Hi, Did you notice visual differences between scenes rendered with OpenGL and DirectX. I did. To be exact, I find pictures rendered with OGL more colorfull, and pictures rendered with DX more realistic. Because of this, OGL is better suited for fantasy-like games (at least i think), while DirectX is better for example for car-racing games. However, this is only my point of view, and I may well be wrong. The most biggest problem with this thing, is, that lighting (which has maybe the most biggest impact on outcoming colors) is in most cases done in the hardware, so there must not be any differences between the two rendering APIs, if we''re talking about colors. I would like to know what you think about it? Do you see it too, or it''s only me? Do you see any other differences in rendered scenes?

You are SOOOOOOO wrong.

.lick

wrong forum!

Well generally speaking Direct3D and OpenGL are just interfaces to the display hardware. Anything you render should look the same since it is still being processed by the same piece of equipment.

That said I have noticed some differences, but mainly it is because of differenced in the API not the hardware. E.g.: Map lines in IL-2 Sturmovik will appear thick in OpenGL but very thin in Direct3D. This isn''t a failure on the part of the hardware, its just that OpenGL allows you to change the thickness of a line and Direct3D doesn''t.

There is exactly zero difference between rendering a image with OpenGL and rendering an image with Direct3D if you use the same data. (besides the line limitation of D3D)

[edited by - novum on June 15, 2003 2:52:30 PM]