×

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!

Will the Lack of DX10 on XP Spur OpenGL Dev?

Cliff posted about 7 years ago | from the microsoft-likely-to-release-dx10-on-XP-first dept.

Graphics 168

Sparr0 asks: "Microsoft has announcement that DirectX 10 will not be released for Windows XP (which means no Shader Model 4.0 and no Geometry Shaders). I have since been waiting for news of game developers switching to OpenGL, in order to get the best graphics on the best hardware on the most popular gaming OS, however there is nary a whisper of such. Will such a shift occur, even if only in small amounts? When? Why not? It is probably safe to say that Unreal Tournament 3 (AKA UT2007) will have OpenGL as an option in Windows, but that is both unsurprising and also a long way off. Ditto for Quake Wars, and most other games that are planning a native Linux clients. Where are all of the other big names with Windows-only offerings? Why haven't we heard from Valve, Blizzard, Sony, or EA, to name a few?"

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

168 comments

No solution (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#18446421)

Win XP doesn't have DX10, and Vista doesn't have OGL... Whatever you use, you're doomed

Re:No solution (1)

sglane81 (230749) | about 7 years ago | (#18446543)

Vista supports OpenGL the same way XP, 2000, etc support it: the MSOGL wrapper.

Re:No solution (3, Informative)

Rycross (836649) | about 7 years ago | (#18446799)

More to the point, if you're gaming or doing 3d work, then you're installing the video card manufacturer's driver. Which means you're going to be getting fully accelerated OpenGL, sans wrappers. Yes, even on Vista. The wrappers are just a simple default replacement, in case you don't have proper GL drivers.

OpenAL (5, Interesting)

Gr8Apes (679165) | about 7 years ago | (#18447009)

And apparently Vista will spur OpenAL adoption, as that's the only way to get around Vista's brain-dead DRM'd audio architecture and get hardware acceleration under Vista. That's straight from Creative's website detailing Vista's new audio architecture's effects and recommendations, btw. (Whatever you may think about Creative, you can't argue with their analysis on this one.)

How many times does it need to be said... (0, Troll)

MSFanBoi2 (930319) | about 7 years ago | (#18446453)

DirectX has a LOT more functionality than OpenGL.

Now mayhap the OP is writing about Direct3D... in that case, even DirectX 9.x's version of Direct3d features a LOT more functionality than OpenGL's most recent revision contains.

Re:How many times does it need to be said... (1)

ArcherB (796902) | about 7 years ago | (#18446531)

DirectX has a LOT more functionality than OpenGL.

Now mayhap the OP is writing about Direct3D... in that case, even DirectX 9.x's version of Direct3d features a LOT more functionality than OpenGL's most recent revision contains.


Anyone else able to confirm this? I'm no developer so I'm fairly ignorant on the matter. However, when someone that goes by MSFanBoi2 says that MS's proprietary product is better than an open standard, I take it with a grain of salt.

Re:How many times does it need to be said... (3, Informative)

MSFanBoi2 (930319) | about 7 years ago | (#18446657)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenGL_vs._Direct3D [wikipedia.org]

http://www.gamedev.net/reference/articles/article1 775.asp [gamedev.net]

http://www.xmission.com/~legalize/d3d-vs-opengl.ht ml [xmission.com] (this one is a bit out of date and only covers OpenGL 1.2 and DirectX 8

Re:How many times does it need to be said... (1)

d3ac0n (715594) | about 7 years ago | (#18446929)

Ok..

So you give one Wikipedia link, and two out of date links regardiunbg 2 generation old versions of OpenGL and DX.

Since Wikipedia is basically worthless as an authoritative source we have to throw that one out right off. The others are completely out of date, and the gamedev link even talks about Windows 95 and DOS games!

C-mon. If you want to back up your argument, at least use up-to-date information and non-wikipedia links.

Note that I'm not saying you are wrong. You may very well be correct that DX is better than OGL. You just aren't making your case very well.

Re:How many times does it need to be said... (4, Insightful)

Curien (267780) | about 7 years ago | (#18447219)

None of the parent comments said DX was better than OpenGL. They said it was /broader/. OpenGL is a 3D programming framework. DirectX is a collection of frameworks: DirectDraw for 2D, Direct3D for 3D, DirectInput for user input, DirectPlay for networking, etc.

Comparing OpenGL and DirectX is like comparing Abiword (just a word processor) and OpenOffice (a word processor, a spreadsheet, a vector graphics editor, a presentation designer, etc).

Comparing OpenGL to Direct3D is an apples-to-apples comparison. That's usually what people mean when they talk about comparing DX and GL (since it's the only comparison that makes sense). But that's intellectual laziness.

AllegroGL (1)

tepples (727027) | about 7 years ago | (#18448477)

Comparing OpenGL and DirectX is like comparing Abiword (just a word processor) and OpenOffice (a word processor, a spreadsheet, a vector graphics editor, a presentation designer, etc).
What about Allegro + OpenGL [sourceforge.net] vs. DirectX or SDL + OpenGL [libsdl.org] vs. DirectX?

Re:How many times does it need to be said... (1)

mrchaotica (681592) | about 7 years ago | (#18448971)

None of the parent comments said DX was better than OpenGL.

False. MSFanBoi2 wrote:

even DirectX 9.x's version of Direct3d features a LOT more functionality than OpenGL's most recent revision contains.

Re:How many times does it need to be said... (1)

Macthorpe (960048) | about 7 years ago | (#18449173)

More functionality != better.

You wouldn't find an intelligent poster here who wouldn't say that Word and Excel have more functionality than OpenOffice.org.

Does that make them better?

Re:How many times does it need to be said... (1)

VGPowerlord (621254) | about 7 years ago | (#18449951)

More functionality != better.

In this case it does, though, as you're comparing Shader model 2/3 vs. Shader model 4. It's like comparing 2x 512MB of Corsair Dual Channel DDR2 667 RAM vs 2x 1GB of Corsair Dual Channel DDR2 800 RAM.

It's fairly obvious which one is better.

