next »

[kamac]

Hey.

Let's start a arguments "fight" here (which will ofcourse help me). DX 9.0c vs OpenGL 2.x (because core profile is too much for me. Just as DX 11.)

Could somebody tell me which to pick? And if you could, do not mention portability in OpenGL as a +. I'll keep it in mind.


What I ask you guys for:
Tell your opinion about both OGL and DX and eventually tell which to pick in your opinion.

Thanks!


PS.
Why there's OpenGL thread image:

But there's no DirectX thread image?

[epcc]

Nice troll thread, I'll start.

DirectX is a pain to set up, I've actually never even finished installing that, while OpenGL just needs 2 libraries.
On the other hand, it looks like directx drivers are more stable and it's generally better supported.

Finally, IMHO directx code looks really ugly. (why use caps lock for typenames??)

[Klaim]

Use Ogre, end of conflict.

[kamac]

Use Ogre, end of conflict.

I do at the moment. Though, some fields of it are scarying me off. For example, lots of .dlls required along with .exe. Also, loading terrain from heightmap really takes me time to figure out, because there's no "raw" example of it. (Just their own blend maps)
Currently I am trying to figure out loading terrain, but I am always having memory leaks  

Althrough, I don't want to discuss Ogre here, but DX and OpenGL which is a pain to choose in. Also, I am a big fan of low-level, so I want to learn things of it's type.

Nice troll thread, I'll start.

DirectX is a pain to set up, I've actually never even finished installing that, while OpenGL just needs 2 libraries.
On the other hand, it looks like directx drivers are more stable and it's generally better supported.

Finally, IMHO directx code looks really ugly. (why use caps lock for typenames??)

You have much rights there, except the first sentence  .

[Archibald]

First, OpenGL is portable I know, you said to not mention it, but I wanted to stress the importance of it (portable not only to desktop but also to all mobiles, consoles, etc; requirement to get on the HumbleIndieBundle) and mention this point twice, so I will list it only once and we are even

I was coding in DX and OpenGL like 10 years ago. Today I can only throw away all my DX code and rewrite it, the OpenGL I can copy/paste and it will still work.

DX is not compatible with other versions of DX DX has many valuable components, like Music, graphics, network. You might want to use one of these in future. But if you, let's say have an engine which uses DirectDraw 5 and want to made the sound via DirectMusic 7 it will not work (in the end we ended up rewriting the graphics engine).

D3D is nowadays a bit faster (but really not that much and some will disagree) and better supported (again, not that much). If you are 100% sure you are making on Windows only you are 100% sure you need every tiny bit of performance and you don't ever want to reuse this code you should choose DX.


Overall, for an indie this is a no brainer. OpenGL is more than sufficient (we don't have the funds to make a game that would have AAA art assets which would require such extreme performance) and has many, many nice properties.

[kamac]

Thanks Archibald. That has made many things clear!

But this,

(portable not only to desktop but also to all mobiles, consoles, etc; requirement to get on the HumbleIndieBundle)

convinced me anyway. 

[Raptor85]

It wasn't an option listed but if you do OpenGL ES compatible code....ES code is compatible with GL3 (it's a subset of it) your code will not only work on all major desktop platforms but all mobile platforms and most consoles as well.

[kamac]

But I thought you would have to emulate ES on, say, windows? (Because it cannot run natively?)

[PompiPompi]

Enjoy debugging OpenGL, meanwhile... DirectX users have PIX.
Seriously, this is a classic flame war. DirectX9c is replaced by DX11, so any complaint about DirectX9c is not relevant anymore.
For the basic stuff I don't mind use either, or even both. If I want a high end graphics game, I will probably choose DX11, and then maybe have a simplified version implemented with OpenGL. (If I want my game to work on Android and other platforms).
I am not sure about the future of DX though, since MS might neglect it's development in order to put more effort in phone\tablet devices instead.

[Archibald]

DirectX9c is replaced by DX11, so any complaint about DirectX9c is not relevant anymore.

DX above 9.0c is not supported by WinXP and you want to still support WinXP nowadays, therefore DX 11 is useless and can't be taken into account.
Of course you could make a game with 2 versions (9.0c for WinXP and 11 for newer Windows) but...

[PompiPompi]

Are you serious?
There is really no reason to develop a 3D game to WinXP these days. Not financial reason, at least.
Why not develop games for windows 98?
Also, DirectX9c got PIX as well... so...

[Archibald]

Are you serious?
There is really no reason to develop a 3D game to WinXP these days. Not financial reason, at least.
Why not develop games for windows 98?
Also, DirectX9c got PIX as well... so...

Sigh... WinXP is the second most popular OS on this planet.

http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_os.asp

[rivon]

If you ever decide to do something in DirectX, at least have a 9c build. There's a lot of GPUs which don't support DX11.

[PompiPompi]

If you ever decide to do something in DirectX, at least have a 9c build. There's a lot of GPUs which don't support DX11.

Wrong, DX11 support DX9 features GPUs.
Using the DX11 API doesn't mean you have to use the DX11 features.

[rivon]

So something written using DX11 will work even on GF 8xxx-9xxx (and ATI equivalent)?