (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43435729)

OpenGL was multithreading capable from the get go. DirectX until 11.2 was single threaded only.
DirectX uses a very different object graph proposition that puts the scene as the major component and for most indoor FPS, that is an easier concept, but those choices mean taking it outside where the scene (in a 3D construction context) is not the primary container for the "world" realised, you've got a much worse system to program. OGL was much better at the open world 3D and a little worse at the enclosed box-room preferred for early FPSs.

DirectX development was only slightly easier, and only for a small segment of what is being done.

Let's predict the headlines of the future: (5, Funny)

Minwee (522556) | about a year and a half ago | (#43435121)

July, 2013: AMD Says 'Okay, There Will Be A DirectX 12, But We're Not Supporting It'

September, 2013: AMD Says DirectX 12 Support By Next Year

March, 2014: New AMD Cards' Poor DirectX 12 Performance Disappointing

May, 2014: AMD Boss Complains About Being 'Left Out' Of DirectX 12 Development

August, 2014: Struggling AMD Says 'Just Wait For DirectX 13!'

Re:Let's predict the headlines of the future: (1)

Synerg1y (2169962) | about a year and a half ago | (#43435229)

You've stumbled onto some something here...

AMD doesn't make Directx, never has never will.

It also sounds like TFA is trying to pimp TressFX.

You know what though, I'm going to say I HOPE there's no directx12 because directx 9 -11 aren't worth upgrading hardware for:

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?s=0b835fb5dd2f2d73098918d134f47441&t=2312514 [anandtech.com]

Re:Let's predict the headlines of the future: (1)

bfandreas (603438) | about a year and a half ago | (#43435435)

I've had read TFA when it was new and I also thought that's a silly thing to say.

But we are propably very close at the end of the line for what the API DirectX can do for 3D graphics. We can do more polys, more lighting, higher res textures and that's it. Trouble is this is very expensive to create for games and AAA games have a lot of trouble recouping production costs.

In the other corner we have Intel beavering away on real-time rendering.

And the bugbear around the corner is that we are approaching the uncanny valley in games. Fast. Which is why we get a lot of cartoony only semi-realistic games. Think Brink faces only rendered at photorealism. That'd be problematic.

Also the better the graphics look the higher the impact of glitchy/inplausible animations will be. Which also are part of the uncanny valley. Think of those rubber-limb ragdoll animations. In Kingdoms of Amalur/Skyrim you could see big fat trolls rolling and flailing around as if they had no sinews and muscles.

Aaaand of course with all those console ports the best you can expect is DirectX9 level of graphics in games. With some luck you may even get a hires texture pack.Batman: Arkham City springs to mind. With all the DirectX11/nVidia hype and the brouhaha at release we have to ask ourselves if the hassle was really worth it.

And with mobile devices advancing as they are and multi-plattform support being a thing, locking yourself into a proprietary API of a dying plattform is not a wise move.

No DirectX after DirectX12 is a tall claim but it may be a while before we see another one.

Re:Let's predict the headlines of the future: (1)

MacGyver2210 (1053110) | about a year and a half ago | (#43435473)

I HOPE there's no directx12 because directx 9 -11 aren't worth upgrading hardware for

This is so true it hurts. Even though my graphics card is DX11-ready, I still only use at most DX9.0c as I am loving my XP experience until they unfuck newer editions of Windows.

Re:Let's predict the headlines of the future: (3, Insightful)

Synerg1y (2169962) | about a year and a half ago | (#43435541)

what's wrong with 7?

Re:Let's predict the headlines of the future: (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43435681)

he hasn't used it for more than 5 minutes, so even if he tries to tell you, it won't be a valid response.

Re:Let's predict the headlines of the future: (4, Interesting)

ron_ivi (607351) | about a year and a half ago | (#43435235)

My prediction.

Microsoft just re-names it; and everyone'll be using DirectY-2014 or Vista Display API or Direct-ME.

Re:Let's predict the headlines of the future: (2)

jcoy42 (412359) | about a year and a half ago | (#43435701)

And we already know the name.