Re:How many times does it need to be said... (1)

ArcherB (796902) | about 7 years ago | (#18447125)

From your gamedev.net link:

Performance is no longer an issue! The speed for both APIs has come out exactly even for well written programs. The performance can only be gauged per machine, and that by testing. There is no way to predict which will run faster.


However, as another poster pointed out, these links are pretty dated and do not include the latest OpenGL or DX10. From what I gathered from your links and my own quick and inadequate research is this:

DirectX10 is much easier to write for due to the managed code aspect of .Net, but you are limiting yourself to Windows users.
OpenGL is portable and will run on any platform that supports it, which includes the big 3 (Windows, Linux and OSX).
Performance is a push as it depends more on the drivers than the software itself.

Oh, and running either in software mode sux!

Re:How many times does it need to be said... (1)

Eideewt (603267) | about 7 years ago | (#18448223)

And another big one: DirectX contains pretty much everything you need to write a game. It's got graphics, sound, and input APIs. OpenGL is just a 3d API. DirectX's counterpart in the oss world would more properly be SDL.

Re:How many times does it need to be said... (1)

Xymor (943922) | about 7 years ago | (#18449065)

Most analysts are predicting windows will lose market share with Vista(cost, drm, etc...), so even if they lose only 5 or 10%, adopting an alternative that could be easily ported between competitor platforms would make a lot of sense(and if the alternative happens to be open standard, than everybody wins).

Let's hope that happens.

Re:How many times does it need to be said... (1)

jra101 (95423) | about 7 years ago | (#18449189)

DirectX10 is much easier to write for due to the managed code aspect of .Net, but you are limiting yourself to Windows users.

There is no managed interface for DX10, it's a C++ API. Also, you aren't restricting yourself to Windows users only, you are restricting yourself to Windows Vista users only, a much smaller install base.

Re:How many times does it need to be said... (4, Informative)

Cornflake917 (515940) | about 7 years ago | (#18447129)

Actually, there's really not that much difference in fucntionality. Direct3d does allow you to get a little bit intimate with the machine these days, but it's much more complicated to program in. It takes many more lines of code to get an app initialized using Direct3d than it does openGL. You're right to question "MSFanBoi", he gives you links but he doesn't even mention that even Wikipedia is questioning the neutrality of the topic. OpenGL vs. Direct3d debates have been pretty heated lately. Direct3d has gotten alot better then when it first came out, but OpenGl still has some advantages.

I've had experience using both API's and I can tell you that OpenGL is much easier to work with. But I can understand why companies would want to use Direct3d if they need to create a really effeicent graphics engine.

Re:How many times does it need to be said... (2, Interesting)

Rycross (836649) | about 7 years ago | (#18447227)

Most of the hobbyists I talk to tend to agree that, if you want to just put some triangles on screen, OpenGL is easier. If you want to do a complex graphic engine with lots of optimization, then Direct3d is easier.

It also depends on what kind of programming paradigm you're used to. Direct3d is OO. OpenGL is not.

Re:How many times does it need to be said... (1)

Bacon Bits (926911) | about 7 years ago | (#18448393)

True, but DirectX is a *lot* more than just Direct3D & DirectDraw. There are also the DirectSound, DirectMusic, DirectInput and DirectPlay (networking) APIs. That's a whole lot of code you don't need to reproduce.

I'd say it will hurt the popularity of DirectX 10, but not affect the popularity of DirectX 9 at all. Once the installed base of Vista increased in 12-18 months, you might start to see some games out there that really demand DX10.

Re:How many times does it need to be said... (4, Informative)

GreggBz (777373) | about 7 years ago | (#18447253)

Having done a little of both, I can say the grandparent is correct. Maybe not the way he raves but I would choose DirectX.

A major advantage of DirectX is programmable pixel and vertex shaders. The syntax has cleaned up considerably in the past two or three versions so it's now as easy or easier than OpenGL. Also, if you know DirectX it's nice because then you can use DirectInput and DirectSound which have a similar structure and use the COM model. As an API, it's pretty nice to develop in. Once you get it, I can see not wanting to migrate to OpenGL.

OpenGL is nice because it's portable and it's an open standard. It's also a little leaner then DirectX. With the newer extensions you have most of the functions that DirectX has, but are missing some key ones. It's also a little more obtuse and it's not updated very much anymore.

Both are stable if written right. Both are fast if written right.

This all being said, they are both very complex API's with lots of extensions (OpenGL) and updates (DirectX) so the differences are there and I've just touched on them. Overall the functionality is close but they just differ in the way they do things.

Games are moving to DirectX for a reason in my eyes. It is somewhat better.

Re:How many times does it need to be said... (3, Informative)

jra101 (95423) | about 7 years ago | (#18449233)

A major advantage of DirectX is programmable pixel and vertex shaders. The syntax has cleaned up considerably in the past two or three versions so it's now as easy or easier than OpenGL.

Both APIs allow you to use a high level language to write programmable vertex and fragment shaders (HLSL for Direct3D, GLSL for OpenGL).

Re:How many times does it need to be said... (5, Informative)

Jthon (595383) | about 7 years ago | (#18447711)

The answer is sort of. Ultimately they each have similar capabilities, but for the more advanced features it's just easier to do in DX10. OpenGL takes longer than Direct3d to get any set of features pushed into the base spec, so it tends to lag Direct3D revisions.

One "good" part of OpenGL is that graphics companies don't need to wait for approval to include new features. They can release access to cutting edge features using vendor specific extensions. This was really important in the early days of consumer 3d graphics, and helped spur game development.

Of course this makes programming hard as the extensions are different between vendors and may even vary between different cards in a family (usually they try to just add on). This requires developers to create completely unique rendering paths for each card they want to support to get the best speed/features. Over time though Microsoft's Direct3D caught up with OpenGL and sort of sucked up all the good extensions into their API.

Direct3D 10's advantage is that it puts out a spec and requires all cards fully implement it. Unlike previous versions of DX you can't be DX 10 compatible and leave out features. This really helps eliminate the need for separate rendering paths to make any specific feature work, and so makes development much easier.

