Microsoft don't deserve jack's shit. The only reason why they created the broken mess known as DirectX is so they can control the game industry. They launch FUD (Fear Uncertainty Doubt) campaigns against OpenGL, in 2005 they finally got their way and developers moved over to DirectX. This way, Microsoft was able to gain control, big budget games are only on Windows and they force XP users to 'upgrade' to play newer games. As a side note, OpenGL had tessellation 3 years before DirectX touched it.
I agree with you, in terms of cryteck getting credit, but i think microsoft diserves a bit of credit, as nobody seems to give the poor microsoft programmers any credit either. :)
Java was supposed to be a big breakthrough to allow programs to run cross-platform as long as they go through Java. MS screwed it up by paying others to write for their broken Java code. OpenGL is supposed to be the same thing. MS will probably adapt it, break it, and force others to write for the broken code so the real code won't work with the software. That's just how Microsoft does things.
windows is the best OS ever and linux sucks just look at windows best features 1) lots of free worthless just preinstalled so you waste less HDD space 2) BSOD's 3) DRM that copyprotects your files so you can't move as there now owned by the folder there in 3) no patches to fix security hole and when they do actually make them they take weeks and only when there a problem for businesses 4) overpriced so you don't have to find somewhere else to spend it 5) anti competitive practices
im a total noob when it comes to opengl... is there a way i can "accelerate" opengl without buying a new video card? i want to play a game called minecraft on windows xp and i cant...
open GL is better, more fast rapid to work in viewers in 3dsmax, directx is better to view the viewers of 3dsmax with shadow and oclusion (this opengl cant do), but to work with scenes with very much polys i think opengl is the future :) (sorry mi english :P)
Microsoft isn't able to make a stable messenger after 10 years.. and we play games on their DirectX
find the error..
Take a look at the graphic on a ps3 with a five years old geforce using OpenGL with 256mg of SDRAM and then imagine what we could accomplish with our new rigs.
OpenGL.. please rise and shine so all can enjoy a powerful gaming tool for Windows and Linux
@kicknetik Quite obviously the logic behind your beginning statement is flawed, as Microsoft created a stable OS. The fact that Microsoft can make a stable OS and whether they can or cannot make a messenger are two entirely different things.
Hence, your comparison of DirectX and Messenger is flawed.
@Newbpwng that's already changing, because of free software like GNU/Linux
The comunity are creating their own games, based of course in the classic games, like quake, unreal and other like simulators.
In the same way some companies are making "native loaders" to install the games in linux without using WINE (a windows emulator) like ID software with Doom3 and other games.
As well you can use the games with emulators with very good results.
Dude write down what you want to say before you speak man.. This is a 7 min rant filled with Uh and Ums. I was interested in what you had to say until minute 3
Like its the same thing really, its just different programming experience. As a programmer OpenGl is nicer code. And directX is Microsoft way to control the market, but basically they use the same hardware. Opengl allows you to use the 'new features' of the graphics card without a new release, while directX releases a new version nearly every time LOL, that so you buy the latest and gratist card
instead of a tipple kill how about 1 post. The crysis differences you see are paid off. You can enable the higher settings in DX9 mode with console variables. Crysis was in development before DX10 was released. You can run it at the same quality at a better speed when the driver isnt rigged, check out irrlicht. Direct3D is easier to program in.
You will always see a difference if you want to see it. Its psychological.
Crysis wouldn't be able to have these advanced effects, sure it could have mediocre versions of the effects, but if it wasn't for the new features in DirectX 10, such as Shader Model 4, you couldn't have the richness of the effect, and DirectX games, look better than OpenGL, I haven't seen many OpenGL games that look as good as a DirectX game, of the same quality.
Well, artistry is one thing and technology is another. I have another vid on this explaining why Direct has its roots in games vs openGL for rendering.
I've only watched up to 1:38 so far.. what you said is that the credit should be gives to crytek for writing crysis and you sir are correct, but you must realise that crytek didn't write all the libraries that the game uses.. crytek didn't write directx 10, which in my opinion would have taken far greater effort to design than a game itself. Directx is a product of Microsoft and a part of windows, and any application written using these libraries should be giving recognition to windows.
also cry tech did not use their own operating system to create the game. so if the game was created using Microsoft windows then i understand y they get a lot of credit for it.
so closed minded and you talk about me. This is from a guy on either side. He is a developer. more than you will ever do with code. direct os MS only, that sucks. get over it.
with d3d 10, the api was modernized to a shader only model. opengl is still a big mess of old and new, and kronos did not hold it's promise in deprecating the old stuff in ogl3; making ogl similar to what d3d10 is now. d3d10 is more usable and cleaner from a coder's perspective. the non-windows gamer market is also small(but growing), and developing crossplatform code is not worth it from a manager's view, so using the MS (better)supported d3d is a natural choice for the target platform(windows)
it being MS only makes it worse. Performance aside Directx is LOCKED to MS only. Opengl does it all. Medical industry, military, games. Directx is good at one thing, games.
In the Military industry at around 2005 began implementing codes that allowed their troops to use 3D real life combat scenario's using DX, during which their performance and using of the DX coding to make real life scenario's even more opportunistic has broadened and is being supported heavily on DX10 since 2007 and is now going to be using DX11 by the end of 2010.
They used OpenGL for many years until they reached a dead end with what they could use it for.
I am not sure where you get your info, but VR has been since the 60's, I saw it in the early 90's with my own eyes and all of it was UNIX. Granted their is plenty of windows now in the military, but OpenGL's true power is that it has no limits and is far more customizable than DX in specific vendor application. I do not doubt that DX is used in games written, depending on the platform the department chooses, but it should not be debated in context of DX over OpenGL, as that would not prove it
I wasn't talking about VR in general, I was talking about the history of DX being used in the military since 1996, was abandoned later for OGL then started using DX more in 2003 and made it official in 2005. And my point is not DX vs. OGL in favor of DX, it was merely to point out that many companies besides CGI based movie industries such as Marvel, DC Comics, and specific scientific firms use OGL while many other industries use DX.