Direct Wayland.

Re:Let's predict the headlines of the future: (1)

Gr8Apes (679165) | about a year and a half ago | (#43435711)

I'd vote for Direct-8.

Re:Let's predict the headlines of the future: (1)

MacGyver2210 (1053110) | about a year and a half ago | (#43435453)

Looks like Microsoft bought one of those Iranian 'future-looking' boxes.

Did DirectX ever "drive the market"? (0)

xxxJonBoyxxx (565205) | about a year and a half ago | (#43435135)

I've been building my own computers and playing games now for almost 30 years. Not once did I ever worry about DirectX. The only time I ever think about it now is when Civ5 asks which version I want to use, which just strikes me as annoying.

Re:Did DirectX ever "drive the market"? (2)

i kan reed (749298) | about a year and a half ago | (#43435251)

You're clearly not making the market. DirectX has been the "talking to the graphics card" layer for years. I think the summary is actually right in that the past 5-10 years, developing your own graphical/physics engine is dead. Unreal, unity, havok, source, whatever, it's all cheaper than developing something from scratch and building in the DirectX/openGL core features of the latest generation.

Yeah, you still write shaders, do optimization, whatever, but how you do that will depend on what Unreal supports, not on what bleeding edge directx features are.

Re:Did DirectX ever "drive the market"? (3, Informative)

MacGyver2210 (1053110) | about a year and a half ago | (#43435547)

developing your own graphical/physics engine is dead

Interesting. So I should stop coding this new OGL-based engine from scratch because it's easier to use a pre-made engine? Because you think it's 'dead'? Let alone your coding ability going down the toilet because all you do is drag-and-drop 'component blocks' in your engine of choice, what do you do when you hit the looming brick wall that is the engine's limitations?

"Hey guys, let's pack it up. This random dude on the 'net says the custom and one-off engines we've been making for years are dead, and we should just use Unity or Unreal."

Yes, yes it did. It still does. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43435275)

You'll notice that in those 30 years you were building computers and playing games, you either pirated or bought a copy of Windows to run on that same system. I've been doing the exact same thing and I've been using Linux for at least 10-12 of those...why? I know one OS is good for games and one OS is good for everything else, and you know it too, you're just glossing over it in order to make a point.

DirectX doesn't drive the market because it's good, it drives the market for the same reason Microsoft does...a considerable investment of time and money already made on Microsoft's platform. The real news in this article, I think, is the lack of response by Microsoft. One of the last remaining reasons that I have for even purchasing Windows is so that I can play Windows games, and DirectX was more or less a means by Microsoft to ensure that they controlled a vital part of the game ecosystem (the libraries that developers use to build them) and never porting it across platforms. The lack of response by a huge manufacturer like AMD making an announcement like this...if I were to take a guess, I'd say that they're right, everyone knows it and there's not much point in Microsoft refuting it any longer because they're already in trouble.

Re:Did DirectX ever "drive the market"? (1)

Dunge (922521) | about a year and a half ago | (#43435369)

Every graphic card released since about 10 years are fixed to a DirectX version. Every commercial games released wince about 10 years are fixed to a DirectX version. In which world are you living in?

Re:Did DirectX ever "drive the market"? (1)

Nemyst (1383049) | about a year and a half ago | (#43435459)

The vast majority of PC games use DirectX. DirectX has more than driven the market for the past decade, it's defined it. All major GPUs' feature set were defined by DirectX, with OpenGL largely trailing behind. OGL is catching up these days, but most games are still focused exclusively for DirectX.

Re:Did DirectX ever "drive the market"? (1)

kras (807696) | about a year and a half ago | (#43435611)

The vast majority of PC games use DirectX. DirectX has more than driven the market for the past decade, it's defined it. All major GPUs' feature set were defined by DirectX, with OpenGL largely trailing behind. OGL is catching up these days, but most games are still focused exclusively for DirectX.

maybe the market is changing... steam wants to embrace the linux community with its steam-for-linux move. maybe they are betting on the OGL-trail for future games, and the more rapid development through the demand from linux users and hopefully OGL developers to make this the standard and forget about further developing directx for games and grafic cards altogether... maybe steam knows things about the directx development we're only becoming aware of.

