If Doom 3 had been written in D3D....

Who knows, John Carmack used OpenGL because he has experience with that.
I don't think it would look better or worse, maybe it would even be slower than OpenGL :?:
 
I guess it would only matter for NVIDIA cards, because they'd lose their UltraShadow depth_bounds (or whatever it was called) advantage.

For the rest, D3D should be able to do what OpenGL does. Perhaps it will even do render-to-texture better :)

And these days, speed and quality depend more on the hardware than on the API used.
Although... it could be that D3D is faster on most cards because the OpenGL drivers are not as good as the D3D ones.
 
One of the things I find annoying about most OpenGL games is, that when you get really close to textures(when your character does), the texture looks blurry. Is this inherent for OpenGL?
 
micron said:
One of the things I find annoying about most OpenGL games is, that when you get really close to textures(when your character does), the texture looks blurry. Is this inherent for OpenGL?
No. That's just finite texture size rearing its ugly head.
 
zeckensack said:
micron said:
One of the things I find annoying about most OpenGL games is, that when you get really close to textures(when your character does), the texture looks blurry. Is this inherent for OpenGL?
No. That's just finite texture size rearing its ugly head.
Well why doesnt somebody do something about it? :D
 
micron said:
zeckensack said:
micron said:
One of the things I find annoying about most OpenGL games is, that when you get really close to textures(when your character does), the texture looks blurry. Is this inherent for OpenGL?
No. That's just finite texture size rearing its ugly head.
Well why doesnt somebody do something about it? :D
I'll do it right after I put graphics cards with terrabytes of ram on the market, I start selling pcs with exabytes of memory and disk space and when I get several million artists working full time in my game company.
 
bloodbob said:
micron said:
zeckensack said:
micron said:
One of the things I find annoying about most OpenGL games is, that when you get really close to textures(when your character does), the texture looks blurry. Is this inherent for OpenGL?
No. That's just finite texture size rearing its ugly head.
Well why doesnt somebody do something about it? :D
I'll do it right after I put graphics cards with terrabytes of ram on the market, I start selling pcs with exabytes of memory and disk space and when I get several million artists working full time in my game company.
Until someone comes along with the in-game microscope and looks really closely at your textures. :)


A more practical solution is to use detail textures which modulate the main texture.
 
Part of the problem is that the majority of PC games and particularly OpenGL are of FPS'. In these it's considered quite reasonable for you to go shove your face ten centimetres from the nearest wall.

This isn't where the majority of the game's time is spent or its look is derived, so understandably it's often considered pointless to add those extra three levels of mipmap needed to make the ten-centimetre view really work.

However, if cleverly done, excellent results can be obtained. In particular, it's important to get things like control panels - which, unlike walls, there's plenty of reason to look at closely - with enough detail.

A game where this extra effort has been taken does look a lot better.
 
micron said:
Well why doesnt somebody do something about it? :D
It's just the way the Quake 3 engine seems to be. Fire up Serious Sam FE/SE, that's OpenGL and has very nice texture detail.
 
Diplo said:
991060 said:
we don't have ultrashadow in D3D, nVIDIA won't let Carmack abandon OpenGL.
Oh, please... :rolleyes:

hmm yeah, I can just see it,

JC to BB - Please can I write my next engine in D3D?

BB to JC - No, get back to work creep, you keep making the games that help us keep our OGL advantage over ATI.
 
Dio said:
Part of the problem is that the majority of PC games and particularly OpenGL are of FPS'.

Quite a wrong idea - it could be true in case of OGL (which makes up one figure percentage of the game listings) but definitely not true in D3D, especially not if you take value section into account.
 
micron said:
zeckensack said:
micron said:
One of the things I find annoying about most OpenGL games is, that when you get really close to textures(when your character does), the texture looks blurry. Is this inherent for OpenGL?
No. That's just finite texture size rearing its ugly head.
Well why doesnt somebody do something about it? :D
Just forget about texture sizes and go ahead with per-pixel light everything + detail/noise textures.
 
991060 said:
we don't have ultrashadow in D3D, nVIDIA won't let Carmack abandon OpenGL.

Lol. I suspect the primary reason John continues to develop in opengl (aside from comfort) is that id puts out versions of their games for both the linux platform and the macintosh platform. Direct3d would be problematic for both those platforms... :)
 
Johnny Rotten said:
991060 said:
we don't have ultrashadow in D3D, nVIDIA won't let Carmack abandon OpenGL.

Lol. I suspect the primary reason John continues to develop in opengl (aside from comfort) is that id puts out versions of their games for both the linux platform and the macintosh platform. Direct3d would be problematic for both those platforms... :)
I suspect the reason is that Carmack simply can't get things his way with MS. With the ARB, it is easier (shit, he'll just go tell one or two of the big IHVs what he wants and they'll champion it like hell... doesn't quite work this way with MS).
 
I know some of you guys are in the industry a long time and have insider knowledge and all that but how about he just like OpenGL better? Or is that too simple and uninteresting a reason? :|
 
I'd call Carmack "The Master of OpenGL". And as someone mentioned,OpenGL is a Cross-platform API,DX is not.
 
Back
Top