Is Doom 3's release going to change the OpenGL community?

*raises hand*

That being said, I spend the bulk of my time in OS X, Linux and console dev so to me DirectX means pretty much squat.
 
What I like about GL is that when an extension finally makes it into core, it is "done right" and usually the design is far cleaner than the legacy DX equivalent. ARB is slow, like many standards consortiums, because it is a deliberative body. OpenGL extensions are like pilot projects, proving the worth of whether a feature or design is good, which then forms the input for the final standard. You see the same thing in many other standards areas: proprietary feature -> exposed as experimental spec extension -> forms part of "wish list" for next revision of spec.

Of course, the other thing I like about GL is that it works on Linux, Mac OS X, and embedded systems, and that it is much easier (IMHO) to program. Managed DirectX is closing the gap tho.
 
I can't say that I read right through this thread but I kind of get the feeling the latter part belongs in the "Religion, Politics & Socioeconomic Climate" forum.
 
Simon F said:
I can't say that I read right through this thread but I kind of get the feeling the latter part belongs in the "Religion, Politics & Socioeconomic Climate" forum.

I totally agree, that's why I stopped posting.
 
Everyone know that 3D APIs are religions to some people and their development is full of politics. And that socioeconomic climate determines whether people could possibly affored to buy the devices.
 
It's nowhere near to the point where you can say "you're screwed" if you don't have Nvidia hardware for OpenGL. In Serious Sam: SE on my 9500 Pro I can keep a nearly constant 75fps (v-sync) at all times: 1024x768 4xAA 8xAF details maxed.

Well, not in some games, on ATi cards no (I did say they were close). But if you look at eg 3dsmax performance, NV is still a bit ahead. Also, looking at eg Matrox, XGI or S3, they generally seem to be closer to the competition in D3D-based software than in OGL-based software. It used to be like that for ATi too, but they managed to close the gap.
 
Simon F said:
I can't say that I read right through this thread but I kind of get the feeling the latter part belongs in the "Religion, Politics & Socioeconomic Climate" forum.
Simon, if this is the way to view stuff posted in this particular forum, we wouldn't need to archive this particular forum.

[edit : fwiw, I'm happy enough to not moderate (i.e. lock/delete/etc) a thread in this forum with >50% posts belonging to a topic labelled "3DHw&T")
 
Reverend said:
Simon, if this is the way to view stuff posted in this particular forum, we wouldn't need to archive this particular forum.
I don't understand what your saying but, FWIW, I was merely being facetious in the previous post. Please feel free to add the appropriate smilies...
 
Simon, what I'm saying is that a lot of posts here in this particular forum aren't discussions on either 3D hardware nor its technologies but hidden (to the uninformed) expressions of impartialism which is a religion to those that make such posts (when their sex+social life is less exciting than they really prefer, of course).

No smilies.
 
Yeah, back to the topic :)

In a word (i.e. the question posed by the originator of this thread) -- NO. Not even with GLSL. Enthusiasts who gets no profits may get excited and experiment but developers who are out to make money can't be enthused, not with the various consoles around.
 
yeah... I don't see why D3 tech would bring more opengl support. I mean... there's already the suped up enclave engine for Chronicles of Riddick that does the same stuff pretty much, but in DX. If anything... devs may want to have a look at the DX engine for developing xbox games and pc games (since the PC version of CoR was sort of announced) i.e. broader market + less work for porting.
 
I think he is saying that the flame wars that start here are often like the ones in the religon forums. As ati and nvidia are held in a way that religons are also held . So people fight aobut which one is better or right. But in doing so they try to hide it as discusion on 3d tech and hardware .
 
The attractiveness of OpenGL has always been in its platform independence within the PC market. Unix, Linux, Windows, Mac -- all support OpenGL. DirectX, on the other hand, is strictly a Windows and XBox API. In any case, using one DirectX or OpenGL probably doesn't help when it comes to porting to other consoles such as the PS2 or Gamecube. In that case, the best one can do is have easily swappable components (such as the renderer, sound system, input, etc). This is the route that Epic has been going with the Unreal Engine.
 
unfortunately, Epic doesn't seem to want to go for the GC at all. There was UT for PS2, but that was just terrible (and a long while ago), but they don't seem to want to go back to the PS2.
 
Reverend said:
Simon, what I'm saying is that a lot of posts here in this particular forum aren't discussions on either 3D hardware nor its technologies but hidden (to the uninformed) expressions of impartialism which is a religion to those that make such posts (when their sex+social life is less exciting than they really prefer, of course).

No smilies.

Care to explain what this means though? I was rather confused. If you don't want to do it in this topic, PM me :)
 
Back
Top