technology DirectX or OpenGL?

[Limeblossom 482]

I think OpenGL has it's benefits, like being faster with certain programs. But I'm really attached to DirectX since most of the games and software I have don't work on OpenGL.

 

How about you?

Edited March 13, 2016 by Limeblossom

[Scrubbed user 3,415]

I think OpenGL is going to be a thing of the past once Vulkan is implemented across the board.

[Guest]

So long as Microsoft wishes to keep a place in the market, they will push DirectX all day.

[Celtore 2,769]

CGI! *shot*

 

OK seriously, opengl is my choice. I've worked with it in the past and while it was a bit of a pain to work with at first, its portability is a pretty big deal. I was able to develop entirely on my Linux box and demonstrate in my school's Windows lab.

 

CGI is still kind of cool too in Windows forms applications

[Guest]

CGI! *shot*

 

OK seriously, opengl is my choice. I've worked with it in the past and while it was a bit of a pain to work with at first, its portability is a pretty big deal. I was able to develop entirely on my Linux box and demonstrate in my school's Windows lab.

 

CGI is still kind of cool too in Windows forms applications

 

If Microsoft is to be believed (which I won't hold them to it), then DirectX 12 is supposed to make development even easier, which if so, it'll keep DirectX as the standard for gaming at least. While it is proprietary, you can't argue with cheaper/easier development from a developer standpoint. If DirectX remains easier to develop for, it'll be a no brainer for game companies.

 

However OpenGL can be more powerful in its raw form, it's just optimizing it is a bit trickier. But skilled and experienced developers can always find a way to make OpenGL work to the best it can, and obviously platforms that are optimized for OpenGL will run it better. Many people have noticed that games on Macs run smoother when using OSX vs. Windows despite using the exact same hardware.

 

Optimization at the end of the day is always going to be the deciding factor. It doesn't matter how powerful something is if it runs like garbage. So really it is going to depend on the dev and how well they can optimize. While DirectX 12 will be nicely optimized out of the box, that isn't a guarantee that OpenGL will not surpass it with the right people behind it.

[Celtore 2,769]

If Microsoft is to be believed (which I won't hold them to it), then DirectX 12 is supposed to make development even easier, which if so, it'll keep DirectX as the standard for gaming at least. While it is proprietary, you can't argue with cheaper/easier development from a developer standpoint. If DirectX remains easier to develop for, it'll be a no brainer for game companies.

 

However OpenGL can be more powerful in its raw form, it's just optimizing it is a bit trickier. But skilled and experienced developers can always find a way to make OpenGL work to the best it can, and obviously platforms that are optimized for OpenGL will run it better. Many people have noticed that games on Macs run smoother when using OSX vs. Windows despite using the exact same hardware.

 

Optimization at the end of the day is always going to be the deciding factor. It doesn't matter how powerful something is if it runs like garbage. So really it is going to depend on the dev and how well they can optimize. While DirectX 12 will be nicely optimized out of the box, that isn't a guarantee that OpenGL will not surpass it with the right people behind it.

Just saying, I think you went off on a false premise there. I sure as hell didnt say opengl was easier, it was a bugger to get started from nothing. I just said it was pretty awesome being able to have my program working on any lab in my college to demo to my Prof.

 

My reason for choosing opengl over directx was for that cross compatibility and independence from the Microsoft stack. That's really it. On the matter of optimization though, I would prefer to do that myself rather than trust Microsoft to do it for me with some behind the scenes magic. Especially considering a lot of the positives of directx 12 are "will be's" right now and is Windows 10 exclusive.

Edited March 13, 2016 by Celtore

[Guest]

 

 

Just saying, I think you went off on a false premise there. I sure as hell didnt say opengl was easier, it was a bugger to get started from nothing. I just said it was pretty awesome being able to have my program working on any lab in my college to demo to my Prof.

 

I said the exact opposite and said that DirectX was easier.

 

 

 

My reason for choosing opengl over directx was for that cross compatibility and independence from the Microsoft stack. That's really it. On the matter of optimization though, I would prefer to do that myself rather than trust Microsoft to do it for me with some behind the scenes magic. Especially considering a lot of the positives of directx 12 are "will be's" right now and is Windows 10 exclusive.

 

Yeah, though in Microsoft's Defense, Windows 10 is a free upgrade from 7 or 8, so it's not like it's inaccessible. Also supposedly it'll work on the Xbox One, but they've been tooting that horn for years now. 

