If Doom 3 had been written in D3D....
- Thread starter micron
- Start date
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.
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.
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.micron said:Well why doesnt somebody do something about it?zeckensack said:
Until someone comes along with the in-game microscope and looks really closely at your textures.bloodbob said: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.micron said:Well why doesnt somebody do something about it?zeckensack said:
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.
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.
Johnny Rotten
Regular
991060 said:
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).Johnny Rotten said:991060 said:
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...