Re:Did DirectX ever "drive the market"? (1)

91degrees (207121) | about a year and a half ago | (#43435725)

The thing is, DirectX didn't simply dictate. The API was the result of discussions between Microsoft and graphics card manufacturers. Primarily it was the hardware driving the API.

Microsoft was smart enough to form a good working relationship with the major vendors, but also had the clout to have the final say on exactly what the API was. But if nVidia or ATI requested a feature, you could be sure it would be in the next version of DirectX, and that version of DirectX would be available before the hardware.

It has to be said (4, Informative)

phantomfive (622387) | about a year and a half ago | (#43435145)

Use OpenGL. It's the platform of every rising device. Furthermore you can get the benefits of open source.

Re:It has to be said (0)

mederbil (1756400) | about a year and a half ago | (#43435293)

I couldn't agree more with this. But OpenGL right now does not seem to be geared towards games in any way. Mostly just CAD and other workstation uses. I'm unsure of how it would perform with something as dynamic as a video game.

Re:It has to be said (5, Informative)

cybiko123 (1223650) | about a year and a half ago | (#43435371)

But OpenGL right now does not seem to be geared towards games in any way.

I think some folks at Valve would have something to say about that.

Re: It has to be said (1)

Garth Smith (1720052) | about a year and a half ago | (#43435757)

I program games for iOS and Android, which cumulatively make up a massive part of the mobile devices market. Both operating systems use OpenGL ES, a subset of OpenGL. With PC sales declining and mobile devices selling like hot cakes. In my industry OpenGL is more popular than ever while DirectX is almost nonexistent.

Re:It has to be said (4, Interesting)

DanTheStone (1212500) | about a year and a half ago | (#43435381)

Well how about we hear from some others (2)

Sycraft-fu (314770) | about a year and a half ago | (#43435777)

The thing with Valve is that they are not exactly an unbiased source. For one, their engine is pretty outdated. They are all DX9 stuff in their games. Now fair enough from a market point of view (though there are been more than a couple very successful DX10+ only titles) but talking technically that is looking at things in a rather outdated fashion. DX10 changed the way you deal with graphics cards and most developers seem to think quite a bit for the better.

Also there's the fact that they are pushing Linux because they are really worried about the future of Steam. Valve makes stupid amounts of money doing very little with Steam. However if the Windows store takes off (something that is not at all certain, but could happen) their money pit dries up. Hence they are looking at bringing Steam to a new platform, that bring Linux.

Finally note that their criticism was that Windows is becoming "not open". Now maybe that will end up being the case, but it is not at this point. Steam still works real well for Windows, as do all other stores. That aside they weren't saying Linux was technically superior, at least not in that talk, they were saying that it had what they needed on a technical side.

Re:It has to be said (1)

Nemesisghost (1720424) | about a year and a half ago | (#43435397)

I'm unsure of how it would perform with something as dynamic as a video game.

Really? Valve ported Left 4 Dead 2 to Linux and it came out faster. I'm at work so I can't exactly get to the page, but I pulled this reference [valvesoftware.com] from the Wikipedia article about Steam [wikipedia.org] . Since I'm at work I can't verify that Valve is using OpenGL for the Linux port of Steam, but I'm going to assume that's the case.

Re:It has to be said (1)

Dunge (922521) | about a year and a half ago | (#43435411)

Yes, old technology with brute force polygon run faster in OpenGL than DirectX9. Once you begin to use effects and shaders though, DX10/11 beats OpenGL by far.

Re:It has to be said (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43435551)

Yes, old technology with brute force polygon run faster in OpenGL than DirectX9. Once you begin to use effects and shaders though, DX10/11 beats OpenGL by far.

[citation needed].

Re:It has to be said (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43435629)

what??