Windows is cheaper (vs UNIX), therefore DX is cheaper, Linux did not make enough inroads for typical government verification, to combat it for price point. OS X is not even in the game for this context, but DX is a game platform and will be used in that context no doubt.
doesn't matter if games were ported to mac/Linux OSes you wouldn't get much out of it anyway since mac don't offer good video cards with their already overpriced shit and Linux users love the fact of everything being free.
so... can you actually imagine these people keeping their hardware upto date enough to play new games? stop being a jealous baby and admit it... windows is the best OS and 90% market share proves it.
their development and features of OSX came out only in OSX.5, their UI was never implemented the way it is now, it was only ever implemented during OSX.5. I really get tired of this bullshit and in reality, Apple copied most of their shit Unix based OS's, such as Linux and Solaris. In the end OSX may be more stable, but it doesn't mean it's the best.
who told you that? Their UI has been in place since the use of BSD as related to OpenGL. What was copied? They only took the mach micro kernel and then borrowed heavily from blue box and yellow box which already had the beginnings of the dock. OSX comes from Next and Open Step which were co-developed and controlled by Jobs and Next Software in the mid 90's, it was well ahead of windows and NT. To say UI would only imply linux and I would disagree.
OSX is Unix based OS's, the functionality, stability and most of their abilities were Unix based. What I was stating that most Unix based OS's had to be used and copied in certain functionality, perhaps improved upon and so forth. This is nothing new all in all, Vista took the XP Kernal System and revamped it, the only thing that caused the problems were the fact they never gave developer's enough time to implement their program's in real life situations, such was the fate of XP as well.
Wait the context is UI, how is this copying UNIX. Cocoa (its roots) is all Next Step. If we are discussing mid level to micro kernel function then yes BSD was used and improved upon. Vista is server 2003 code. MS constantly changes kernel core and adds more virtualization or hypervisor like implementations, their legacy and inconsistency is their main faults
I was stating many other OS's which are Unix based also have very similar UI as OSX does as it model's keep improving, from OSX-OSX.5, there were some function's in the UI which were taken from the other Unix based OS's and either improved upon or copy, such is the same as Windows.
For the sake of a bottom line in my opinion DX should have been left out so that all platforms today could share the same API, but the business model MS chose to cut out SGI is what we are stuck with. Note that NT 4 was full OpenGL back in the day when they had a real nice plan NT. The Fahrenheit project in essense is the DX start to dominance via win 95 onward.
In all honesty I would have to agree with you on that at least. But in some great degree there are video game developers who work with both and I've actually said this before and they stated it was a horrible idea.
Why it was is that OpenGL gives you less code to work with in their line of work and it as less flexible as most would try to assume, not to mention their is a huge line of back coding which eventually drags out as you continue development.
And as they backtrack top clean the access coding they always end up missing some of it, in any which case causes the game to be either not as smooth, some of graphics being faulty declined and so forth.
That's really the huge problem with OpenGL that they have with it and they state the same problem is with OpenGL 3.0 that they have observed. Of they could clean it out, then they would probably experiment more with it, but until that time comes sadly enough it would be DX for a while.
to say to both comments, i know developers on both sides that prefer one over the other and the old specifications is always used as an excuse for DX fans but not in actual application, it is simply not called. Its like OOP vs procedural programmers or those that fight for VB over C#. OpenGL is not considered because DX is here to stay so long as Windows is the dominant platform. It is too costly to generalize and is why it is bad now. My statement was wishful thinking of the past.
You are correct in that prospect and I do agree with you over all. Perhaps OpenGL may gain more publicity if it ever does work out the access coding it leaves behind during development; and if it does that it could very well work out the flexibility issues game designers (I'm talking about the ones that were apart of the greatest titles that have come out on the PC) have had with OpenGL. But again that has to do with the developers.
It will work out when Windows allows hardware acceleration for OpenGL as it does with DX rather than make it vendor specific and more work for the vendors. So no doubt I as a developer would be pissed and not want to bother with it. Thanks for the comments by the way.
consoles might strengthen OpenGL even more but Xbox is big. But the whole OpenGL Driver complaint which has to do with acceleration stems with specific driver model development, but this becomes more moot with consoles. so eh, who knows.
one last thing on acceleration for context, while OpenGL can use vendor specific drivers for the API which is also inherit to an open API, but that for Vista using desktop manager for both APIs and old driver specs vs vista specific specs to work with the desktop manager make the difference for programming between OpenGL and DX when it comes to getting access to the GPU or the 1.4 spec.
Yah so true I was reading the comment's section and I have to say you are so right about that. Truth be told though my personal opinion on the whole console deal you are right in some aspects. But if Xbox loses it's flare that's not really to promise that OpenGL will be used for gaming on a PC as well. Although we can see a very high shift in console developed games. But to say that would effect game development on computer's is like a 50/50 chance. It's still a good chance but not guaranteed
The other issue with the old specs, I should not say old either, it has to do with acceleration vs stand alone rendering excess from a DX point of view. when put into context because windows does not accelerate openGL vendors have to give their own and then to the card, that is messy and time consuming but not because of OpenGL but MS.
@mrbit10 That's correct, it is because of MS. Have you programmed? For PS3, most programmers don't use GL even though it is there. Nintendo doesn't have GL but I have heard their API looks like GL.
My point is, is that all OS's OSX, Linux, Window's and so forth copied from one or another feature within one another, either used few features from blue box and yellow box, or used many features, improved upon what they already had and then you get the new Unix based, Windows based or whatever OS based you get. OSX is really nothing special considering the history of things with OS's.
I would say that Linux and OS X are quite special given that Linux was to ride on GNU and so on. We cannot ignore evolution of OSs, the reason why we pick on Windows is that while Linux and Next to OS X BeOS, Teligent and so on have added so much in UI, IPC, RPC and so on, MS constantly changed gears. Their vision with where NT was supposed to go with NT 4 was awesome but was abandoned. IN other words not so much evolving but blocking parts to an ends.
Windows has 90% of the market share that doesn't mean it is being utilized by 90% of the people. It just means that linux is free, mac is overpriced, and those who want to play games use windows.
About game developing look at it from a programmer's point of view. His games wouldn't be sold on linux, because most of the users running linux wouldn't buy his games.
Use what you like and what's good for you. I'm a hybrid (Win/Lin).
very closed minded. Yes, windows may be good for gaming, but not much else. I understand you probably mostly play games now, but when you start using a computer for more than just games, a lot of flaws in windows become visible.
Windows supports DX because they want to slow the market down and cripple other competitors. This comparison is not as good as the Xbox 360 vs. PS3 because they both use different code like you said ps3 uses openGl and Xbox uses DX but Microsoft was going to use HD-DvD but they knew they would hassle developers with the extreme disc sizes so they opted not to so they could grab more of the market
they both deserve credit. MS for developing the classes and libraries(its harder than you think) that allows for such amazing looking game. and they deserve credit for being good at what they doo
Valve is working on porting their games to work on Linux Natively. You can get a majority of Valve games to work in Linux with WINE, Cedega, or CrossOver Linux, but they do run a little slower than in Windows. A few Mac users don't realize they can also use Wine for Windows games or apps.
