Forums
New posts
Articles
Product Reviews
Policies
FAQ
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
General Discussions
Switcher Hangout (Windows to Mac)
Very likely to switch
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Xer0" data-source="post: 8781"><p>I've been a coder for years, eventually I worked both with DirectX, OpenGL and Glide (does anyone remember the unfortunate 3dfx attempt at another 3d API?). Each one of those apis has it's advantages and disadvantages, but OpenGL is undoubtely overall better. It's strenght can be summed up by three adjectives: easy, flexible, intuitive. Especially intuitive.</p><p></p><p>The most serious DirectX vice is that to perform the most simple operation, or the most complex one, you must fill enormous structures with information. Putting a single vertex or rendering a complex object, requires the same amount of coding. </p><p></p><p>This is definitely counterintuitive. You start with a complex environment that you've got to deconstruct depending on your needs.</p><p>OpenGL, on the other hand, gives you extremely basic, simple functions - and it's up to you building complex structures on them as you like.</p><p></p><p>Performance isn't an issue anymore. Since the advent of T&L cards, OpenGL and DirectX internal management of transformation, lighting, data caching and so on, has been practically dropped - and it's all to the hardware. </p><p></p><p>Well, anyhow - if you don't trust me, there's more eminent evidence:</p><p>Carmack himself wrote a detailed essay on the argument "OpenGL vs DirectX" in his .plan a couple years ago, bashing the latter.</p><p></p><p>By the way... Microsoft recently acquired all the SGI patents for graphic accelrator designs. If they really wanted to kill OpenGL they can charge licence fees too Nvidia and ATI to making OpenGL compatable accelerators.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Xer0, post: 8781"] I've been a coder for years, eventually I worked both with DirectX, OpenGL and Glide (does anyone remember the unfortunate 3dfx attempt at another 3d API?). Each one of those apis has it's advantages and disadvantages, but OpenGL is undoubtely overall better. It's strenght can be summed up by three adjectives: easy, flexible, intuitive. Especially intuitive. The most serious DirectX vice is that to perform the most simple operation, or the most complex one, you must fill enormous structures with information. Putting a single vertex or rendering a complex object, requires the same amount of coding. This is definitely counterintuitive. You start with a complex environment that you've got to deconstruct depending on your needs. OpenGL, on the other hand, gives you extremely basic, simple functions - and it's up to you building complex structures on them as you like. Performance isn't an issue anymore. Since the advent of T&L cards, OpenGL and DirectX internal management of transformation, lighting, data caching and so on, has been practically dropped - and it's all to the hardware. Well, anyhow - if you don't trust me, there's more eminent evidence: Carmack himself wrote a detailed essay on the argument "OpenGL vs DirectX" in his .plan a couple years ago, bashing the latter. By the way... Microsoft recently acquired all the SGI patents for graphic accelrator designs. If they really wanted to kill OpenGL they can charge licence fees too Nvidia and ATI to making OpenGL compatable accelerators. [/QUOTE]
Verification
Name this item 🌈
Post reply
Forums
General Discussions
Switcher Hangout (Windows to Mac)
Very likely to switch
Top