Shaders run on the GPU. So underlying driver API has nothing to do with it except in the loading of the shaders onto the video card.

FYI, "effects" *are* shaders.

The entire point of DX vs. GL is that everything is moving towards shaders making underlying API much less relevant than 10 years ago.

Re:It has to be said (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43435569)

Any chance you're at work?

Re:It has to be said (1)

Shinobi (19308) | about a year and a half ago | (#43435731)

They compared a version of the engine for Linux that had optimizations done that were not available for the Windows version they compared to(And still haven't been released)

Ergo, it was a rigged comparison.

Re:It has to be said (1)

phantomfive (622387) | about a year and a half ago | (#43435407)

This is like a troll, there are plenty of games that use OpenGL. It performs fine, by some reports [slashdot.org] better than DirectX.

Re:It has to be said (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43435581)

"Like" a troll. What fucking site do you think you're on? If Microsoft came out with a GPLv3 licensed utility that could cure cancer there would still be people here shitting on them for it. Likewise there'd also be people who are happily using OpenGL on their tablets (or Steam on Linux, no less, I know I've been) who will come up with bullshit like the OP did, not because it's right, not because they have a vested interest...just because they're a bunch of opinionated cunts. The site _used_ to have discussion of some value but it's since died and gone to meet its fucking maker, everyone left here is either a prick, a troll or selling something, sometimes all three at once.

Fuck you, think about your breathing and buy my book!

Re:It has to be said (0)

Dunge (922521) | about a year and a half ago | (#43435427)

Exactly. As a programmer who tried both, I confirm. DirectX development package is much better and easier. People referencing this one Valve blog page don't know anything on the subject.

Re:It has to be said (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43435721)

As a Software Engineer who has developed with both, OpenGL is superior in development and performance.

Assuming you want to write code that gets actual performance instead of copy and pasy generic code into an IDE.

Re:It has to be said (1)

pinkeen (1804300) | about a year and a half ago | (#43435433)

ROFL. Did you live on an island for the past 10 years?
Just to name a few. [wikipedia.org]

Re:It has to be said (1)

Nemyst (1383049) | about a year and a half ago | (#43435501)

OpenGL works just fine for games. The bigger hurdle is the rather lackluster documentation and Khronos Group's slow update cycle and lack of focus on games. I'm also not a fan of the API coding style, but that's more up to personal preference.

Re:It has to be said (1)

MacGyver2210 (1053110) | about a year and a half ago | (#43435585)

Do you program anything using OpenGL? Because it's pretty game-friendly if there ever was a game-friendly graphics API. CAD and games use largely the same type of code to get their objects on the screen. It's how you're able to manipulate those objects (which is actually in data/memory, not in the graphics API) which makes CAD or gaming unique.

When you create a sphere in Blender, it's drawing to the screen the same way it would if you created a sphere in an OGL game and rendered it. If you build(or find) yourself a decent wrapper, you can interact with it in whatever way is comfortable or 'more game-friendly' to you.

Re:It has to be said (1)

LordLimecat (1103839) | about a year and a half ago | (#43435443)

DirectX means your program cant be open source?

*confused*

Re:It has to be said (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43435677)

Furthermore you can get the benefits of open source.

Lol, as someone working with linux/opengl and other open source based things let me clear that up:

  • OpenGL has been for years second place with tooling and the GPU (not a benefit)
  • profiling/debugging tools provided by AMD and NVIDIA are visual studio based (not open source/not on linux)
  • those few open source tools that exist are limited as they can't/wont hook into the driver
  • the working opengl implementations are not open source (the POS amd calls driver is not a benefit - cite: a former longtime AMD victim)
  • "Use OpenGL. It's the platform of every rising device." Or just use directx on top of a wrapper (Valve/wine do it)

Until the tooling for OpenGL catches up there is little benefit to it and lots of drawbacks for most.

Wait, forget that blob above, unless you develop an engine nothing of that has any importance at all. Just do it professionally, choose an existing engine or scene graph API and program against that instead of reinventing the wheel. A good engine does not care about the layer below it so you can get the benefits of both directx and opengl when needed. For benefits of open source look at ogre3d which supports both.