Hey, do you have link to the full demo video you featured? I love those things. How does my Quake Wars Enemy Territory work on my Mac? It's the version developed to run in Leopard, do they convert it into Open GL? Great game by the way if yo haven't got it.
i personally prefer bsd distros but linux and opensolaris are great operating systems aswell, my support for them and hope soon opengl will set as the main gaming development architecure. windows is good, but what worths being good if ur standing in a pile of shittie code and retard security layers? fuck windows. long live free systems
For a long time, Direct3D was considered to be pretty bad compared to OpenGL. Recent advancements in the API, however, have made it very powerful and stable.
@TearsOfWar1 All Windows since Win 95 has GL implemented. My comment has nothing to do with your troubles with a game. GL is not OS specific. Actually, I didn't tell the whole truth since there is some additional stuff for the OS specific part (WGL, glX). As for DirectX, it just doesn't have that additional API for the other OSes. It only has it for Windows. I still stand by my comment that DirectX10 is for selling Windows Vista and it's all about marketing bullshit.
@vmelkon So tell me how to use Open GL to play my games. Let's see the wire frame on Uningine Heaven running Open Gl and the one from DX11. I bet you anything that DX11 is a shit load more detailed.
@TearsOfWar1 detail comes from instruction to the pixel buffer which then relies on shader models, both can do the same exact spec on pixel buffers. The variables are, system throughput, video card that can determine how much the software can use.
@TearsOfWar1 i would disagree. I have seen countless benching software not have the time for all functions & use. But let us use your scenario of frame, ok so could it be one API uses one buffer over another, in final out via pixels a lot of math can do a lot of the end work using other buffers with less code. Also what example are being shown, a 3D engine is the foundation from which the house is built. Is there a particular reason you have a bias over OpenGL?
@TearsOfWar1 saying it is cross platform does not guarantee use of all API functions across the board. In either case all my FPS games are windows based but that does not mean i take away from DX or OpenGL. MS has made much headway vs SGI's baby.
@mrbit10 So are you saying Uningine doesn't really show what Open GL can do, but does for DX11? I just want to know how to use Open GL to play my game on windows 7. I would really appreciate it if you could tell me.
@TearsOfWar1 i am saying its an engine,a part of the equation, Do have no proof of what functions they use? What spec to which shader??? Do you know? What i am saying is i know the specifications of both APIs whether they are used or not is a whole other story. The game would have to be written to be in OpenGL, Windows in the 90's because it could not support SGI's driver went with an inferior product at the time, BUT they have made it into...
@TearsOfWar1 ... they have made it into a very powerful API. But because of these business decisions, hardware acceleration in certain situations was denied or error. Now both APIs answer to DWM in windows BUT your game would have to be written in openGL to get your games to play. Just like a DX game would have to be written in OpenGL.
@TearsOfWar1 this video is about getting everyone to play, MS screwed that up by cornering the market to itself when everything was OpenGL back then. SO be it, i play FPS all the time and enjoy them on my custom rig.
@mrbit10 But I don't get how that is bad. Microsoft just used a good marketing tactic (which all corporations do). DirectX gives Open GL competition, which I think is a good thing because it gives them both more incentive to advance.
@TearsOfWar1 well, they still could, right now ATI & NVidia can make custom use of openGL vs DX where MS states the rules. MS could have used OpenGL as they originally planned with SGI in 95/96 via Fahrenheit project for NT AND made a customized branded use for it and adding patents to it as they do with CSS, that would have made great competition advancing an API all could play. Although licensing costs would be different.
@TearsOfWar1 The game would be programmed to use GL or D3D or both. If it is both, then it would be somewhere in the settings and you can choose GL. I don't know about Uningine Heaven and I don't know if it supports GL. From the googling I did, it seems to be a DirectX 11 benchmark.
@vmelkon Uningine uses Open GL as well. Look at some videos showing Uningine using Open GL. Open GL 4.0 is the counter to DX11. I think it uses 4.0, if not, then I really don't know what it has to offer. I don't care how it is coded, I only care about the graphics it can produce and how efficiently.
All my DirectX10 games works smooth on maximum quality settings, sadly I cannot say this about DirectX9! So DX10 is far better than DX9! I don't know about OPENGL! Not many new games use opengl! LOL!
What you're saying is more hopeful thinking! You really dint tried both to formulate an advised opinion so next time do your homework before posting vids like this!
This video was originally a response to a user showing off Crysis to blow up windows. This was to give credit where credit is due. DX has improved, but its ram management is not equal to OpenGL. If you want technical OpenGL stuff look at my behind the scenes of leopard videos.
btw the crysis creators are working on porting crysis server to linux for obvious reasons (at least obvious to me and any other linux user) so they do see the advantages on moving to this direction
i already have ubuntu, knoppix and the mac osx 10.4 ,apple has done somethin with the boot process so u can install it but it won't work in AMD although u can install it in INTEL.. does anyone have any idea how i cud make it run on my AMD??
Crysis should get a lot of the credit, but they CHOSE DX10 to showcase their development when it comes to the highest detail levels of the engine, therefore in this respect, some credit needs to go to MS. Another example... The Bugatti Veyron gets credit for going 400+ KPH in speed and thtas great, they should get credit. Without Michellin developing the tires for that car, it could not acheive this so someone should give Michellin some credit too.
See the problem is that OpenGL is only for graphics. DirectX handles graphics, sound, input and a whole lot more. DirectX is more suited for games because of the extras it can handle. At least this is what I think.
totally forgot about that, yes you're right. Up to DX9, direct sound was present but from vista on its gone. Still, DirectX does do more than just 3D acceleration.
Well they would still have to port, but it will probably be easier. Problem is that I think with bootcamp availability, I suspect a lot of game companies will think "Well we'll just make the game for windows...mac users can just jump into windows and play anyway". I think they will be disouraged in making an OSX version because of this no?
nah, just go openGL and they are there even for linux. Windows can run OpenGL just as well, basically everyone from Unix to linux to Mac to Win PC can play with one standard.
urantivirus, ur right a bit but wrong. Crysis has to be ported to opengl to run on PS3. Xbox/360 is the only game company thats *allowed* to use directX. There fore all wii, PS3 games are OpenGL. Yes 90% of game companys do their games in DirectX and port if needed. But if your game engine is made well and is good quality changing a API from directx to opengl/vice virsa should be a breeze. Its no big deal they both can do about the same things.
Why did they make Crysis for Windows? Why did they run the Crytek engine in DirectX? Why does OpenGL need to be ported? If it was just as good, wouldn't they make it for both? Or just for OpenGL? They stopped doing that a long time ago. DirectX has been on top of the game since.
eh, i would not disqualify promotional alliances as to promote and cross promote one's product. ID and EA are moving to openGL, the issue is that windows limited its support of openGL wisely if you are a MS fan and put their big guns behind Direct.
