So old games ie quake,cs,unreal the crowned kings of control fps's ran on opengl . And since now pretty much everything now runs on direct X and all do have better graphics but controls are not as good as they used to be. WHY
Umm... OpenGL is more powerful than DirectX, first of all. Having tried to develop both (trying with DirectX, but failing due to its verbose nature), I can tell you that OpenG? is the better platform. Plus, Linux support!
However, the controls of the game have nothing to do with the graphics API.
it's more of visual controls , in cs 1.6 I know were my bullets are going, in cs:go it's a fucking mystery
"Visual Controlls"? That does not make any sence.
It's all in the actual development and design decisions, not the API.
This post gave me cancer.
On topic, Open GL andDirectX are just API's used to simplify programing. DirectX has been used more in the last few years as it has had more support and has been in the past, easier to learn and use. Because of this, DirectX has advanced further than OpenGL in terms of games. They both have the same potential but as more people have used DirectX and DirectX has been talored for the developers more, It is currently the choice of Graphics API for many developers.
This is where it gets interesting. DirectX is a Windows and Xbox Exclusive API. Microsoft keeps it to itself however it can and has been ported to linux and mac. (Vine) However very inefficient and does not work half the time, It is not usable outside of the microsoft platforms. So OpenGL still exists for Linux, Windows, iOS, Android and will become a more popular choice in the near future.
DirectX still has more features and still has better performance and the OpenGL API is a shambles but OpenGL has really advanced a lot in the past few years and we will see more and more of it as the API is refined.
Controls have nothing to do with graphics. I am calling Troll. Ether that or we have someone "Special" here
In my personal experience, DirectX is not easier to learn, as it is very verbose and just "messy." Your other points still stand, though.
Its all subjective. DirectX works for me. It just is easier for me to use and learn.
OpenGL is the light, the way to go. Give in to the Linux revolution.
I will when everything else moves over. I can not do 99% of what I do on a daily bases on Linux yet anyway so im sticking to windows for my main system. When software from Adobe, Autodesk, Crytech and the majority of other software and games move over to the linux platform, ill move. Also, ubuntu needs to be polished up. I dont want to have to type in commands just to install a repo, Download a program and install when I can do everything in seconds on windows. Linux was hailed as the replacement to windows 10 years ago. Its still not there yet. But when it is on par with windows. Ill do the switch.
It is not correct to compare OpenGL with DirectX. DirectX is a collection of mulltimedia APIs that includes Direct3D, the API used for 3D programming. So OpenGL should be compared with Direct3D.
Secondly, I agree with anon . Up until OpenGL 2.0, there was a fierce competition between OpenGL and Direct3D. But then OpenGL started to lag behind. It is one of the rare cases where Microsoft did plainly better job than the competitor. After OpenGL 2.0, Direct3D was better in terms of performance, customization and number of functionalities provided. For example, buffer objects were introduced to OpenGL only in 2003, and the slow immediate mode was removed from OpenGL only in 2009. With versions 3.1 and 4.0, OpenGL is playing a game of catching up with Direct3D. It is closing the gap, but still lagging behind.
Thirdly, all the talk about syntax being verbose is highly subjective. For example, OpenGL being a C-based finite state machine do not have a lot to brag about flexibility of coding. If you want to nicely encapsulate your game code in classes and objects then, at first, you will have to write a bunch of wrappers around OpenGL.
OpenGL is the light
Frankly, I do not understand what you mean. OpenGL is not a virtual machine or constantly running service in OS. So it does not matter wether it is light or heavy. All that matters is that it compiles to a high-performance program. Direct3D does pretty good job considering it support much more features than OpenGL.
Next, completely agree with OpenGL being more cross-platform compatible. OpenGL is already doing quite good in Android.
Finally, I do not think Tom Sawyer is a troll. Earlier, fps games had better controls because there was no agenda to port them into consoles. Those games were developed for PC only. Modern games are developed for consoles and then ported to PC, or developed for PC with console port in mind. That process screws up all the controls.
Did not read most of it sorry, but DirectX Steals literally most of its functionality from OpenGL, OpenGL Implemented just about everything before DirectX, Microsoft just made it so they make money from each game released in DirectX. OpenGL is open source. DirectX implements some useful features natively, yes. But OpenGL has such a comitted user base that people like John Carmack make it so much better. And everything here in OpenGL is a lot better, not to mention its almost natively cross platform if made right.