So the short of it is they can both do the same stuff, it's just more difficult at the moment with OpenGL.

(Another interesting thing to note is that I have heard rumors that once Direct3d came out Microsoft, who also happens to sit on the OpenGL ARB, slowed down the adoption of some features into the main OpenGL spec. This left them ramping Direct3D at a faster rate.)

Re:How many times does it need to be said... (4, Informative)

QX-Mat (460729) | about 7 years ago | (#18448449)

From a game development point of view, there are distinct differences between OGL and DX.

DX is more than just a graphics library - its a framework for engine development.
OGL is only a graphics library - and it only lets you use the hardware you have (DX has quite a few handy emulation layers).

Unfortunately, OGL doesn't have the kind of supplemental stuff you'd really expect when prototyping or developing a game from scratch - i'm taking about as native format mesh loaders and converters (everything found in d3dx). Interestingly (and frustratingly), many of the d3dx routines aren't perfect and have their odd quirks. Some are plain not reliable, and most rarely return more than a null hDC when things do go wrong (this doesnt help debugging a mesh LOD reduction!)

OGL does support integer and float based indexing, whereas, afaik, DX only supports float.

Both support a wide range of colour formats - as expected.

Personally, the OGL viewports are easier to manipulate.

I find the continual loss of device in DX (through 'apparently' random context switching) annoying. You have to have a fairly large and complex recovery structure/path to commit states back to the gfx hardware.

I would say that OGL is consistent in its API naming, but as-is DX.

OGL is consistent in its interaction with GLSL (the pixel and vertex shader lanauge). I would also say DX is consistent with vertex and pixel shader manipulation too - except considering nVidia's quirky interaction between the sheets after compile (there's some kind of intermediate language and translation going on here, DX tends to break more than OGL - not something i've experienced myself tho).

If I was to code a game now, I would be happier using DX with D3DX, STL, and maybe some boost stuff rather than OGL, because I would have to code less of the engine - less loading/common manipulation routines - thanks to greater library support in DX... ... BUT if a company i worked for was to code a game, and had enough cash to create an OGL-specific framework, I would use OpenGL. Why? It's quite simple - once you've created the framework to a renderer/game, the code-readability/RAD/speed of OGL and DX are evenly matched... yet OGL is portable.

  Hths,
Matt

Re:How many times does it need to be said... (1)

Tim C (15259) | about 7 years ago | (#18448609)

Direct X provides APIs for graphics, sound, network, (controller/joystick/keyboard/mouse) input, etc.

OpenGL is a graphics API.

I can't comment on how Direct3D's functionality compares with OpenGL's, but the OP's first assertion at least is entirely correct; OGL is not a direct replacement for DX in any way.

Re:How many times does it need to be said... (3, Insightful)

d3ac0n (715594) | about 7 years ago | (#18446541)

Reeeeeaaallly?

Hmmm... Forgive me if I am just a TAD skeptical about claims of DX's superiority from someone named MSFanBoi2.

Of course, you could be just engaging in a little humorous sock-puppetry and I'm not getting it.

Either way, I was under the distinct impression that OpenGL was and has been MUCH more advanced than Direct X for many years, and DX-10 doesn't really up the ante much.

Re:How many times does it need to be said... (0, Redundant)

MSFanBoi2 (930319) | about 7 years ago | (#18446797)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenGL_vs._Direct3D [wikipedia.org]

http://www.gamedev.net/reference/articles/article1 775.asp [gamedev.net]

http://www.xmission.com/~legalize/d3d-vs-opengl.ht ml [xmission.com] [(this one is a bit out of date and only covers OpenGL 1.2 and DirectX 8

Re:How many times does it need to be said... (1)

WinterSolstice (223271) | about 7 years ago | (#18447043)

Ok, so based on these (esp the Wiki), there really is no major reason to go with one or the other at this point. Soooo essentially companies will just continue with whatever they had?

Re:How many times does it need to be said... (2, Interesting)

malevolentjelly (1057140) | about 7 years ago | (#18446815)

I work for a major game studio. Direct X games are far easier and cheaper to develop... it's just not a big question for us in the industry. The only benefit to OpenGL at this point for us is for multi-platform graphics. The mac and linux markets for games are... not considerable vs. the ease of development for DX-based games.

It's more capable. That's all there is to it. We wouldn't screw with it if it wasn't.

I'm not a programmer so don't ask me for implementation specifics in this- I am in production.

Vista has a means to use OpenGL- it only usese MSOGL if no alternative driver is presented.

Re:How many times does it need to be said... (1)

Gr8Apes (679165) | about 7 years ago | (#18447309)

It's funny that John Carmack stated pretty much the exact opposite about ease of use and expense to develop with. Of course, in all fairness, that was around the time of DX8. I don't know what his later take is. There were statements made recently (I forget where exactly or I'd reference them) that DX9/10 offered slightly more advanced complex features, but that OpenGL was capable of almost everything the DX clan was. OpenGL has also been moving more slowly on newer features of late, which is a shame and the reason that DX moved ahead on the feature set.

OpenGL is an example of where committee is getting trumped by dictatorship. There's no question of who decides what goes in DX10.

Re:How many times does it need to be said... (1)

malevolentjelly (1057140) | about 7 years ago | (#18447633)

The developers decide what goes into DX10 by requesting features and having communication with Microsoft. This is not a dictatorship. The vendors decide by communicating and implementing features. DX presents standards to the industry, in many cases.

By that logic, graphics chips are designed by dictators, as well. It's just the reality of consumer products... these things cost money to develop. How is Microsoft's development of Direct X in any way different than the "community" corporate development of OpenGL? In either case it's communication between hardware producers, game developers, and API developers- in one case it's specialized for Windows gaming- and it's done quite well.

If it were an inferior product, we'd just use OGL.

Re:How many times does it need to be said... (0, Flamebait)

everphilski (877346) | about 7 years ago | (#18448827)

It's funny that John Carmack stated pretty much the exact opposite about ease of use and expense to develop with.