DirectX is good, but i like opengl better. Why, i like the design better... They are both capable of the same thing. And i agree that crysis should get the credit, I like windows though, personally i take it over a mac, it runs fine for me. But mac is good too. Its personal preference, and it should be nothing more.
Windows runs fine for me too, I bloody love it. But DX is nothing compared to OpenGL. It has a much better API, can be written in C++ among other languages (so it is easily portable) and I just generally prefer the graphics it produces to DX.
lol, the choice between the two APIs for game development is a total matter of preference and it depends on what tools you need, with DirectX, the tools are fully integrated and a bit easier to access, whereas in Linux it takes a bit more to integrate it's extension (such as Fmod, when DX has integrated sound)
OpenGL sdvantages, are universal platform support, and easier initialization.
I would love to see a switch to open GL. Windows can run open GL so why not? Oh thats right that corner of the market would be gone because most gamers are technically inclined enough to run linux. lol.
Crysis: Marketing tool to pimp out Mircrosoft.
Microsoft/Windows: Just a plain tool.
bradysiemensuper 1 month ago
That bit at the beginning about credit, bullshit:
Credit allocated in this way,
Cryteck: well done on using these tools to the standard that you have.
Windows: well done on creating directx which has the sufficient power and tools to allow these people to do this and make it beautiful!
ICouldBeDaniel 1 month ago
I totally 100% agree with you...
And I was confused witch should I start learning along with C++ and SDL...
It will be OpenGL.
Thank to you, sir.
pufixas 2 months ago
Microsoft don't deserve jack's shit. The only reason why they created the broken mess known as DirectX is so they can control the game industry. They launch FUD (Fear Uncertainty Doubt) campaigns against OpenGL, in 2005 they finally got their way and developers moved over to DirectX. This way, Microsoft was able to gain control, big budget games are only on Windows and they force XP users to 'upgrade' to play newer games. As a side note, OpenGL had tessellation 3 years before DirectX touched it.
MrDimwit646 2 months ago
I agree with you, in terms of cryteck getting credit, but i think microsoft diserves a bit of credit, as nobody seems to give the poor microsoft programmers any credit either. :)
XeadXhot 8 months ago
@XeadXhot yea not even microsoft xD
313hummer 7 months ago
Java was supposed to be a big breakthrough to allow programs to run cross-platform as long as they go through Java. MS screwed it up by paying others to write for their broken Java code. OpenGL is supposed to be the same thing. MS will probably adapt it, break it, and force others to write for the broken code so the real code won't work with the software. That's just how Microsoft does things.
rifall 1 year ago
@rifall Facts of life. The three E's and Microsofts monopoly.
MsPwain 9 months ago
6) games only work 100% on windows
ihall4 1 year ago
windows is the best OS ever and linux sucks just look at windows best features 1) lots of free worthless just preinstalled so you waste less HDD space 2) BSOD's 3) DRM that copyprotects your files so you can't move as there now owned by the folder there in 3) no patches to fix security hole and when they do actually make them they take weeks and only when there a problem for businesses 4) overpriced so you don't have to find somewhere else to spend it 5) anti competitive practices
ihall4 1 year ago
im a total noob when it comes to opengl... is there a way i can "accelerate" opengl without buying a new video card? i want to play a game called minecraft on windows xp and i cant...
pglAymer 1 year ago
@pglAymer go to some forums of the OS you're using.
rifall 1 year ago
open GL is better, more fast rapid to work in viewers in 3dsmax, directx is better to view the viewers of 3dsmax with shadow and oclusion (this opengl cant do), but to work with scenes with very much polys i think opengl is the future :) (sorry mi english :P)
curso3dsmax 1 year ago
Microsoft isn't able to make a stable messenger after 10 years.. and we play games on their DirectX
find the error..
Take a look at the graphic on a ps3 with a five years old geforce using OpenGL with 256mg of SDRAM and then imagine what we could accomplish with our new rigs.
OpenGL.. please rise and shine so all can enjoy a powerful gaming tool for Windows and Linux
kicknetik 1 year ago
@kicknetik Quite obviously the logic behind your beginning statement is flawed, as Microsoft created a stable OS. The fact that Microsoft can make a stable OS and whether they can or cannot make a messenger are two entirely different things.
Hence, your comparison of DirectX and Messenger is flawed.
SpockCOD 1 year ago
OpenGL is not inherently open source. It's an open standard. Most implementations are closed source.
TearsOfWar1 1 year ago
@TearsOfWar1 that is correct nothing about openGL is open source, its an open Standard. I have a few vids on that.
mrbit10 1 year ago
direct X :bether quality
opengl:more FPS
right?
GedankeFleisch 1 year ago
@GedankeFleisch mmmm... maybe yeah
sopotito 1 year ago
games wont be moved to OpenGL becouse then windows wont be so exclusive in games and ppl will start buying other operational softwares
Newbpwng 1 year ago
@Newbpwng that's already changing, because of free software like GNU/Linux
The comunity are creating their own games, based of course in the classic games, like quake, unreal and other like simulators.
In the same way some companies are making "native loaders" to install the games in linux without using WINE (a windows emulator) like ID software with Doom3 and other games.
As well you can use the games with emulators with very good results.
And now consoles... PS3 and Xbox... what else!
sopotito 1 year ago
OpenGL is universal.
Crytek is overrated.
02daft 2 years ago
What is your favorite GPU maker?
MasaruGamer 2 years ago
you don't know what you are talking about buddy
FromStoneage 2 years ago
Dude write down what you want to say before you speak man.. This is a 7 min rant filled with Uh and Ums. I was interested in what you had to say until minute 3
Okidata29 2 years ago
noted as this was a vid from 07 and i have worked on that for my more recent vids.
mrbit10 2 years ago
Like its the same thing really, its just different programming experience. As a programmer OpenGl is nicer code. And directX is Microsoft way to control the market, but basically they use the same hardware. Opengl allows you to use the 'new features' of the graphics card without a new release, while directX releases a new version nearly every time LOL, that so you buy the latest and gratist card
Rhembot 2 years ago
instead of a tipple kill how about 1 post. The crysis differences you see are paid off. You can enable the higher settings in DX9 mode with console variables. Crysis was in development before DX10 was released. You can run it at the same quality at a better speed when the driver isnt rigged, check out irrlicht. Direct3D is easier to program in.
You will always see a difference if you want to see it. Its psychological.