When in complete non-dedicated hardware, DirectX seems to lack. The only reason it is being "more performing" is because of the GPU market leaning towards it in the form of architecture.
DirectX Steals literally most of its functionality from OpenGL.
I am sorry but you sound a bit like a fanboy. Let's see if we can correct that with few facts:
1. Microsoft introduced Vertex Buffers in Direct3D v7.0 in 2000. OpenGL officially introduced similar Vertex Buffer Objects as standard only two years after in version 1.5.
2. Micorosoft introduced pixel and vertext shaders in Direct3D v8.0. At that time OpenGL was still using fixed-function vertex and fragment pipeline. Shaders were not officially supported in OpenGL until they introduced GLSL.
3. Microsoft introduced High-Level Shader Language in Direct3D v9.0 in 2002. ARB proposed similar language, OpenGL Shading Language, for OpenGL in 2002 and formally introduced it to OpenGL in 2004 in version 2.0.
i believe openGL had higher tesselation which is just being intoduced in direct3D now....(feel free to correct me)
If you mean non-shader tesselation then OpenGL never supported any tesselation before v4.0. GLU provided tesselation functionality, but GLU is NOT part of OpenGL API. It is a separate library. Additionally, Direct3D v9.0 released back in 2002 already supported some form of tesselation: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/desktop/bb206188(v=vs.85).aspx .
Shader tesselation was introduced to OpenGL in version 4.0 released in 2010. Microsoft included shader tesselation in Direct3D v11 released in 2009.
I do not have much love for Direct3D. I prefer OpenGL because it is free and as open source as it gets. And I believe everything should be open source (yes even comercially developed software, games included). But as Rudster mentioned, this blind fanboyism is giving me a major headache.
When I said OpenGL is the light, I meant it is the holy path. I was being facetious.
Got your point.
This post gave me cancer.
DirectX has been used more in the last few years
Simply wrong. Thousands of android and iOS games use OpenGL. Thousands of programs use OpenGL for various things (almost every accelerated GUI, benchmarks, professional tools for video and 3d production, ...). OpenGL is used in the browser (WebGL). DirectX programs are an exception and is used nearly exclusive for video games which target PC+Xbox. Everything else has another or multiple rendering backends.
it can and has been ported to linux and mac. (Vine)
This gave me double cancer. Incorrect use of parentheses and wrong name. Also, the D3D API ist extremely unstable between different Windows versions and there are many undocumented bugs and quirks (thanks MS) that it's nearly impossible to recreate a fully functional D3D API.
DirectX still has more features and still has better performance
This is utterly wrong. For example, the newest D3D introduced a feature which has been supported by OpenGL for years (Megatextures). OpenGL is also way more flexible which means that you can do more stuff with it. Also OpenGL is faster than D3D (at least if you don't have a system which artificially cripples OpenGL cought MS cough ).
OpenGL API is a shambles but OpenGL has really advanced a lot in the past few years
How is it a shambles? It's very clear. Each version has a number of function which must exist. Other function can exist in the form of extentions. You can query OpenGL for a specific version and/or extention.
I will when everything else moves over.
Ah, yes. Welcome the the chicken-and-egg problem.
I can not do 99% of what I do on a daily bases on Linux yet
10$ that you could.
When software from Adobe, Autodesk, Crytech and the majority of other software and games move over to the linux platform, ill move
There are things called a VM that you can use for Adobe and Autodesk programs if you must. But I'd never touch software from Adobe (the software is bad, their policy is bad, their security is bad, they have DRM, they are way too expensive and they want to push you into the cloud(s)). Also: chicken-and-egg.
Also, ubuntu needs to be polished up
This statement is meaningless. I could say the same about Windows.
I dont want to have to type in commands just to install a repo, Download a program and install when I can do everything in seconds on windows.
And you don't have to. You can do the same as you do in Windows, download an archive, extract it and start the program. You can also install it with a package manager which requires exactly one click. 10$ that I can install programs faster on linux than you can install them on windows.
But when it is on par with windows. Ill do the switch.
Time to change, dude.
I'm silly, by controls I double mint visual representation of controls