It was around DX5ish, and he has since recanted. They look forward to using DirectX, which has matured and makes cross-development with the XBOX much, much easier.

Console ports (3, Informative)

tepples (727027) | about 7 years ago | (#18448547)

The only benefit to OpenGL at this point for us is for multi-platform graphics. The mac and linux markets for games are... not considerable
Microsoft Windows, Mac OS X, and */Linux are not the only gaming platforms. If your game studio is actually major, then someone might want to consider set-top or handheld platforms. The graphics APIs of DS, PSP, Wii, and PLAYSTATION 3 closely resemble OpenGL.

Re:Console ports (0, Troll)

malevolentjelly (1057140) | about 7 years ago | (#18448723)

Or- we could optimize our game for the dominant platforms (360, Windows), and then have a smaller, less expensive, less profitable studio under the same publisher handle all the shoulder-work of porting the game to any alternate platforms, such as the less prevalent PS3. We have PS3's but we don't bother with coding them internally.

The ps3's first party toolchain is all linux, or so I hear- although there are third party tools for windows. It's expensive, inefficient, and a major pain compared to 360.

It's better to have an entire linux-based studio handle only ps3 than for us to handle both.

And yes, we're major enough that I don't want to be considered a spokesperson.

Re:Console ports (1)

grahamwest (30174) | about 7 years ago | (#18448815)

DS and PSP are not what I would consider OpenGL-like. Wii, yes. PS3, it's one alternative, but the other, higher-performance API, not so much. The most time-consuming issues of porting are not with the rendering API anyway.

Re:How many times does it need to be said... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#18448585)

I'm not a programmer so don't ask me for implementation specifics in this- I am in production.
Okay, so explain...Direct X games are far easier and cheaper to develop

How do you know that DX games are easier to develop if you are not programming them? Maybe the real problem is you hired a bunch of people who learned to code for DX in college. I know quite a few universities actually teach you to program with OGL, so I am sure there are a few that got paid to teach with DX.

As for cheaper, how so? Does Microsoft charge licensing fees for DX? OGL is open and very standard, so how can it cost more then DX would? OGL would also provide more support then just adding Linux and Mac, it would also boost sales to people running legacy systems, assuming they can even run your game. You talk up DX a lot, but if you don't program in it, I don't get how you can honestly say some of what you are. You been talking to your Microsoft rep lately?

Re:How many times does it need to be said... (1)

Rycross (836649) | about 7 years ago | (#18447505)

No way. OpenGL and Direct3d are both capable of the same sort of effects. OpenGL is in no way "MUCH more advanced" than Direct3d. Thats just wishful thinking.

Re:How many times does it need to be said... (1)

mikael (484) | about 7 years ago | (#18447639)

They're more or less the same - although features usually arrive in Direct3D first, then they are introduced later into OpenGL as custom extensions. These are documented in SGI's registry [sgi.com].

Usually each extension will appear as a vendor specific extension GL_NV_xxxx, GL_ATI_xxxx, then become introduced as a standard extension GL_ARB_xxxx.

Re:How many times does it need to be said... (1)

Surt (22457) | about 7 years ago | (#18446623)

I will second this since 2 people have questioned MSFanBoi's possible motives. Dx9 is better than OGL. The drivers are better, easier to program, easier to access advanced features.

Re:How many times does it need to be said... (1)

ZephyrXero (750822) | about 7 years ago | (#18446877)

How many times does it need to be said... SDL [libsdl.org] and similar open-source cross-platform libraries cover the rest of Direct X that OpenGL does not already cover.

Re:How many times does it need to be said... (1)

tjwhaynes (114792) | about 7 years ago | (#18447533)

Now mayhap the OP is writing about Direct3D... in that case, even DirectX 9.x's version of Direct3d features a LOT more functionality than OpenGL's most recent revision contains.

*sigh* - don't feed the trolls...

There's pretty much feature parity between Direct3D in DirectX 10 and Open GL. Advanced shaders, advanced extensions - they are all in there. Now you may be looking at an OpenGL driver from a manufacturer who doesn't keep up to the spec, but the NVidia OpenGL implementation can access every part of the hardware that Direct3D does.

Now, DirectX covers keyboard handling, spatial sound management and other stuff beyond the actual display. Other platforms tend to use other libraries (such as libSDL) for this functionality.

Cheers,
Toby Haynes

Re:How many times does it need to be said... (2, Insightful)

Sparr0 (451780) | about 7 years ago | (#18447947)

even DirectX 9.x's version of Direct3d features a LOT more functionality than OpenGL's most recent revision contains.
EXCEPT GEOMETRY SHADERS, which was the entire point of the OP.

Will the Lack of DX10 on XP Spur OpenGL Dev? (3, Insightful)

ArcherB (796902) | about 7 years ago | (#18446465)

In a word, NO.

Unfortunately, most game developers will probably continue writing for DX9.0c until the majority of users are running Vista and have DX10 capable video cards.

The exceptions, as listed in the summary, will be those developers that intend for their games to be cross-platform and run on Linux and OSX as well as Visa.

Re: Will the Lack of DX10 on XP Spur OpenGL Dev? (1)

MeanMF (631837) | about 7 years ago | (#18446523)

Game developers have never been shy about demanding the latest and greatest hardware to run their games on. I don't seem them coding to DX9 for much longer.

Re: Will the Lack of DX10 on XP Spur OpenGL Dev? (2, Informative)

dreamchaser (49529) | about 7 years ago | (#18446701)

That's a silly comment. It's not a matter of being shy about it. When barely anyone can run your product, nobody will buy it. Once there is a large enough mass of Vista users then you'll see games start to ditch DX 9 codepaths.

Sheesh, a lot of titles shipping today still have DX 8 codepaths and look pretty damn good on DX 8 hardware.

Pass me that pipe you're smoking :)

Re: Will the Lack of DX10 on XP Spur OpenGL Dev? (1)

Tim C (15259) | about 7 years ago | (#18448797)

Dark Messiah has a Direct 7 codepath; I know because I had huge problems getting the damn thing to run at all at first, and set it to DX7 mode via a command line switch as part of my attempts to get it to work.