About the PS3, it uses opengl ES 2.0
L33F3R 2 years ago
You can run OpenGL just as well, but can you run it, just as well, on the same level of quality as DirectX?
ChrisVistaAssn 2 years ago
Quake 4 has high quality that compares to Direct X and thats OpenGL
JakJak478 2 years ago 2
Crysis wouldn't be able to have these advanced effects, sure it could have mediocre versions of the effects, but if it wasn't for the new features in DirectX 10, such as Shader Model 4, you couldn't have the richness of the effect, and DirectX games, look better than OpenGL, I haven't seen many OpenGL games that look as good as a DirectX game, of the same quality.
ChrisVistaAssn 2 years ago
Well, artistry is one thing and technology is another. I have another vid on this explaining why Direct has its roots in games vs openGL for rendering.
mrbit10 2 years ago
I do all my gameing in DirectX, and my CGI renders in DirectX's Direct3D.
ChrisVistaAssn 2 years ago
@ChrisVistaAssn
see playstation 3
as for crysis: DX10 and DX9 modes look exactly the same. (SM3/SM4)
L33F3R 2 years ago
what about PS3?
Yea, but their are some things that look way better in DX10 than DX9, also, I notice on my computer Crysis plays better in DX10, than DX9.
ChrisVistaAssn 2 years ago
DX9 left, DX10 right, their are subtle differences, but they are noticeable.
ht tp :// tiny . cc / lkD81
ChrisVistaAssn 2 years ago
go suck a penguin dick
YamahaYourFace 2 years ago
I've only watched up to 1:38 so far.. what you said is that the credit should be gives to crytek for writing crysis and you sir are correct, but you must realise that crytek didn't write all the libraries that the game uses.. crytek didn't write directx 10, which in my opinion would have taken far greater effort to design than a game itself. Directx is a product of Microsoft and a part of windows, and any application written using these libraries should be giving recognition to windows.
supadox 3 years ago
also cry tech did not use their own operating system to create the game. so if the game was created using Microsoft windows then i understand y they get a lot of credit for it.
but yah cry tech should get more credit
romoemi 3 years ago
Opengl sucks! Get over it! Outperform DirectX... LOL! In your dreams!
SuperiorBeen 3 years ago
so closed minded and you talk about me. This is from a guy on either side. He is a developer. more than you will ever do with code. direct os MS only, that sucks. get over it.
AppleSoldier 3 years ago
wow, well said. I like how you are very open minded and obviously do more than just play games. You seem like a very intelligible person to me.
samman101 3 years ago
with d3d 10, the api was modernized to a shader only model. opengl is still a big mess of old and new, and kronos did not hold it's promise in deprecating the old stuff in ogl3; making ogl similar to what d3d10 is now. d3d10 is more usable and cleaner from a coder's perspective. the non-windows gamer market is also small(but growing), and developing crossplatform code is not worth it from a manager's view, so using the MS (better)supported d3d is a natural choice for the target platform(windows)
fishmd88 3 years ago
it being MS only makes it worse. Performance aside Directx is LOCKED to MS only. Opengl does it all. Medical industry, military, games. Directx is good at one thing, games.
AppleSoldier 3 years ago
In the Military industry at around 2005 began implementing codes that allowed their troops to use 3D real life combat scenario's using DX, during which their performance and using of the DX coding to make real life scenario's even more opportunistic has broadened and is being supported heavily on DX10 since 2007 and is now going to be using DX11 by the end of 2010.
They used OpenGL for many years until they reached a dead end with what they could use it for.
IamtheVOICE123 3 years ago
I am not sure where you get your info, but VR has been since the 60's, I saw it in the early 90's with my own eyes and all of it was UNIX. Granted their is plenty of windows now in the military, but OpenGL's true power is that it has no limits and is far more customizable than DX in specific vendor application. I do not doubt that DX is used in games written, depending on the platform the department chooses, but it should not be debated in context of DX over OpenGL, as that would not prove it
mrbit10 3 years ago
I wasn't talking about VR in general, I was talking about the history of DX being used in the military since 1996, was abandoned later for OGL then started using DX more in 2003 and made it official in 2005. And my point is not DX vs. OGL in favor of DX, it was merely to point out that many companies besides CGI based movie industries such as Marvel, DC Comics, and specific scientific firms use OGL while many other industries use DX.
IamtheVOICE123 3 years ago
Windows is cheaper (vs UNIX), therefore DX is cheaper, Linux did not make enough inroads for typical government verification, to combat it for price point. OS X is not even in the game for this context, but DX is a game platform and will be used in that context no doubt.
mrbit10 3 years ago
if you're so butthurt, build a fucking pc...
doesn't matter if games were ported to mac/Linux OSes you wouldn't get much out of it anyway since mac don't offer good video cards with their already overpriced shit and Linux users love the fact of everything being free.
so... can you actually imagine these people keeping their hardware upto date enough to play new games? stop being a jealous baby and admit it... windows is the best OS and 90% market share proves it.
OriginalUsernameHere 3 years ago
Lol. Windows coping mac proves mac is the best OS. Also, the only reason macs cost a little bit more is because it comes with more software.
owchywawa 3 years ago
their development and features of OSX came out only in OSX.5, their UI was never implemented the way it is now, it was only ever implemented during OSX.5. I really get tired of this bullshit and in reality, Apple copied most of their shit Unix based OS's, such as Linux and Solaris. In the end OSX may be more stable, but it doesn't mean it's the best.
IamtheVOICE123 3 years ago
who told you that? Their UI has been in place since the use of BSD as related to OpenGL. What was copied? They only took the mach micro kernel and then borrowed heavily from blue box and yellow box which already had the beginnings of the dock. OSX comes from Next and Open Step which were co-developed and controlled by Jobs and Next Software in the mid 90's, it was well ahead of windows and NT. To say UI would only imply linux and I would disagree.
mrbit10 3 years ago
OSX is Unix based OS's, the functionality, stability and most of their abilities were Unix based. What I was stating that most Unix based OS's had to be used and copied in certain functionality, perhaps improved upon and so forth. This is nothing new all in all, Vista took the XP Kernal System and revamped it, the only thing that caused the problems were the fact they never gave developer's enough time to implement their program's in real life situations, such was the fate of XP as well.
IamtheVOICE123 3 years ago
Wait the context is UI, how is this copying UNIX. Cocoa (its roots) is all Next Step. If we are discussing mid level to micro kernel function then yes BSD was used and improved upon. Vista is server 2003 code. MS constantly changes kernel core and adds more virtualization or hypervisor like implementations, their legacy and inconsistency is their main faults
mrbit10 3 years ago
I was stating many other OS's which are Unix based also have very similar UI as OSX does as it model's keep improving, from OSX-OSX.5, there were some function's in the UI which were taken from the other Unix based OS's and either improved upon or copy, such is the same as Windows.