[Limeblossom 482]

I think OpenGL is going to be a thing of the past once Vulkan is implemented across the board.

More like a new challenger is crashing in. Are you planning to use it?

 

 

If Microsoft is to be believed (which I won't hold them to it), then DirectX 12 is supposed to make development even easier, which if so, it'll keep DirectX as the standard for gaming at least. While it is proprietary, you can't argue with cheaper/easier development from a developer standpoint. If DirectX remains easier to develop for, it'll be a no brainer for game companies.

I would take that option too if I was a game developer. And of course DirectX is also supported by Xbox 360, GOG and Steam.

 

 

However OpenGL can be more powerful in its raw form, it's just optimizing it is a bit trickier. But skilled and experienced developers can always find a way to make OpenGL work to the best it can, and obviously platforms that are optimized for OpenGL will run it better. Many people have noticed that games on Macs run smoother when using OSX vs. Windows despite using the exact same hardware.

It sure is interesting to watch the progress of other operating systems. Before that I was only busy with DirectX and Windows. OS X was the first different OS I worked and later discovered source and Linux, but in an uncomfortable situation. I heard about the Linux when Sony decided to remove the OtherOS option and causing a fuss. It was like meeting someone who was recently abandoned by an important supporter.

[Xylosian 140]

DirectX all the way, I don't approve OpenGL.

[Limeblossom 482]

I don't approve OpenGL.

What made you avoid the OpenGL system?

 

 

DirectX all the way,

 DirectX still has my support too since most of my games and software use it without problems.

[Xylosian 140]

What made you avoid the OpenGL system?

 

 

 DirectX still has my support too since most of my games and software use it without problems.

OpenGL is an outdated cross-language that in my opinion shouldn't be used currently.

[Limeblossom 482]

OpenGL is an outdated cross-language that in my opinion shouldn't be used currently.

Even when it's outdated, there are still people who love to use it. But it's still impossible for them to topple DirectX of the throne.

 

Valve made an OS out of the OpenGL system for the Steam Machines and PC's (and even jailbreaked consoles). Also kinda neat that Linux versions of GOG games could be installed on the SteamOS. But I just found out that SteamOS didn't live up to the expectations they had. Most of the games on Steam doesn't support OpenGL and the OS suffered performance problems too. The DirectX systems squandered the OS. Big embarrassment for GabeN, who wanted to make the system a good competitor against Windows 8 and Windows Store. Maybe next time creating an OS with DirectX?

[Xylosian 140]

Even when it's outdated, there are still people who love to use it. But it's still impossible for them to topple DirectX of the throne.

 

Valve made an OS out of the OpenGL system for the Steam Machines and PC's (and even jailbreaked consoles). Also kinda neat that Linux versions of GOG games could be installed on the SteamOS. But I just found out that SteamOS didn't live up to the expectations they had. Most of the games on Steam doesn't support OpenGL and the OS suffered performance problems too. The DirectX systems squandered the OS. Big embarrassment for GabeN, who wanted to make the system a good competitor against Windows 8 and Windows Store. Maybe next time creating an OS with DirectX?

OpenGL runs well currently but it just looks nasty, I would probably use it only for nostalgic purposes. But I will admit that OpenGL is more powerful than DirectX and is cross-platform.

Edited March 13, 2016 by Xylosian

[Limeblossom 482]

OpenGL runs well currently but it just looks nasty, I would probably use it only for nostalgic purposes. But I will admit that OpenGL is more powerful than DirectX and is cross-platform.

No denial about that, but they also have to deal with malware infections right now.

[Guest]

OpenGL runs well currently but it just looks nasty, I would probably use it only for nostalgic purposes. But I will admit that OpenGL is more powerful than DirectX and is cross-platform.

Cross-Platform is what really makes it valuable, however that being said, having to convert DirectX games to another format is usually what pushes devs away.

[Limeblossom 482]

Cross-Platform is what really makes it valuable, however that being said, having to convert DirectX games to another format is usually what pushes devs away.

Maybe it could be a message for GabeN to make a DirectX based SteamOS for the next time.

[geartree 33]

I've never used directX for development, but I will say openGL is the better one overall almost entirely based on the fact that it is cross platform.

 

I find it ridiculous that companies are limiting games to a certain system/machine, DirectX is obviously the bigger offender of this.