Re: Will the Lack of DX10 on XP Spur OpenGL Dev? (1)

antdude (79039) | about 7 years ago | (#18449013)

The bummer part is that users with DX10 cards and Vista will get the enhancements. Crysis and HL2 Ep. 2 will be like this. XP users won't get these even if they have DX10 cards. :(

Hardware an issue? (1)

Sciros (986030) | about 7 years ago | (#18446517)

XP might be the most popular gaming OS at the moment, but the video cards in most computers with XP are likely going to be upgraded simultaneously with everything else (including the OS -- to Vista). The video cards most folks have in their machines aren't so hardcore that DX10 is very critical. By far most of them don't support it anyway.

Though I may have misunderstood the question...

Re:Hardware an issue? (1)

rabbit994 (686936) | about 7 years ago | (#18447065)

Most gamers I know have hardware that will run Vista/Aero and have had that hardware for about year and half. Many cards true are still stuck on DX9 but I would say that's more a software/driver issue then card issue. Most gamers are simply not moving to Vista because many of their games either don't work on Vista or they work but they have issues. Vista security features are really screwing with many games. Gamers will switch to Vista when all these issues are worked out.

DX9 (3, Interesting)

bung-foo (634132) | about 7 years ago | (#18446555)

DX9 should be enough for anybody . . .

Seriously, I doubt that companies like Valve will switch to OpenGL for winxp releases. They already have extensive directx know-how and will probably just build in DX9 and DX10 support just like they currently build in support for DX7, 8 and 9.

In the end, most people will upgrade to vista. Either because they want to or because they need it for a certain program to run or simply because it came pre-installed on their shiny new Dell. It is inevitable.

Re:DX9 (1)

GuyWithLag (621929) | about 7 years ago | (#18448143)

Ah, but don't forget that there's no DirectX on OS X either, and the percentage of Mac desktops can only go up. When implementing an engine with OpenGL, it's relatively easy to write a Mac port - and the windows implementation will run much better in Wine.

Re:DX9 (1)

toleraen (831634) | about 7 years ago | (#18448591)

...the percentage of Mac desktops can only go up.

Really? Because their notebooks aren't doing so hot. [arstechnica.com] I'm pretty sure the same principle could apply to Apple's line of desktops as well.

Re:DX9 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#18449191)

That's a consecutive-quarter comparison, and meaningless. Every year some Dvorak clone trots out the comparison between the holiday quarter and the quarter after that, and "proves" that Apple is doomed.

Re:DX9 (1)

WhiteWolf666 (145211) | about 7 years ago | (#18449201)

That article uses goofy statistics.

It doesn't make sense to compare Q1 to Q4, necessarily, especially when a manufacturer just experienced major growth. See this comment attached to that story:

Apple's FY 1Q07 notebook sales dipped 2% from their FY 4Q06 sales because they had a huge 4Q due to education sales. FY4Q is usually Apple's strongest quarter for computer sales, not FY1Q. This whole issue is like being surprised there's a downturn in retail sales after the holiday season. What is surprising is that the dip was only 2%. Why is this 2 month old data being brought back to life?

Apple's 1Q07 computer sales were up 65% YOY! That's huge growth, not a downturn. Since 2001, their FY1Q sales have almost tripled (243%!). They went from selling approx 650,000 computers in the quarter to over 1,600,000.


As far as I can tell, Apple is doing something right, not wrong. Not to mention that their overall marketshare breached the 5% march for the first time, well, ever; their solidly at 6.5%, as of Feb 2007.

Re:DX9 (1)

toleraen (831634) | about 7 years ago | (#18449395)

Questionable data for sure, thanks for pointing that out. In my above post I was primarily questioning the parent's assertion that Mac Desktop marketshare will only go up, and could never go down.

Re:DX9 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#18448399)

Random shitty fact: Valve's Source engine has an opengl renderer (moronic clueless slashdot bitch: "Where, you idiot??? Got any proof?" - me: "Shut the fuck up!"). So it's very much possible for them to release a opengl version for XP with "DirectX 10" effects. Of course they won't do that (for whatever reason).

The big names in Game Engine development are all using opengl (either both, opengl and direct3d, equally like Epic or with an emphasis on one API) so it's not going away.
The only reason "DirectX" got this far were massive investments from MS. If they'd have just supported and improved opengl like everybody else everyone could be happy now. But that's not how capitalism works, right...

Nope. (4, Insightful)

rblancarte (213492) | about 7 years ago | (#18446563)

I think that a lot of what is going to happen out there is going to be like John Carmack said [gameinformer.com]. I think that overall, you are going to see developers stick with DirectX 9 for the time being. I think this is especially true for Windows only games.

The fact is that if you are developing Windows games, why would you support two APIs when you could support a single one and D9 users would just have to deal with not having the latest bells and whistles? And this doesn't even take into account that D3d is now a more advanced API than OpenGL (which has been mentioned already).

RonB

Re:Nope. (4, Informative)

ad0gg (594412) | about 7 years ago | (#18447047)

DX9.0L also called DX9EX is going to support the new Shader 4.0, aero transparency and other dx10 features. It just doesn't have WDDM which isn't a direct3d feature.

DirectX info [wikipedia.org]
WDDM [wikipedia.org]

Re:Nope. (1)

muxecoid (1061162) | about 7 years ago | (#18449789)

The desktop will be dynamically composed many times a second from the contents of each window.
Isn't it bad for performance (and energy savings)? Applications that redraw evrything and try to achieve high FPS load CPU and GPU heavily.

why support two when you already support...two? (1)

TheAxeMaster (762000) | about 7 years ago | (#18447727)

The PS3 and the Wii both use OpenGL, as well as every Linux system. The xbox and windows use DirectX. So ANY game that is developed for two of the three consoles can use OpenGL and IS built with it. The fact that the developers use DirectX instead of OpenGL when bringing a game to the PC that they're also developing for console is a choice, not a technical limitation.
 