IamtheVOICE123 3 years ago
For the sake of a bottom line in my opinion DX should have been left out so that all platforms today could share the same API, but the business model MS chose to cut out SGI is what we are stuck with. Note that NT 4 was full OpenGL back in the day when they had a real nice plan NT. The Fahrenheit project in essense is the DX start to dominance via win 95 onward.
mrbit10 3 years ago
In all honesty I would have to agree with you on that at least. But in some great degree there are video game developers who work with both and I've actually said this before and they stated it was a horrible idea.
Why it was is that OpenGL gives you less code to work with in their line of work and it as less flexible as most would try to assume, not to mention their is a huge line of back coding which eventually drags out as you continue development.
IamtheVOICE123 3 years ago
And as they backtrack top clean the access coding they always end up missing some of it, in any which case causes the game to be either not as smooth, some of graphics being faulty declined and so forth.
That's really the huge problem with OpenGL that they have with it and they state the same problem is with OpenGL 3.0 that they have observed. Of they could clean it out, then they would probably experiment more with it, but until that time comes sadly enough it would be DX for a while.
IamtheVOICE123 3 years ago
to say to both comments, i know developers on both sides that prefer one over the other and the old specifications is always used as an excuse for DX fans but not in actual application, it is simply not called. Its like OOP vs procedural programmers or those that fight for VB over C#. OpenGL is not considered because DX is here to stay so long as Windows is the dominant platform. It is too costly to generalize and is why it is bad now. My statement was wishful thinking of the past.
mrbit10 3 years ago
You are correct in that prospect and I do agree with you over all. Perhaps OpenGL may gain more publicity if it ever does work out the access coding it leaves behind during development; and if it does that it could very well work out the flexibility issues game designers (I'm talking about the ones that were apart of the greatest titles that have come out on the PC) have had with OpenGL. But again that has to do with the developers.
IamtheVOICE123 3 years ago
It will work out when Windows allows hardware acceleration for OpenGL as it does with DX rather than make it vendor specific and more work for the vendors. So no doubt I as a developer would be pissed and not want to bother with it. Thanks for the comments by the way.
mrbit10 3 years ago
consoles might strengthen OpenGL even more but Xbox is big. But the whole OpenGL Driver complaint which has to do with acceleration stems with specific driver model development, but this becomes more moot with consoles. so eh, who knows.
mrbit10 3 years ago
one last thing on acceleration for context, while OpenGL can use vendor specific drivers for the API which is also inherit to an open API, but that for Vista using desktop manager for both APIs and old driver specs vs vista specific specs to work with the desktop manager make the difference for programming between OpenGL and DX when it comes to getting access to the GPU or the 1.4 spec.
mrbit10 3 years ago
Yah so true I was reading the comment's section and I have to say you are so right about that. Truth be told though my personal opinion on the whole console deal you are right in some aspects. But if Xbox loses it's flare that's not really to promise that OpenGL will be used for gaming on a PC as well. Although we can see a very high shift in console developed games. But to say that would effect game development on computer's is like a 50/50 chance. It's still a good chance but not guaranteed
IamtheVOICE123 3 years ago
The other issue with the old specs, I should not say old either, it has to do with acceleration vs stand alone rendering excess from a DX point of view. when put into context because windows does not accelerate openGL vendors have to give their own and then to the card, that is messy and time consuming but not because of OpenGL but MS.
mrbit10 3 years ago
@mrbit10 That's correct, it is because of MS. Have you programmed? For PS3, most programmers don't use GL even though it is there. Nintendo doesn't have GL but I have heard their API looks like GL.
vmelkon 1 year ago
@vmelkon I am a programmer, that is my living. but not for PS3, i do a lot of medical and banking and now finance.
mrbit10 1 year ago
My point is, is that all OS's OSX, Linux, Window's and so forth copied from one or another feature within one another, either used few features from blue box and yellow box, or used many features, improved upon what they already had and then you get the new Unix based, Windows based or whatever OS based you get. OSX is really nothing special considering the history of things with OS's.
IamtheVOICE123 3 years ago
I would say that Linux and OS X are quite special given that Linux was to ride on GNU and so on. We cannot ignore evolution of OSs, the reason why we pick on Windows is that while Linux and Next to OS X BeOS, Teligent and so on have added so much in UI, IPC, RPC and so on, MS constantly changed gears. Their vision with where NT was supposed to go with NT 4 was awesome but was abandoned. IN other words not so much evolving but blocking parts to an ends.
mrbit10 3 years ago
That's not always true with Linux users, I have Ubuntu Linux and my video card's an 8800GT.
MetroidJunkie2007 3 years ago
And thats why in every review OSX comes out on top over windows vista. Windows is garbage.
eddyr78 3 years ago
OriginalUsernameHere, hmm, that is original.
Windows has 90% of the market share that doesn't mean it is being utilized by 90% of the people. It just means that linux is free, mac is overpriced, and those who want to play games use windows.
About game developing look at it from a programmer's point of view. His games wouldn't be sold on linux, because most of the users running linux wouldn't buy his games.
Use what you like and what's good for you. I'm a hybrid (Win/Lin).
addyk2003 3 years ago
Also... OpenGL can do whatever DirectX can... it's about accessing functions in a video card, and how up to date are either APIs. ;)
I know this shit, lol :)
addyk2003 3 years ago
you are a complete idiot, quite simple
Danellos 3 years ago
very closed minded. Yes, windows may be good for gaming, but not much else. I understand you probably mostly play games now, but when you start using a computer for more than just games, a lot of flaws in windows become visible.
samman101 3 years ago
Open GL is the future... I mean, is the new reality... so get used to it, DX is coming to its end
sopotito 3 years ago 10
@sopotito Yeah that's why they made DX11? Because it's coming to an end? Yeah you fucking fail dude.
