• Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
    Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.

OpenGL vs. DirectX

What's the better API?

  • OpenGL makes DirectX it's bitch

    Votes: 72 46.2%

  • both are about even

    Votes: 45 28.8%

  • M$ DirectX is king of API's

    Votes: 39 25.0%
  • Total voters
    156
doh-nut said:
opengl. simply because its not directx, which means its not a project of microsoft's. you see, i have a blind hate for anything developed by microsoft regardless of its quality, and im a closeminded fool. i know nothing about graphics APIs, nor the pros or cons of each one. but when i get a chance to show my anti-MS sentiment, i go for it, because like i said before, im a closeminded fool that is too paranoid for my own good. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...


You don't have to make it about mircrosoft you know. It could just be because OGL is better. Simple as that.
 
avatar_of_might said:
also, i know the stalker engine is directx based but what about the cryengine? i never found out about that one. if somebody could enlighten me that would be great. thanks.
Click to expand...


Cry engine has 3 renderers dx 8.1, dx9 and ogl. Ogl doesn't have the amount of shaders as dx 9 does (lazy asses jk) and mainly for ps2 and dx8.1 is for xbox.
 
The Batman said:
You don't have to make it about mircrosoft you know. It could just be because OGL is better. Simple as that.
Click to expand...

or maybe direct3d is better!...

really though this is pointless. most people here have no clue about the APIs, their choices are based off what API their favorite game uses or they think they are a rebel because its not the norm or john carmack their idol prefers it. woopdee doo wop doo!
 
doh-nut said:
or maybe direct3d is better!...

really though this is pointless. most people here have no clue about the APIs, their choices are based off what API their favorite game uses or they think they are a rebel because its not the norm or john carmack their idol prefers it. woopdee doo wop doo!
Click to expand...

I assume your point will be in your next post?

If we were confined to speaking on subjects we knew completely...humanity would be mute.

BTW, OGL2 was released a few hours ago. Speak of the devil. All you DXers better run for cover. . :p
 
The Batman said:
If we were confined to speaking on subjects we knew completely and were not able to ask questions...humanity would be mute.
Click to expand...

yes yes
 
I, personally, can't tell the difference, and as long as a game plays well and looks good, who gives a shit?
 
arentol said:
From a pure graphics standpoint OpenGL is great. Pretty much as good as Direct3D.

However, if this a comparison of OpenGL to DirectX it is not even close.

Mostly because DirectX is 5 times more than OpenGL

DirectX has built in support for Networking, Sound, 2D, 3D, and Interfaces (Joysticks, mice, keyboards, etc.)

Admittedly all these things need serious tweaking to use them in a real game, but the support for them is all built into DirectX.

Really this poll should have been about Direct3D vs. OpenGL because Direct3D is the only part of DirectX that directly compares.

And BTW, Direct3D is still better because if you chose OpenGL then you still have to either us DirectX for everything other than 3D, or you have to write your entire interface, sound, 2D, and networking code from the ground up. Even if you use DirectX for everything but 3D you still have to write lots of extra code to make the two different systems interface properly instead of using the code already built into DirectX. Either way using OpenGL is guaranteed to significantly extend the time it takes to complete a project, and as a gamer I really hate that fact.
Click to expand...

I completely disagree. DirectX is very bloated and in general a game that has the exact same graphics is slower on Direct3D than on OpenGL. In all the Unreal engines and Unreal engine based games (like Rune etc) this has been the case with me. OpenAL can easily take the place of DirectSound. DirectPlay (the netowrking function of DirectX) is really useful to make a multiplayer component quick, but most companies like ID, Epic, and Valve build their own custom networking engines so they can make it cross platform easier. And if you notice, all the best multiplayer games are based off of those engines becasue DirectPlay is very bloated. DirectInput is probably the best component of DirectX becasue it can support any type of controller and even some that aren't invented yet and I am guessing that Doom3 for windows uses directinput which is why you need DirectX 9. Fourtantly there are a lot of different ways to get input out of devices so DirectInput isn't necessary. OpenGL would have been the standard rendering engine 100% if it wasn't for Microsoft sticking thier nose into places where it dosen't belong.

Morrowind is a great example of my points. I love this game, but for the love of pete, the engine is slow as crap for the quality of graphics it produces. I would be willing to bet if it was an OpenGL engine, it would of been a lot faster. Same with X2 - The Threat and Gothic II - both great games, but both laggy engines thanks to DirectX. The CryEngine is the only true DirectX engine that has impressed me so far (Unreal supports OpenGL so you can't count that as DirectX).
 
DX all the way for me hear :) I just thing the graphics are much cleaner and better looking under DX.
+ after a couple of hours of Doom3 Playtime :p I think its the biggest Hype letdown thus far?
Maybe just me.But Votes alround hear for DX.
 
OpenGL was built from the ground up for quality and speed in use with 3D modeling programs like 3D Studio Max and pre rendered stuff and that sort of thing. Quality and speed have always been #1 with OpenGL. I have a little programming in both API's and DirectX it seems like it is mainly ease of use as #1 and quality and speed comming up #2. It seems like M$ designed DirectX to further extend their monopoly so that Windows would be the gameing platform - and so far it has worked. I'm just glad that people like Carmack don't cave in to M$ ideals. I bet ol' M$ would love it if Carmack wrote all his engines in Direct3D from now on, but thank goodness it won't happen.
 
OpenGL is my fav for the reason already expressed. Kind of jazzed to hear about some of the new stuff thats going to be in OGL2.0. :D
 
It seems like opengl is the most stable and offers the best visuals..of course this is Carmacks code of choice and that helps alot.
 