And all the big name titles will be cross-platform, you'll find them on at least the xbox and PS3 (if not the Wii). So what's the real reason that we won't see these games on windows using OpenGL? What's the real reason that game makers, who already have a game built in OpenGL, won't port it to linux and expand their user base? Return on Investment might be it for that, but it doesn't explain why they don't use OpenGL on Windows. There is no extra cost there, they already have the game with OpenGL.

Re:why support two when you already support...two? (3, Interesting)

Mortlath (780961) | about 7 years ago | (#18448593)

The Wii does not use OpenGL. It uses a proprietary graphics API that resembles OpenGL.

I have experience porting our companiy's graphics engine (the OpenGL part of it) to the Wii, and it's not trivial.

Re:Nope. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#18449093)

I'm not sure what people are saying by claiming that dx is "more advanced" than opengl, but the reality is that the two have almost identical functionality these days, and have since dx8.

The main difference between dx and opengl is the extension model. DX uses caps bits, whereas opengl uses separate functions. For a game programmer writing a game on multiple graphics cards, dx's caps bits are way easier to support, since you know that accessing functionality on an ati card is exactly the same code as on an nv card, as long as both support the caps ("capabilities") bits for that feature. Under opengl, you have to get the extension functions for ati and nv separately, (or in the case of more complicated features, a dozen or so functions each) and program to each extended api separately. In practice, pretty much all of dx9 is now accessible from a set of extensions that is common to both ati and nv (known as "arb" extensions), but for dx10 features, I don't believe this is true.

Overall, I'd give this as the relative comparisons between the two apis:

opengl pros:
- cleaner api for basic functionality
- better access to vendor-dependent functionality
- wider cross-platform support (windows/osx/ps3 vs. windows/360)
- not dependent upon the evil MS for features, and don't have to wait for dxN

directx pros:
- cleaner api for modern functionality (shaders, etc)
- (mostly) single code path for all cards with similar functionality
- graphics drivers better optimised for games (especially ati drivers - nv opengl drivers are reasonable)
- not dependent upon the slow as molasses opengl arb for common-api extensions

As for porting games to/from opengl, that can be a *lot* of work for many games. So while having dx10 functionality on xp will be a competitive feature for developers, it probably won't be worth it when you consider that most of the dx10-capable machines will likely be running vista. (unless customer demand for xp forces dell/hp/etc. to continue selling high-end xp machines for a while)

joe

A Turning Tide (2, Interesting)

kornkid606 (1076023) | about 7 years ago | (#18446583)

It is my hope that maybe, just maybe, this could spur developers to, instead of focusing on making a visually cutting-edge game using the latest and greatest hardware and APIs, start to focus on trying to make the most fun and innovative possible game using the "previous gen technology", if you will. Not to say that both can't be achieved, but I would say that invariably games tend to focus on one in favor of the other.

Re:A Turning Tide (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#18446777)

lol! you're a moron. you probably cheer on linsux and crap like that too? loser. go back to your gay bath house.

Re:A Turning Tide (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#18449385)

You'd be surprised at the number of people who upgrade their machine simply to play the latest games.

well (4, Insightful)

mastershake_phd (1050150) | about 7 years ago | (#18446589)

If game developers started moving towards OpenGL Microsoft might release DX10 for XP. They will do anything to prevent something else from gaining a foothold.

Re:well (1)

misleb (129952) | about 7 years ago | (#18448039)

Or they'll just backport the significant new features to DX9... oh wait, they already did with DX9EX ;-)

Blizzard/EA do use cross-platform games (3, Interesting)

Prien715 (251944) | about 7 years ago | (#18446653)

Where are all of the other big names with Windows-only offerings? Why haven't we heard from Valve, Blizzard, Sony, or EA

Sorry, but only one is windows only. Last I checked, World of Warcraft, Warcraft 3, and Diablo II run on Mac. And in the case of WC3, the CD has a Mac and windows version on the same CD. Amazon.com tells me that EA's #1 game (The Sims 2) also runs on the Mac. Can anyone tell me a Windows game Sony makes? The only windows software I can think of is SoundForge and their CD DRM, but the latter I don't think I want to work cross-platform;) That leaves Valve, which is run bun a former MS hotshot, so I think that might have something to do with the company's founder preferring Direct3D.

I think many developers are already using OpenGL, but of course, that's only one part of being cross platform. Network, sound, and input also need to be implemented cross-platform....

Re:Blizzard/EA do use cross-platform games (1)

d3ac0n (715594) | about 7 years ago | (#18446779)

Can anyone tell me a Windows game Sony makes?


Ok, I'll take this one.

http://www.station.sony.com/ [sony.com]

Check the "PC Games" column. Not a single non-Windows compatible game there. They are all Sony products.
(Yeah yeah, Sony didn't originally make many of them, but they own and develop them now, so they are Sony's.)

Re:Blizzard/EA do use cross-platform games (2, Interesting)

WinterSolstice (223271) | about 7 years ago | (#18446823)

Actually, to be fair, the Sims for Mac is done by Aspyr. A 3rd party company who helps Windows only games work on Mac.

However, since EA writes games for Nintendo, Sony, and Microsoft consoles, I suspect they are familiar with both OpenGL and Direct X.

Re:Blizzard/EA do use cross-platform games (1)

tylersoze (789256) | about 7 years ago | (#18447127)

Blizzard is the only major game company I know of that supports both Mac and PC in-house. Aspyr uses their own in-house implementation of the Windows API on OS X to port 3rd party games.

Re:Blizzard/EA do use cross-platform games (1)

Akaihiryuu (786040) | about 7 years ago | (#18447803)

Not just that...but the aforementioned Blizzard games *do* support OpenGL. On Windows they use Direct3D by default, but you can change that behavior with the -opengl command line switch when starting the game. This is why they were so easily portable to MacOSX and why they run so well on Wine.