 

Also when comparing the two, it would be better to say Direct3D vs OpenGL, since that is comparing the two on graphics alone.

Maybe it could be a message for GabeN to make a DirectX based SteamOS for the next time.

You literally contradicted the quote you posted.

 

Vulcan will replace OpenGL and will

compete with DirectX I am sure.

If Microsoft is to be believed (which I won't hold them to it), then DirectX 12 is supposed to make development even easier, which if so, it'll keep DirectX as the standard for gaming at least. While it is proprietary, you can't argue with cheaper/easier development from a developer standpoint. If DirectX remains easier to develop for, it'll be a no brainer for game companies.

 

However OpenGL can be more powerful in its raw form, it's just optimizing it is a bit trickier. But skilled and experienced developers can always find a way to make OpenGL work to the best it can, and obviously platforms that are optimized for OpenGL will run it better. Many people have noticed that games on Macs run smoother when using OSX vs. Windows despite using the exact same hardware.

 

Optimization at the end of the day is always going to be the deciding factor. It doesn't matter how powerful something is if it runs like garbage. So really it is going to depend on the dev and how well they can optimize. While DirectX 12 will be nicely optimized out of the box, that isn't a guarantee that OpenGL will not surpass it with the right people behind it.

You are totally incorrect. The standard IS and WILL be OpenGL, until Microsoft (which they won't) decides to share their API with Sony. There are significantly more PS4 players than XBOX players.

 

DirectX all the way, I don't approve OpenGL.

All I can say is, ...

 

Really, you don't approve of an API. Have you ever even developed in an API. If not, there is literally 0 reason yo not approve of it. Benchmarks have shown that OpenGL and DirectX and almost equivalent in speed and quality. Now the benchmark depends on the GPU, but as a whole they are relatively equal.

OpenGL is an outdated cross-language that in my opinion shouldn't be used currently.

Shouldn't be used currently? What? Give me an alternative? Is Apple or Linux supposed to create their own API's, or does Sony have to merge their product with MS or sell it gain access to the rights to use DirectX. Do you even know what you are suggesting?

[Limeblossom 482]

You literally contradicted the quote you posted.

Nonsense. I only said that I hope he'll think about making a Steam system with DirectX.

 

 

You are totally incorrect. The standard IS and WILL be OpenGL, until Microsoft (which they won't) decides to share their API with Sony. There are significantly more PS4 players than XBOX players.

One big nope. DirectX is even later seen as the standard. A majority of developers still use it.

[geartree 33]

Nonsense. I only said that I hope he'll think about making a Steam system with DirectX.

 

 

One big nope. DirectX is even later seen as the standard. A majority of developers still use it.

You realize he will most likely use OpenGL, since that is what Valve seems to favor. Edited March 15, 2016 by geartree

[Guest]

 

 

OpenGL is an outdated cross-language that in my opinion shouldn't be used currently.

 

That is a mentality that more or less let's Microsoft keep a monopoly. Honestly, DirectX is really the only thing keeping OS X out of the equation for a lot of gamers, considering the Mac Pro would be a viable gaming PC option then. Microsoft pushes it because otherwise they would lose a huge chunk of the PC gamer audience.

 

 

 

I've never used directX for development, but I will say openGL is the better one overall almost entirely based on the fact that it is cross platform. I find it ridiculous that companies are limiting games to a certain system/machine, DirectX is obviously the bigger offender of this.

 

I can see the appeal of DirectX. It's optimized for Windows systems which a majority of users use. If less people used Windows, it wouldn't be as popular. But game makers want optimization, and DirectX is sadly the easiest solution if your users are on Windows. OpenGL is more optimized on other platforms, but naturally, Microsoft is not going to assist in making OpenGL a bigger thing on Windows because that would invalidate their platform.

 

 

 

You are totally incorrect. The standard IS and WILL be OpenGL, until Microsoft (which they won't) decides to share their API with Sony. There are significantly more PS4 players than XBOX players.

 

OpenGL is the "standard" on paper, but in execution DirectX gets used a lot still mostly because of that optimization. Microsoft will never share DirectX with anyone they don't have to because as I said: it creates competition. Microsoft is a very anti-competition company lately. Hell they made it more difficult to dual boot Windows with Windows 8.1 because of how many people were switching to Linux. Microsoft also limited Cortana to only using Microsoft products even though there are more loved products out there such as Google as a search engine. Microsoft's apps for their phones are made in a proprietary format.