Honestly, to me this arguement is like C# vs J#. It doesn't matter how smooth the games run, it's about the programmers. iD games run great not necessarily because of OpenGL, but because of the programmers behind the game! Example: UT2K3, runs great--it's DirectX. Now Raven Shield, a game based on the Unreal engine. The game runs like ass, crashes, and is buggy as hell, is it because it's on the Unreal engine? No, because UT2K3 runs fine. It's becuase the developers sucked at making RVS. Simple.

When talking about DirectX vs OpenGL it more like: which developer is better at utilizing it to the fullest. Sure, a lot of OpenGL games run great, but that's because most of them are based on Carmack's engines! I think if Carmack always made DirectX games most people would be saying how good DX is because Doom 3 runs so good!

Get what I'm saying? ;)
 
OpenGL is alot better then DirectX.

Designing a game on the OpenGL API takes ALOT more work though and thats why you dont see it used very often. Programmers are lazy asses and DirectX will do alot of the work for them. Everything has to be done by hand with OpenGL.

OpenGL is more stable and will run on much lower-end systems while still being able to make the high-end systems crawl when you turn up the detail to max. This makes the perfect API for everyone and not just a few.

OpenGL is also portable to Linux and MAC. Microsoft wont support this portability of course because of the fact Microsoft doesn't want any other OS's gaining any kind of lead on Windows.

There are positives and negatives to both OpenGL and DirectX and some things are better done on DirectX but for the most part OpenGL is the supreme API.
 
BakedGoods said:
Honestly, to me this arguement is like C# vs J#. It doesn't matter how smooth the games run, it's about the programmers. iD games run great not necessarily because of OpenGL, but because of the programmers behind the game! Example: UT2K3, runs great--it's DirectX. Now Raven Shield, a game based on the Unreal engine. The game runs like ass, crashes, and is buggy as hell, is it because it's on the Unreal engine? No, because UT2K3 runs fine. It's becuase the developers sucked at making RVS. Simple.

When talking about DirectX vs OpenGL it more like: which developer is better at utilizing it to the fullest. Sure, a lot of OpenGL games run great, but that's because most of them are based on Carmack's engines! I think if Carmack always made DirectX games most people would be saying how good DX is because Doom 3 runs so good!

Get what I'm saying? ;)
Click to expand...

Yeah, that's ture, but Unreal 2004 has an OpenGL renderer and it runs faster for me that way. Even though it largely depends on the programmer, OpenGL seems like it has a lot less bloat than DirectX and thus makeing is faster.
 
Overall imo dx9 has the better games with better graphics whilst opengl has mostly console-level graphics games. The exceptiion being doom3 which has better graphics than any game, but it's just one game (however good it is.) :cool:
 
jon_k said:
Yeah, that's ture, but Unreal 2004 has an OpenGL renderer and it runs faster for me that way. Even though it largely depends on the programmer, OpenGL seems like it has a lot less bloat than DirectX and thus makeing is faster.
Click to expand...
I can kind of agree. I remember Half-Life being unplayable using DirectX, HL turned into a clunk-fest. I know HL is an OpenGL game but still. :)
 
Blad3 said:
Overall imo dx9 has the better games with better graphics whilst opengl has mostly console-level graphics games. The exceptiion being doom3 which has better graphics than any game, but it's just one game (however good it is.) :cool:
Click to expand...

Well you have to look at the engine the games are based off of. The DirectX games you may be looking at might have a newer engine while alot of the popular OpenGL games like Call of Duty were based off the Quake III engine and the Q3 engine isn't exactly a spring chicken.

There will be alot of OpenGL games based off the D3 engine and they will all look incredible. :)
 
A lot more games have OpenGL renderers than you think. Any game that can be bought for the Mac has an OpenGL renderer. You can even use most of these renderers in Windows and they will work just fine, but they are technically unsupported. Warcraft III is an example for sure becasue I have personally used it's GL renderer, and I think even a few MS games have been ported to the mac like Age of Mythology and Halo.
 
burningrave101 said:
Well you have to look at the engine the games are based off of. The DirectX games you may be looking at might have a newer engine while alot of the popular OpenGL games like Call of Duty were based off the Quake III engine and the Q3 engine isn't exactly a spring chicken.

There will be alot of OpenGL games based off the D3 engine and they will all look incredible. :)
Click to expand...

Well there won't be any doom3 based games for a while I don't think, the majoiry of high-end games simply are DX9.
 
Blad3 said:
the majoiry of high-end games simply are DX9.
Click to expand...

Doom III is sure to change that thankfully. But just becasue a game is new and has sparkely graphics dosen't make it a good game. Neverwinter Nights is one of my favorite games ever with great replay value and it uses OpenGL. I find myself playing it all the time while some of the new DirectX games sit on the shelf.
 
Blad3 said:
Well there won't be any doom3 based games for a while I don't think, the majoiry of high-end games simply are DX9.
Click to expand...


Engine's done won't take long to make a game ;) . Quake 4 is already well under works.
 
the truth is.. it doesnt matter.... i can think of a game written in each api that has excellent frame rate, looks really good, and carries along great if not excellent net code. its all about how it is coded. i lean towards opengl because directsound is a pile of flaming buggy crap and right there in the name is why manny of you have better experiances with opengl..... its open!!!!! many people share experiances and information that microsoft would squander for patent rights. and anyone who has programmed in opengl will tell you its not harder than d3d nore does it take longer if you know what your doing and where to look :eek: ...........
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top