TearsOfWar1 1 year ago
direct3d is probably one of the best things that microsoft created, it is advancing much faster - anyhow they both have its strengths
just mentioning i have many issues with opengl based applications - which is driving me nuts
(are those images/clips supposed to have anything to do with opengl - if yes i'd have to laugh at you)
damoooose 3 years ago
Windows supports DX because they want to slow the market down and cripple other competitors. This comparison is not as good as the Xbox 360 vs. PS3 because they both use different code like you said ps3 uses openGl and Xbox uses DX but Microsoft was going to use HD-DvD but they knew they would hassle developers with the extreme disc sizes so they opted not to so they could grab more of the market
tyranis1 3 years ago
could you have talked any slower? other than that, good video.
finestspark7 3 years ago
they both deserve credit. MS for developing the classes and libraries(its harder than you think) that allows for such amazing looking game. and they deserve credit for being good at what they doo
viro101 3 years ago
Valve is working on porting their games to work on Linux Natively. You can get a majority of Valve games to work in Linux with WINE, Cedega, or CrossOver Linux, but they do run a little slower than in Windows. A few Mac users don't realize they can also use Wine for Windows games or apps.
blacksteel25 3 years ago
Hey, do you have link to the full demo video you featured? I love those things. How does my Quake Wars Enemy Territory work on my Mac? It's the version developed to run in Leopard, do they convert it into Open GL? Great game by the way if yo haven't got it.
marksapollo 3 years ago
Convert into OpenGL? All ID engines are GL based. They just need to replace some OS specific parts like creating a window with stuff for the Mac.
vmelkon 3 years ago
the Playstation 3 uses only openGL and all the special FX of movies too.
madjunir 3 years ago
great openGL games are Quake enemy territory and unreal 3, they look just as good and run way smoother
madjunir 3 years ago
I think OpenGL should get more support and should be used in commercial games.
johnking87 3 years ago 2
i personally prefer bsd distros but linux and opensolaris are great operating systems aswell, my support for them and hope soon opengl will set as the main gaming development architecure. windows is good, but what worths being good if ur standing in a pile of shittie code and retard security layers? fuck windows. long live free systems
gbPRAN 4 years ago
yes OpenSolaris is awesome.
mrbit10 3 years ago
For a long time, Direct3D was considered to be pretty bad compared to OpenGL. Recent advancements in the API, however, have made it very powerful and stable.
SuperiorBeen 4 years ago
That's right. But the advantage of GL is that it is not OS specific. You can have the 4 or 5 DX10 features on all OSes via GL.
The main problem is that DX10 is a 50% marketing tool to sell Vista.
vmelkon 3 years ago 9
OGL and DX are two completely different tools, used by two completely industries and utilized different purposes.
IamtheVOICE123 3 years ago
@vmelkon Okay so if it is not OS specific that means I can use open GL to run my games on Windows 7? If I can't, then it is OS specific.
TearsOfWar1 1 year ago
@TearsOfWar1 you can run any game with OGL
sopotito 1 year ago
@sopotito How? I want to test out open gl on my games. How do I do that?
TearsOfWar1 1 year ago
@TearsOfWar1 All Windows since Win 95 has GL implemented. My comment has nothing to do with your troubles with a game. GL is not OS specific. Actually, I didn't tell the whole truth since there is some additional stuff for the OS specific part (WGL, glX). As for DirectX, it just doesn't have that additional API for the other OSes. It only has it for Windows. I still stand by my comment that DirectX10 is for selling Windows Vista and it's all about marketing bullshit.
vmelkon 1 year ago
@vmelkon So tell me how to use Open GL to play my games. Let's see the wire frame on Uningine Heaven running Open Gl and the one from DX11. I bet you anything that DX11 is a shit load more detailed.
TearsOfWar1 1 year ago
@TearsOfWar1 detail comes from instruction to the pixel buffer which then relies on shader models, both can do the same exact spec on pixel buffers. The variables are, system throughput, video card that can determine how much the software can use.
mrbit10 1 year ago
@mrbit10 So show me a video of uningine that compares DX11 and Open Gl that shows the wire frame?
TearsOfWar1 1 year ago
@TearsOfWar1 what does that have to do with pixel buffers/hardware/video card? That would not prove either API's pixel buffer, shader capability
mrbit10 1 year ago
@mrbit10 The proof is in the pudding. Uningine simply shows what the API can do.
TearsOfWar1 1 year ago
@TearsOfWar1 i would disagree. I have seen countless benching software not have the time for all functions & use. But let us use your scenario of frame, ok so could it be one API uses one buffer over another, in final out via pixels a lot of math can do a lot of the end work using other buffers with less code. Also what example are being shown, a 3D engine is the foundation from which the house is built. Is there a particular reason you have a bias over OpenGL?
mrbit10 1 year ago
@TearsOfWar1 saying it is cross platform does not guarantee use of all API functions across the board. In either case all my FPS games are windows based but that does not mean i take away from DX or OpenGL. MS has made much headway vs SGI's baby.
mrbit10 1 year ago
@mrbit10 So are you saying Uningine doesn't really show what Open GL can do, but does for DX11? I just want to know how to use Open GL to play my game on windows 7. I would really appreciate it if you could tell me.
TearsOfWar1 1 year ago
@TearsOfWar1 i am saying its an engine,a part of the equation, Do have no proof of what functions they use? What spec to which shader??? Do you know? What i am saying is i know the specifications of both APIs whether they are used or not is a whole other story. The game would have to be written to be in OpenGL, Windows in the 90's because it could not support SGI's driver went with an inferior product at the time, BUT they have made it into...
mrbit10 1 year ago
@TearsOfWar1 ... they have made it into a very powerful API. But because of these business decisions, hardware acceleration in certain situations was denied or error. Now both APIs answer to DWM in windows BUT your game would have to be written in openGL to get your games to play. Just like a DX game would have to be written in OpenGL.
mrbit10 1 year ago
@TearsOfWar1 this video is about getting everyone to play, MS screwed that up by cornering the market to itself when everything was OpenGL back then. SO be it, i play FPS all the time and enjoy them on my custom rig.
mrbit10 1 year ago
@mrbit10 But I don't get how that is bad. Microsoft just used a good marketing tactic (which all corporations do). DirectX gives Open GL competition, which I think is a good thing because it gives them both more incentive to advance.
TearsOfWar1 1 year ago
@TearsOfWar1 well, they still could, right now ATI & NVidia can make custom use of openGL vs DX where MS states the rules. MS could have used OpenGL as they originally planned with SGI in 95/96 via Fahrenheit project for NT AND made a customized branded use for it and adding patents to it as they do with CSS, that would have made great competition advancing an API all could play. Although licensing costs would be different.
mrbit10 1 year ago
@TearsOfWar1 The game would be programmed to use GL or D3D or both. If it is both, then it would be somewhere in the settings and you can choose GL. I don't know about Uningine Heaven and I don't know if it supports GL. From the googling I did, it seems to be a DirectX 11 benchmark.
vmelkon 1 year ago
@vmelkon Uningine uses Open GL as well. Look at some videos showing Uningine using Open GL. Open GL 4.0 is the counter to DX11. I think it uses 4.0, if not, then I really don't know what it has to offer. I don't care how it is coded, I only care about the graphics it can produce and how efficiently.