Micosoft giving it up? (1)

locater16 (2326718) | about a year and a half ago | (#43435191)

There's still stuff left to do, access to things that programmers want. If Microsoft wants to stop its API development, and give up the ghost of it's Microsoft only policy, leaving OpenGl and the Khronos group to do all the advancement, then maybe that's a good thing. While Microsoft and DirectX overtook OpenGl in terms of what the API could do since around DX10, it did so at the cost of being locked into Microsoft stuff if you wanted to use it. But if things go a little slower now in order to have only one, open API advancing then maybe that's a good thing.

Re:Micosoft giving it up? (1)

KugelKurt (908765) | about a year and a half ago | (#43435627)

Microsoft is probably just syncing its DirectX development cycle to the Xbox development cycle. So some time before the Xbox 4 MS will develop and release DirectX 12.

That is a filthy lie (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43435199)

There will be a DirectX 12 just in time for Windows 9. Don't believe me? There's a great page up on MSDN [microsoft.com] that confirms DirectX is now a part of new releases of the Windows SDK starting with Win8.

As it stands this is confirmation from the GPU manufacturer that the new Xbox will not be using anything better than DX11, and that people using toasters with XP are finally getting cut loose. It's good news for gamers, too: you won't have to upgrade your DX11-compatible video card for DX11.1 or purchase future versions of Windows for DirectX support for at least another decade. We're witnessing the next generation of console games disappoint before they've even been written.

Re:That is a filthy lie (4, Insightful)

i kan reed (749298) | about a year and a half ago | (#43435289)

I think you misunderstand what that means. It means directX has moved from a versioned API with new features all the time, to a stable API that they feel safe tying to the OS and pushing updates for through windows update. It's like when an open source project has reached the point where its no longer worth it to pull the latest from git. It's "done".

Skipping it? (4, Interesting)

djdanlib (732853) | about a year and a half ago | (#43435213)

So what, are they going to skip 12 and go to 13? They've done it before, with DirectX 4, so it's not a new idea. Maybe 12 turned out to be a huge mess.

I don't see DirectX being discontinued in favor of OpenGL/OpenAL/etc, since the GUIs in their latest products and frameworks all seem to use DirectX to some extent.

(asbestos underpants on) Or maybe they switched to FOSS-style versioning, and just don't see anything new that would demand a major version number. We're going to see abominations like DirectX 11.1.25.4-r6.3 for the rest of time.

Re:Skipping it? (3, Funny)

nzac (1822298) | about a year and a half ago | (#43435325)

Maybe it is the name. X got stuck on 11 as well.

Re:Skipping it? (1)

BLToday (1777712) | about a year and a half ago | (#43435697)

Mac OS X is stuck on 10. And for a long time Street Fighter was stuck on 3.

The Count: Today on Sesame Street, we have two new friends Tim Cook and Ryu. Ryu can you start counting.
Ryu: one, two, three, three-second impact, three-new generation, three...
The Count: How about you Tim, can you count to eleven?
Tim Cook: 10.cheetah, 10.puma, 10...
The Count: Screw both of you, where's my gun? I'm going shoot both of them.

Re:Skipping it? (1)

xanclic (2878575) | about a year and a half ago | (#43435529)

I don't think they'll be skipping anything.

The “full” original statement actually is: “A new DirectX has always revived the industry, new graphics cards require more powerful CPUs and more RAM. But there will be no DirectX 12. That's it. As far as we know, there are no plans for DirectX 12.”

As fast as I understand it, he actually talks about any new major DirectX version, not just about DirectX 12. Which would in turn support your “minor version abominations” argument.

Re:Skipping it? (2)

djdanlib (732853) | about a year and a half ago | (#43435695)

Sounds about right. DX11.1 is the top of the line right now, is for Windows 8, and is not even going to be fully backported to Windows 7. Is anything even using the new features? The way I see it, demand for new features won't really happen until people are using the advanced features of the current version, which requires people to install the current version, which requires Windows 8. So it could be a long, long time given the lack of movement to Win8. There also has to be a big change to the API to cause a major version change, which is usually driven by new features that don't work well with the current way of doing things.