Two Render Paths (1)

haplo21112 (184264) | about 7 years ago | (#18446677)

Most Games DEVs have already mentioned in various places that they intend to handle the situation at least for now with two render paths, one optomized and used for DX10 and one for DX9.

Remember that Vista doesn't automatically confer DX10 either you need a card that supports DX10 and those are VERY new still the installed base is still mostly DX9 cards reguardless of OS. There are still some users running on DX8 cards as well, which are still well supported in many even new games. The Source engine is even compatible back to DX 7.

Library choice not always exclusive (2, Informative)

ifrag (984323) | about 7 years ago | (#18446731)

Some developers do parallel development in DX9 and OpenGL anyway. Perhaps for increased portability options such as the desire to have an OSX port. You mention Blizzard yet they have already done this. Take Warcraft III for example, the default rendering is of course dx9 but adding the -opengl switch to the command line toggles it over. The game mostly looks the same, although I have to say the fonts look a lot uglier / jagged for some reason. My guess is dx9 must have some sort of font smoothing option that either was not used or perhaps is not present in OpenGL.

As far as input in the windows arena, that area is pretty much fully dominated by DirectX. Even ID Software, who do a lot of work using OpenGL are still using DirectX for DirectInput and DirectSound in win, even if they don't use D3D.

Re:Library choice not always exclusive (1)

Gr8Apes (679165) | about 7 years ago | (#18447423)

They will be using OpenAL instead of DirectSound under Vista if they want any hardware acceleration.

Moot points all around; Have some Wine. (2, Interesting)

byteframe (924916) | about 7 years ago | (#18446783)

Just for your information, the GLORIOUS wine project will eventually have a reverse-engineered implementation of the DX10 API, for all the UNIX flavours it supports, AS WELL AS WINDOWS. Check it out... http://winehq.com/?issue=325#DirectX%2010%20For%20 SoC [winehq.com]?

Short quote:
"Jokes aside, there aren't any dx10 apps yet, except some demo apps. The first one to be expected is Halo 2 on April 24th afaik. The only thing is that MS has created some hype around dx10 recently. It would give us some nice publicity if the Halo 2 box states "Runs on Windows Vista and higher" and winehq.org says "Runs Halo 2 on Linux, MacOS, Windows XP and earlier"

No (1, Insightful)

stratjakt (596332) | about 7 years ago | (#18446971)

OpenGL has outlived it's usefulness for gaming.

It'a tool for programmers, researchers and the CAD industry now.

There's just too many bells and whistles in DX.

The lack of DX10 support for XP will certainly slow the uptake of DX10, however. I bet most development over the next year or two will be in DX9, with a DX10 "bag" hanging off the side.

Multiple Render Paths (2, Insightful)

hoyty (35485) | about 7 years ago | (#18447123)

DX10 is going to be just like DX9 and DX8 before it. In reality we are mostly concerned with the Direct3D portion of DirectX since the rest is more stagnant. When DX9 libraries and later hardware came out developers simlpy turned on the options now supported or speed up the game. The game would interogate the card to see what features and how well they were supported and went on from there. The same will happen with DX10.

As for OpenGL getting a bump out of this, I doubt developers will suddenly add an OpenGL renderer. They will simply fall back to DX9. Other than a few MS first party games I doubt you will see any games requiring DX10 (Vista) in the next 18 months. Even the ones that do like Halo 2 were designed for a DX8 codepath and P3 733 originally so any machine with a DX9 card and P4 or better could support it. MS is simply restricting it to Vista.

Re:Multiple Render Paths (1)

Shados (741919) | about 7 years ago | (#18447449)

Actualy, DX10 is not like that btw. There's no compatibility "bits" or whatsnot. With DX10, its an all or nothing: a card cannot claim DX10 compatibility if it doesn't support the entire spec. Sure, different cards can be slower on certain features than other, but thats it, which is quite very different from previous implementation.

Re:Multiple Render Paths (1)

Ash-Fox (726320) | about 7 years ago | (#18450313)

With DX10, its an all or nothing: a card cannot claim DX10 compatibility if it doesn't support the entire spec.
AMD's x86 processors often claim support for a family of instructions when it doesn't support them fully. Seeing how ATi is now owned by AMD, I wonder if these idiotic practices will spread through ATi's graphic cards too.

Perhaps I am showing my ignorance here... (1)

Pojut (1027544) | about 7 years ago | (#18447179)

...but is Microsoft going to have a 360 update in which 360 games can use some of the features that are in DX10?

It seems silly to me Microsoft would come up with something they think will be such a big improvement for games, and yet not try to get the same tech on the 360...or am I just showing my ignorance here...

Re:Perhaps I am showing my ignorance here... (1)

Jthon (595383) | about 7 years ago | (#18447765)

The 360 already supports many of the DX10 features. It's basically supports an early implementation of the DX10 spec.

Re:Perhaps I am showing my ignorance here... (1)

Pojut (1027544) | about 7 years ago | (#18448135)

ah ok, thanks for the clarification...I knew there had to be something similar to that included in the 360, it would be very unmicrosoft-like to exclude it

Kids these days. (1)

suv4x4 (956391) | about 7 years ago | (#18447193)

DirectX 9L (available for both XP and Vista, Aero runs on 9L, not 10) has more better support for the latest graphics hardware and more features than OpenGL.
The Xbox360 platform shares API details with both Windows and DirectX.

Unless you're seeking cross-platform compatibility and don't the latest and greatest feature, sure go for OpenGL.

In other words, Vista doesn't run well on my current hardware, XP does. Will this make me switch to Ubuntu or something? No, it won't.

Re:Kids these days. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#18447585)

Kids these days [...] more better support


Funny somebody with the grammatical abilities of a 7 year old chiding others for being 'kids'.

Re:Kids these days. (1)

suv4x4 (956391) | about 7 years ago | (#18448599)

Funny somebody with the grammatical abilities of a 7 year old chiding others for being 'kids

I'll feed the troll: this happens because I usually shuffle the text around quickly when replying, and sometimes extraneous or redundant words are left in, which I didn't notice.