 

Microsoft is facing a harsh reality where they are not top dog anymore and it bothers them. Microsoft products have begun to decline. Apple makes more money than they do now even with less of the market share. More people want to switch to Linux and OS X than ever, and Microsoft has had little to no success with their other Non-windows/Microsoft Office products. They can't get their phones into people's hands, the Xbox One is virtually a market failure, Windows 10 is getting mixed reviews, Cortana is being heavily criticized, and they have a long list of failed products that they invested a lot into like the Zune.

 

Microsoft is entering a position where they are realizing the only reason a lot of people deal with them anymore is because they have to, but they are more or less loathed by many of their own fans. I think it goes without saying that many of us would not use Windows if there was a better alternative that met all of our needs. Most of us don't hold loyalty to Microsoft in that regard. Hell I intend on switching to OS X as soon as I get some cash together because I have put up with the instability of Windows for over 15 years. Every year it gets worse it seems. Windows 98 was far less temperamental than 8 or even 10.

 

Due to the fact that Microsoft is viewed as the "necessary evil" product, they need to do everything in their power to remain in power. And that means force their consumers to stay with them even if it means making them hate them. Because if OpenGL catches on and surpasses DirectX as the preferred platform here is what will happen for Microsoft:

 

• User friendly Linux Distros will start to catch on for bargain PC builders due to no entry price. That extra $200+ you are not using on an operating system will be used on parts.
• OS X will gain some headway in the game market, and when that happens a lot of gamers who are sick of Windows instability will switch, though not "everyone" or even a "majority" due to Macs high entry price. Still many people will be willing to pay extra for a system they know will be more reliable.
• Windows will basically only have the grip on the world through offices. Microsoft is always known as the business brand, and that will become what they are only known for.

 

 

Shouldn't be used currently? What? Give me an alternative? Is Apple or Linux supposed to create their own API's, or does Sony have to merge their product with MS or sell it gain access to the rights to use DirectX. Do you even know what you are suggesting?

 

I agree, Apple and Linux are not going to waste their time because OpenGL is powerful enough and it would turn them into Microsoft. So Linux won't do it simply because it would go against being open source and Apple won't do it because the last thing they want to be is Microsoft. Apple has made a stern standing since the 90s not to be seen as anything like Microsoft.

 

OpenGL is far from "outdated" I mean remember just because Microsoft pumps out DirextX versions every other year it seems doesn't mean they are more "advanced". A lot of the time they are just trying to gain an advantage. Remember the Sega Genesis? Remember how it started adding on so much crap like the 32X and the Sega CD to try and stay ahead of the SNES, and despite those add ons being more powerful, the SNES remained the standard. OpenGL is not really "less powerful" it's just slightly (and I emphasis slightly) less user friendly so creating things that you do in DirectX sometimes (and I emphasize sometimes) requires an extra step or two.

 

 

 

Nonsense. I only said that I hope he'll think about making a Steam system with DirectX.

 

He can't unless he wants to give Microsoft a cut of the cheddar, which he won't. Microsoft is sort of bitter with GabeN because back in the day he offered them to help him make the original Half Life when he worked for them and they said it was a stupid idea. GabeN left the company then and formed Valve Software which now controls over 70% of PC game sales, and Microsoft has kicked themselves since because that's a lot of gravy they are now not in on.

 

HOWEVER technically speaking: every Steam Machine can support DirectX because GabeN designed them so they can have Windows installed upon them. So it's sort of a way of getting it without having to pay Microsoft, but the drawback is that less people are interested because the Steam Machine kind of has its entire point defeated. The idea of Steam machine was to get people who didn't want the complications of PC gaming, but wanted PC gaming. By making it so the device becomes a Windows PC and requiring the knowledge of how to put Windows on it, it basically makes it so you have to become a full fledged PC  gamer to use it, which is what console gamers wanted to avoid.

 

At the end of the day, the reason why console continue to exist and sell is because let's be blunt: some people do not want to learn or understand PCs. They don't want to buy a pre-built machine for lots of money and worry about upgrades. They don't want to learn how to build a PC either to save money. They don't want to deal with multiple distribution engines and having their friends on different platforms like Steam and Origin. They want to go to the store, buy a box that they know will play the latest games for a few years and when that is over buy another box. They want a simple box, they want a box that makes it obvious that this is the latest box and they don't need to think about all these different graphics cards and what their capabilities are. The only numbers they want to understand are "Is this the PS3 or the PS4?" They just want to see numbers that are simple and make sense. 4 comes after 3, therefore I know this is the latest system.