TearsOfWar1 1 year ago
@TearsOfWar1 Unigine Heaven Benchmark 2.0 (!) does use OpenGL 4.0, which enables tesselation on Linux.
GordonFreeMANness 1 year ago
@GordonFreeMANness I know that.
TearsOfWar1 1 year ago
All my DirectX10 games works smooth on maximum quality settings, sadly I cannot say this about DirectX9! So DX10 is far better than DX9! I don't know about OPENGL! Not many new games use opengl! LOL!
What you're saying is more hopeful thinking! You really dint tried both to formulate an advised opinion so next time do your homework before posting vids like this!
SuperiorBeen 4 years ago
This video was originally a response to a user showing off Crysis to blow up windows. This was to give credit where credit is due. DX has improved, but its ram management is not equal to OpenGL. If you want technical OpenGL stuff look at my behind the scenes of leopard videos.
mrbit10 4 years ago
His opinion was that games use GL and be ported to Linux and Mac.
vmelkon 3 years ago
btw the crysis creators are working on porting crysis server to linux for obvious reasons (at least obvious to me and any other linux user) so they do see the advantages on moving to this direction
ZanQdo 4 years ago
well spoken, its about time companies make the switch so we can play their games nativly on GNU/Linux
ZanQdo 4 years ago
i thot windows vista doesn't support opengl cuz of opengl is not that good wen it comes to media accelerators it gets sticky
spyke47 4 years ago
yea Vista does my ATI's bench rather well via OpenGL, but you are right that MS does not support OpenGL in every facet.
mrbit10 4 years ago
hey dya have ne idea bout where i cud find UNIX
spyke47 4 years ago
i'd say go with linux if your a n00b to other operating systems... and get a distro like ubuntu
metalmaniacmat 4 years ago
i already have ubuntu, knoppix and the mac osx 10.4 ,apple has done somethin with the boot process so u can install it but it won't work in AMD although u can install it in INTEL.. does anyone have any idea how i cud make it run on my AMD??
spyke47 4 years ago
Crysis should get a lot of the credit, but they CHOSE DX10 to showcase their development when it comes to the highest detail levels of the engine, therefore in this respect, some credit needs to go to MS. Another example... The Bugatti Veyron gets credit for going 400+ KPH in speed and thtas great, they should get credit. Without Michellin developing the tires for that car, it could not acheive this so someone should give Michellin some credit too.
svtcontour 4 years ago
See the problem is that OpenGL is only for graphics. DirectX handles graphics, sound, input and a whole lot more. DirectX is more suited for games because of the extras it can handle. At least this is what I think.
svtcontour 4 years ago
well as far as I know Vista dropped hardware acceleration for directsound and will use OpenAL.
mrbit10 4 years ago
totally forgot about that, yes you're right. Up to DX9, direct sound was present but from vista on its gone. Still, DirectX does do more than just 3D acceleration.
svtcontour 4 years ago
If Vista(windows), Linux and Mac can be programmed to via OpenGL and OpenAL all the better, then we can all play.
mrbit10 4 years ago
Well they would still have to port, but it will probably be easier. Problem is that I think with bootcamp availability, I suspect a lot of game companies will think "Well we'll just make the game for windows...mac users can just jump into windows and play anyway". I think they will be disouraged in making an OSX version because of this no?
svtcontour 4 years ago
nah, just go openGL and they are there even for linux. Windows can run OpenGL just as well, basically everyone from Unix to linux to Mac to Win PC can play with one standard.
mrbit10 4 years ago
urantivirus, ur right a bit but wrong. Crysis has to be ported to opengl to run on PS3. Xbox/360 is the only game company thats *allowed* to use directX. There fore all wii, PS3 games are OpenGL. Yes 90% of game companys do their games in DirectX and port if needed. But if your game engine is made well and is good quality changing a API from directx to opengl/vice virsa should be a breeze. Its no big deal they both can do about the same things.
IMattNovakI 4 years ago
Why did they make Crysis for Windows? Why did they run the Crytek engine in DirectX? Why does OpenGL need to be ported? If it was just as good, wouldn't they make it for both? Or just for OpenGL? They stopped doing that a long time ago. DirectX has been on top of the game since.
urantivirus 4 years ago
eh, i would not disqualify promotional alliances as to promote and cross promote one's product. ID and EA are moving to openGL, the issue is that windows limited its support of openGL wisely if you are a MS fan and put their big guns behind Direct.
mrbit10 4 years ago
ID is moving to openGL? they've always used openGL, or at least I thought I did.
singularity3 4 years ago
not all opengl, i meant to say EA
mrbit10 4 years ago
Well said.
Lam1ngton 4 years ago
DirectX is good, but i like opengl better. Why, i like the design better... They are both capable of the same thing. And i agree that crysis should get the credit, I like windows though, personally i take it over a mac, it runs fine for me. But mac is good too. Its personal preference, and it should be nothing more.
IMattNovakI 4 years ago
Windows runs fine for me too, I bloody love it. But DX is nothing compared to OpenGL. It has a much better API, can be written in C++ among other languages (so it is easily portable) and I just generally prefer the graphics it produces to DX.
meisinscotland 4 years ago
Microsoft people are known for playing dirty and deceitful.
a1mint 4 years ago
i would love you to post this as a video response to my opengl vs dx vid. I would be honored if you would to say the least.
emeek77 4 years ago
I will make one shortly. Or try to when i get the time. Got to work overtime to pay for my new mac. Lol. or Christmas gifts.
zoulkyud 4 years ago
GREAT VIDEO DUDE!!!A+++
emeek77 4 years ago
lol, the choice between the two APIs for game development is a total matter of preference and it depends on what tools you need, with DirectX, the tools are fully integrated and a bit easier to access, whereas in Linux it takes a bit more to integrate it's extension (such as Fmod, when DX has integrated sound)
OpenGL sdvantages, are universal platform support, and easier initialization.
Ehal256 4 years ago
nice video
darkside97 4 years ago 2
thats really opened my eyes, thanks for that :)
obebogie 4 years ago 2
I would love to see a switch to open GL. Windows can run open GL so why not? Oh thats right that corner of the market would be gone because most gamers are technically inclined enough to run linux. lol.
zoulkyud 4 years ago
VERY WELL SAID ZOUL. You must be a pretty smart guy after all.
emeek77 4 years ago
I kind of assumed I always was :-p
zoulkyud 4 years ago
Well said.
It is not the tools but the man that uses them that makes the difference.
n0sc0p35 4 years ago
excellent, what a nice and sound contribution you bring to the table, keep it up.
forerunner5013215 4 years ago
thank you.
mrbit10 4 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
BITCH !
IVEDIEDONCE 4 years ago