If I had to pick between perfect grammar and being useful with my answer, I'd pick the latter. People these days don't have the time to be perfect in everything. Priorities.

Re:Kids these days. (0, Flamebait)

suv4x4 (956391) | about 7 years ago | (#18448737)

Funny somebody with the grammatical abilities of a 7 year old chiding others for being 'kids'.

Sorry you fail in life:

Funny[, ] somebody with the grammatical abilities of a 7 year old [is] chiding others for being 'kids'.

Alternatively:

Funny [that] somebody with the grammatical abilities of a 7 year old [is] chiding others for being 'kids'.

Two reasons that make replying with grammar remarks pointless:

1. You're almost guaranteed to (multiple) make similar mistakes in your "ha-ha you have mistakes" post, which makes you look like an idiot.

2. In a discussion about DirectX and OpenGL, no one cares about the comment grammar, so nitpicking this makes your look like an idiot. Basically no one effin cares.

PS: I don't guarantee this post is completely grammatically correct or typo free either: see point 2.

Re:Kids these days. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#18450077)

Two replies? OP really hit a nerve, didn't he?

Possible update to D3D 9 (1)

ravyne (858869) | about 7 years ago | (#18447969)

While D3D 10 won't be making its way to XP, I don't believe they've ruled out the possibility of an update to D3D 9 adding the new features. Generally, such big features would be a new version number, but numbering schemes don't have to make sense when the marketting folks get involved. D3D 10 and how it works has much more to do with what functionality takes place where (hardware, kernal drivers, or userspace drivers) than what features are exposed. Its simply not possible to take the D3D 10 API and impliment it on the XP driver model without signifigant performance penalties -- If you push all the (Vista) userspace driver functions into a (XP) kernal driver, the overhead of switching from user-space to kernal-space so frequently will kill performance.

Much of the benefit of D3D 10 stems from the new driver model: fast context switching, minimization of the small batch problem, etc. Mind you, D3D 9 would require some signifigant updates to utilize the geometry shader (particularly because it sits between the current vertex and pixel shader stages. It can't just be tacked onto either end.) but there's nothing, technically, which would proclude the GS stage to be exposed.

If we don't see the new hardware features exposed in a D3D 9 update, it'll simply be because Microsoft didn't see any benefit in performing the extra work it would require of them.

As for spurring OpenGL on XP, I think it will. However, until the ARB (now Khronos) adopt an official extension, developers will have to provide seperate paths for each vendor's specific geometry shader extensions - Presuming AMD/ATI expose it in their GL drivers for their next gen cards.

Blizzard... Owned by MS... (1, Troll)

Fallen Kell (165468) | about 7 years ago | (#18447993)

Since they are owned by MS, they will follow company policy, which means DX10, which also means Vista only. How else is MS going to get all the hardcore gamers out there to upgrade to Vista? I mean, think about it, 10-15% performance hit is not something these people will accept. They tweak and tune and spend hundreds of dollars to get even that last 5fps out of a game. Going to Vista is not on their top of the list of things to do to make their games run faster.

So MS decided that since this was going to be the case (and they knew it early on in the Vista development cycle that there was going to be a large performance decrease), they made DX10 Vista only to force these people to upgrade to a product that they did not want.

Re:Blizzard... Owned by MS... (2, Informative)

Atroxodisse (307053) | about 7 years ago | (#18448697)

There was a rumor back in January that MS was going to buy Vivendi games, who own Blizzard, but it was only a rumor. There is no mention of the acquisition on Blizzard's or Vivendi's corporate pages. Multiple articles that reported the acquisition have been deleted from various news outlets. It was in fact a hoax. http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/press/2003/Feb0 3/02-03HoaxWebsitePR.mspx [microsoft.com]

Re:Blizzard... Owned by MS... (1)

Firstoni (1078997) | about 7 years ago | (#18448907)

Blizzard is NOT owned by Microsoft, they are owned by Vivendi

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vivendi_Games [wikipedia.org]

As for openGL support in WoW, they already do so, you can use either Direct3D or opengl

You can do this by changing a line in your config.wtf file

Change SET gxApi to "opengl" or "direct3d" to change modes

No and probably the exactly opposite (1)

Sir_Sri (199544) | about 7 years ago | (#18449323)

OpenGl is good because it's multiplatform and runs basically equally well on everything, that was at least, until vista. It isn't bad under vista but it isn't great. How much that can improve via drivers I don't know.

Directx, being windows only and reasonably easy to use has been a good tool for people making windows only apps. WoW being the only major exception, most games are windows apps first, and then, if they're lucky, ported to another OS.

The big selling point of shader model 4.0 is the geometry shader. Directx seems to be first out the door with useful geometry shader development tools, which more or less locks people into having vista for early adoption, at that point, why bother with OpenGl which may not run as well on vista etc... etc...? I'm not writing a D3D path and an OpenGl path in my engines, and nor would anyone else. That and most game developers already know D3D for the above 'it's what we use' reason, adding in geometry shaders is relatively trivial. Not that learning OpenGl is hard, I started with OpenGl and I think overall (largely the multiplatformness) makes it a superior product to DX9. But DX10 does stuff OpenGl 2.0 doesn't yet, and that's a problem. The apparently reduced performance of OpenGl under Vista, if not corrected/correctable is going to be a rather painful blow to any further OpenGl adoption. As much as it's nice to support a broad base, if 90% of my customers are using windows, I'm not going to sacrifice 10% performance for them to pick up that 10% of linux/mac users, since that will disenfranchise much of the windows base, and they'll buy games from someone who optimized for them. Nor do I want to disenfranchise the 10% of my base that uses vista (as compared to 80% using XP) since they're the 'bleeding edge' type people to begin with, and if they have bad things to say about my game compared to others, that's going to be bad in the long run.

No Effect (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#18450239)

The lack of DX10 (D3D10) affects nothing, as OGL2.0 offers nothing over D3D9 already. Pro game devs don't switch for ideological reasons. (Carmack used OGL because back in the day it was way ahead the half-assed D3D, etc.)
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

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>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...