There's always been a noticeable lag in DX version releases right before a major hardware or OS release from Microsoft, so they might even be in early stages of development at the drawing board right now.

Who knows. I don't see it going away anytime soon. It seems to be all about the engines nowadays anyway...

Re:Skipping it? (1)

gl4ss (559668) | about a year and a half ago | (#43435609)

they should have just stuck at making 10.x releases.

so they could call it DIRECTX X2 etc.

the shit does amd know about microsofts naming schemes though. they can't know. MS themselves don't fucking know what they will name their next point maintenance releases or whatever they will call their 3d apis in metro later.

Re:Skipping it? (1)

MacGyver2210 (1053110) | about a year and a half ago | (#43435625)

I think the comparison is quite interesting. DirectX has DirectSound, DirectInput, and other OS-tied and platform-specific functions within it. OpenGL has....graphics.

As DX handles everything from keyboard and joystick input to sound management, it seems like this comparison and article should be focusing on Direct3D instead of DX as a whole.

Re:Skipping it? (1)

djdanlib (732853) | about a year and a half ago | (#43435747)

Spot on. DX is the whole kit and parts of it come and go. DirectMusic, remember that?

I keep wondering, what about the Direct2D and DirectWrite components? It's still fairly new technology, being used for more and more GUIs as time goes by, and could be a huge deal for graphics performance during normal non-gaming computer use. IE and FireFox use them... You never hear about them, though.

Do a little research. (5, Informative)

Lashat (1041424) | about a year and a half ago | (#43435241)

If memory serves this was also linked in the related article above. http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ee663275.aspx [microsoft.com]
DirectX is just becoming part of the Windows 8 SDK. Then presumably the Windows 9, etc, SDKs as well. On until death.

Cannot evolve (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43435255)

The API and the hardware became so close that none of them can change without breaking eachother, since directx 9 (and the equivalent opengl versions) there were no real improvements. That's a real shame, because I've been waiting for a decade to something more flexible, more suited to emulate console graphics pipelines, but as it stands now, software rasterizers will be the future.

Re:Cannot evolve (2)

Dunge (922521) | about a year and a half ago | (#43435353)

On the contrary, DirectX10 had the best improvement of all versions. It changed everything. They ditched the fixed pipeline, ditched old "backward-compatibility" that was clobbering the system, connected directly to the Windows hardware layer, support multithreading, etc.

Maybe just adopting Apple's versioning strategy (2)

TheSkepticalOptimist (898384) | about a year and a half ago | (#43435257)

I am sure 10 years ago someone could have easily said there would never be an OS 11.

Re:Maybe just adopting Apple's versioning strategy (1)

Kaenneth (82978) | about a year and a half ago | (#43435337)

You mean XI?

DirectX Imbecile (1)

interval1066 (668936) | about a year and a half ago | (#43435285)

I've never written to the API, but from a user persepective the only thing I found annoying about DirectX was every game on the planet wanted to distribute its own copy/version of it. Which I never did understand, as far as I can tell its the one API that M$ took great pains to keep backward compatible, so why couldn't all these games simply use the version that was installed (unless it was too old.) Other than that, I never had a problem with it, it worked fine, and in some cases appeared to be superior to OpenGL, until lately. Certainly OGL has made some great strides and really is the defacto gfx library for everyone else, Windows machines can even use the Win32/64 port if the user choose. Still, I have to wonder what the big problem for AMD/Microsoft. No longer an evolving technology? Are they planning on dumping it for something new in the works? Have they decided they can't compete with OGL? Smells to me like another sign (as I've been talking about) that Microsoft is NOT as innvative as they were, or thought they were. And AMD? Christ, might as well put a fork in it.

