When do you think linux will get Dx10?

[ray4389]

What do you think?

 

[eeyrjmr]

why?
OpenGL-2.1 outstrips DXD10 capability

 

[bbz_Ghost]

EH?

If this is an April Fool's Joke, it's 3 months early... good lord

 

[As I Lay Dying]

never...


btw from my understanding, my understanding in the 8800 demo, 3 of the four use opengl, and the fog box demo uses dx10.

so yeah, opengl is still a good option.....

 

[Xipher]

If I need DX10, I'll use Windows. However I don't plan on "needing" it.

 

[Eva_Unit_0]

wtf kind of thread is this? Linux does not have any native direct x capability. Directx is a proprietry microsoft format. That's like asking when pepsi will start making coke.

On a side note, OpenGL ftw.

 

[jimmyb]

why?
OpenGL-2.1 outstrips DXD10 capability

I don't know DX very well but I was under the impression that this was not the case.
Can you elaborate on this?

 

[ThreeDee]

Q3 of 2007 ..will ship with the "hoarey bastage" release of Ubuntu 8

 

[Martyr]

never...


btw from my understanding, my understanding in the 8800 demo, 3 of the four use opengl, and the fog box demo uses dx10.

so yeah, opengl is still a good option.....

so it somehow uses dx10, without it being released?

 

[Xipher]

so it somehow uses dx10, without it being released?

It is included with Vista correct? I'm sure they could get an RC version to use for the demo.

 

[movax]

Maybe OP isn't aware that DX10 is a MS-only (assuming that parts of it will filter over to the X360, making it not-Windows only) API for the most part.

Maybe it'll "appear" in the future as part of Cedega, but I have a horrible feeling trying to run some of the latest & greatest games under Cedega are not going to result in optimal FPS or graphics.

 

[TheDude05]

I don't know DX very well but I was under the impression that this was not the case.
Can you elaborate on this?

DX is much easier to program for but from a technical standpoint, OpenGL is the better API.

 

[Gatticus]

I've seen some say otherwise. It was true at one time but I don't know if that is true now.

 

[genesis[OFT]]

To the OP, DirectX is a Microsoft patented graphics technology. It doesn't have anything todo with the Linux kernel, or, in fact, any UNIX related operating system. Clones that have similar capabilities as DirectX exist on Linux, however, they are not yet as sophisticated as that of Microsoft's DirectX.

Though, think of it this way, Microsoft's DirectX has been under development for 6\7 years, since Windows 95. Linux's XGL\Beryl\OpenGL-type technologies have only poped up in the last few years and Linux has already progressed in a huge way, in terms of this exact form of graphics and graphical experiences.

 

[darkeen]

XGL/Beryl really doesn't compare to directX. DX is an interface between hardware and code. XGL/Beryl is code designed to allow for a 3d accelerated desktop. Open gl is the interface used for XGL/Beryl and it has been around for quite some time (10+ years I believe).

 

[kill4killin]

IF it ever touches linux, it will be in the form of a windows OS running in VMware in Linux or it will pop up in cedega in the future...though I doubt it.

 

[jimmyb]

DX is much easier to program for but from a technical standpoint, OpenGL is the better API.

Could you explain why this is the case?

 

[TwiceSliced]

Could you explain why this is the case?

To put it simply, the general concensus is that DirectX has tons of developer support from Microsoft and predefined operations to make programming 3D-accelerated effects a relatively simple process. OpenGL, on the other hand, offers less support and hand-holding while acting as a more powerful, versatile, and customizable API. Kinda like Windows vs. Linux, they each have their advantages and disadvantages, but the playing field is constantly evolving, so the exact nuances are hard to pin-down.

 

[eeyrjmr]

DX3d is a reflection of the hardware capability
OGL is what the coders want (When I say coders I mean the real uses of GL, CAD,Animators)


When "Direct7" came out OpenGL could out-performn DX3D7 in visual effects purely because it was extended in software (while the hardware acelled for GL)

GL will always be able to out-perform (on paper) DX3D purely because one is an exposure of what the hardware can do and the other is what people want it to do (hardware acceled or not)


On the QW forum there were a few ppl posting they were pissed that QW was coded in OGL and Not DX3D (on some strawman arguement that DX10 was soo much more superior)

What they failed to realise that DX10 usage (in coders and gamers) is for a minimum of 18month an exception and NOT the norm (since new OS and new hardware need === £££££)


Likewise they failed to appreciate that whatever new hardware acceled effect DX10 brings to the table as long as nVidia exposes access to those pipelines in OGL-API then OGL will be able to do them as well - the hardware hasn't changed


So basically it comes down to how good the drivers are and how good the coders are.

 

[jimmyb]

Vendor specific OpenGL extensions tend rarely to be used in games (or anywhere outside of technical demonstrations) as far as I know. I would think that ARB reviewed extensions are used more, but I still have my doubts about how often non-spec extensions are used in real applications.

I very much agree that older versions of DirectX were pretty incompetent compared to OpenGLs of the time, but my understanding of DX10 was that it had a lot of features previously available in OpenGL (like userland drivers to minimize context switch overhead, more effificient batch processing, etc).

 

[TheDude05]

Could you explain why this is the case?

DirectX has a smaller, simpler API. Plus DirectX is geared towards game development as opposed to OpenGL which is strictly a graphics layer as the name suggests. DirectX has libraries for input, sound, decompression, etc. When writing a game using OpenGL you'll have to use other libraries for the other parts of the program, such as SDL for sound.

OpenGL is more of a do-whatever-you-want with it, whereas DirectX's rendering capabilities are built with real time in mind, thus OpenGL is always going to be more technically superior.

I think there is also a set hardware standard for DirectX and for OpenGL but I honestly dont know that for sure

 

[jimmyb]

I'm actually somewhat familiar with OpenGL having written some small programs with it (along with SDL for window setup and input). I was looking for more substantive reasons, like "opengl can do this", or "directx can't do this"...