 

No matter which way PC gamers slice it, that audience is always going to be there. So the Steam machine sort of flopped because it kind of eliminated that ease of use. A console is a simple device. You plug it in, you know you will be able to play the latest games for several years with virtually no upgrades. PC gaming to this day STILL isn't like that. It seems like every year there is some "shocker" in a new release that has insane requirements. Hell even big name titles like Call of Duty have done it. Remember Ghosts? So many people were pissed about the insane requirement hike that Ghosts introduced, but console gamers, they didn't have to deal with that. They knew the game would run on their year old PS4s. Many people on PC had to upgrade even from cards that were a little over a year old because they didn't buy the high end cards.

 

At the end of the day, what will catch on is what makes it most convenient for the consumers. Once someone finds a clever way around Microsoft's DirectX that makes development easy and convenient, Microsoft's days are numbered.

[Limeblossom 482]

You realize he will most likely use OpenGL, since that is what Valve seems to favor.

Valve and some chip companies may favor OpenGL, but it didn't help with attracting developers.

 

Sometimes it's like the story of the PS3's Cell processor; Fast, strong and supports Linux and OpenGL, but the developers where experiencing plothurt with the Cell's architecture and the removal of OtherOS made the use of the Cell even more questionable. It's like Sony forgot what made the Playstation successful. Even when it's wasn't as strong as the competitors, many developers liked the console for the ease of use and accessibility of the System.

 

@@Key Sharkz Thanks for the explaining. All I knew is that GabeN was one of the prominent persons behind the first 3 Windows. I think it was well meant to make PC gaming accessible for the console audience, only it didn't work out as he expected. But he still has the last laugh with Half-Life and Gmod's popularity, while Microsoft is wasting it's own IP's like Project Spark.

 

Fail0verflow already jailbreaked the PS4, making Linux compatible with it. The specs are also compatible with DirectX. So maybe instead of buying new PC components I could mod a PS4 to run Windows 7 on it .

[Xylosian 140]

I've never used directX for development, but I will say openGL is the better one overall almost entirely based on the fact that it is cross platform.

 

I find it ridiculous that companies are limiting games to a certain system/machine, DirectX is obviously the bigger offender of this.

 

Also when comparing the two, it would be better to say Direct3D vs OpenGL, since that is comparing the two on graphics alone.

 

You literally contradicted the quote you posted.

 

Vulcan will replace OpenGL and will

compete with DirectX I am sure.

 

You are totally incorrect. The standard IS and WILL be OpenGL, until Microsoft (which they won't) decides to share their API with Sony. There are significantly more PS4 players than XBOX players.

 

 

All I can say is, ...

 

Really, you don't approve of an API. Have you ever even developed in an API. If not, there is literally 0 reason yo not approve of it. Benchmarks have shown that OpenGL and DirectX and almost equivalent in speed and quality. Now the benchmark depends on the GPU, but as a whole they are relatively equal.

 

Shouldn't be used currently? What? Give me an alternative? Is Apple or Linux supposed to create their own API's, or does Sony have to merge their product with MS or sell it gain access to the rights to use DirectX. Do you even know what you are suggesting?

Let me rephrase what I said before. I don't approve of OpenGL for Windows platform because I would rather use DirectX. No I've never developed in a API and frankly never will, however I can see the potential and benefits over DirectX. OpenGL is as I've said is more powerful than DirectX and is cross-platform which if I was a Linux user or playing on the PlayStation I would definitely approve of OpenGL 100%. I shouldn't have said that it shouldn't be used currently, my apologies. OpenGL has it's uses and it's a great cross-language but I wouldn't use it. I know this will contradict what I've said before but at the time I didn't know much about OpenGL. After doing some research I honestly can see the potential of OpenGL and I just want to apologize for my ignorance, but I still stand with DirectX mainly because it's just easier to run on a Windows OS which I have Windows 8.1 Pro and it runs great with my 390x because of the support of DirectX12.

Edited March 15, 2016 by Xylosian

[geartree 33]

Also people, don't compare DX12 to OpenGL. It would not be fair at all, because the more fair comparison would be Vulkan vs DirectX12. OpenGL 4.5 vs DX11 is a fair camparison.