Re:DirectX Imbecile (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43435521)

Games could probably just use the version that's installed (as long as it is the right major version) and it should work.
But of course that is not enough, as many users won't know what to do when the game crashes with a DirectX error or the graphics are messed up and will blame the game developer for it. So it's safer to just bundle the version of DirectX that was used for testing and is known to work for the game.

Re:DirectX Imbecile (1)

Nemyst (1383049) | about a year and a half ago | (#43435537)

The distributing their own copy thing was just the simplest solution to the versioning issue: yes, DirectX is technically backwards compatible, but if the computer only has older versions than what you're using, you need to install the new version. Therefore, all games just decided to bundle DirectX and install it regardless.

Re:DirectX Imbecile (1)

MacGyver2210 (1053110) | about a year and a half ago | (#43435649)

This is also true. I can't count how many copies of DirectX 9.0c I had to install...for reasons I have never really ascertained. I started to say 'no' when it asked if I wanted to install DX, and the games ran fine. Guess it was just precautionary? Limit of the older Windows Installer systems?

naming convetion (1)

Muramas95 (2459776) | about a year and a half ago | (#43435361)

So they could either go with the... Video games: DirectX Cars: DirectX-2014 Windows: DirectX Vision Apple: Bobcat Google: Marshmallow X OpenGL's dream : RIP DirectX

question (5, Interesting)

asmkm22 (1902712) | about a year and a half ago | (#43435387)

What exactly does "top quality game bundles registered to the serial number of the card" mean? Have I missed something else in this conversation?

Re:question (1)

gl4ss (559668) | about a year and a half ago | (#43435633)

dunno. probably that you would get the game if you buy the card. or alternatively that you'll purchase will be tied to that card if you buy the game(they're asshats).

OpenGL everywhere? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43435399)

OpenGL everywhere? Imagine also if the manufacturers would be able to write stable, functioning drivers *for their own hardware*, then things could get great.

Game locked to Video Card Serial Number? (1)

Guppy (12314) | about a year and a half ago | (#43435417)

Taylor discussed the new trend for graphics card manufacturers to release top quality game bundles registered to the serial number of the card.

Are they already doing this with their current bundles? I just recently bought a Radeon 7770, but wasn't particularly interested in the Far Cry 3 game that came with it, was was planning to sell the coupon to someone who could make better use of it.

Re:Game locked to Video Card Serial Number? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43435539)

Not "locked". Just that if you have qualifying card, you can grab a freebie game. Input serial to site, get key for game (valid for one key per unique card serial).

Cost of this marketing to AMD is probably around 1-2$ per redeemed code (note; per redeemed code, not per shipped card)

Value to customer is considerably higher (due to far higher MSRP of those games).

Value to game publisher is that they get to sell a TON of copies so it is good money even at super-deep discount. And with nothing physical to ship, it costs pretty much $0 to "manufacture" those copies.

Hmm... (1)

dagamer34 (1012833) | about a year and a half ago | (#43435465)

Does anything besides Direct3D change with new versions anymore? It's not as if there are groundbreaking developments in XInput or DirectSound, and things like DirectShow have been depreciated for other Windows methods.

Two points that come to mind: (1)

aix tom (902140) | about a year and a half ago | (#43435595)

First the "silly point" to confuse people:
"Since X only went only to version 11, I don't see how they could make a DirectX12 without making X12 first." ;-)

Then the second more serious point:

I still remember the "Sound-card upgrade cycle" back in the 1990s, where gamers were also were after the newest developments there to get a better gaming experience. But for the last decade or so there were no basically no "new sound features" that were added to improve the sound, since sound is "good enough" for basically everything that needs sound.

At some time graphics cards will reach (or perhaps are reaching now) the point where that is true for graphics also.

deal with it (1)

genericmk (2767843) | about a year and a half ago | (#43435657)

Just deal with it.

I know why no DirectX 12... (0)

Lohrno (670867) | about a year and a half ago | (#43435749)

I have it on good sources (IE: I just made this up) that DirectX will be skipping directly to DirectX 13 like how Leisure Suit Larry 4 was skipped.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>