DirectX is like Fortran. In the 1970's, people said that Fortran would stop being used and supported within a year. 15 years later, people still hadn't entirely given up fortran. Microsoft is trying to eventually phase out DirectX and replace it with XNA. Since so many people use DirectX, it's going to take a long time for people to actually migrate to a new* API.

*XNA is based off of DirectX.

Quote: Original post by slayemin
Microsoft is trying to eventually phase out DirectX and replace it with XNA.

You say this as they continue to expand the DirectX API with newly announced SDKs: Direct2D and DirectWrite. I'm sorry, but what you're saying is complete and utter bollocks.

XNA and DirectX are designed to coexist, not replace each other. XNA is something like a Microsoft foray into middleware -- it's certainly intersting, but at the same time they're largely targeting two completely different set of developers -- hobbyists and smaller game studios with less manpower on the one side, and large game studios looking to push the latest generation of hardware to it's limits on the other.

What will they replace? Direct3D9 with Direct3D10. Direct3D10 with Direct3D11. DirectDraw with Direct2D. DirectSound8 with XAudio. And so on. Like they've been doing for years.

>>So? Lack of OpenGL driver support and a stagnating API have made OpenGL a thoroughly poor choice for new development.

you better run that by google, apple etc (well just about all the major industry players except MS) then, as they all seem to be going down the opengl route :)

Quote: Original post by zedz
you better run that by google, apple etc (well just about all the major industry players except MS) then, as they all seem to be going down the opengl route :)

eh?
The VAST majority of games are produced using D3D. (afaik only iD and Blizzard use OpenGL as the only/primary renderer in the AAA space, and iD have a large legacy code base and Blizzard are trying to take over every platform ever).

Apple has NO CHOICE but to use OpenGL.
Mobile space is OpenGL|ES, which is not the same and MS really haven't put any effort into Mobile D3D as far as I've seen.

Go on, name me some more so I can play the 'shoot down' game.. it's fun.

Also, none of the above cover the 'new development' clause in the original post.

Basically; OpenGL is a great choice, if you don't have a choice.
(now, if they had stuck with Longs Peak and not the current mess that might well be different, but they didn't, so such is life. The recent 3.1 announcement thread on OpenGL.org was notable not so much for the content but for the people who weren't posting in it; i.e. long term users who gave up after the last fsck-up)

I'm not trying to turn this into an argument, so sorry if I seem a bit persistent. I'd just like to point out the company Jagex, who say they're holding up against the recession well (and the wage of one of their job advertisements I found out of curiosity bears that out). The vast majority of their products are made in Java, which as far as I know uses OpenGL, and though I know RuneScape's graphics are awful, I found some of the games on their other website quite impressive. So I wouldn't say OpenGL is a closed door to those who want to develop professional games. That's just my opinion though.

Of course. OpenGL isn't dead; there are still people using it. It's just that most games use D3D.

This only applies to Windows, of course. On other platforms, you don't have much of a choice. Linux and Mac only have OpenGL, the Xbox 360 only has D3D, and the Wii and PS3 both use proprietary APIs.

Quote: Original post by Sappharos
I'm not trying to turn this into an argument, so sorry if I seem a bit persistent. I'd just like to point out the company Jagex, who say they're holding up against the recession well (and the wage of one of their job advertisements I found out of curiosity bears that out). The vast majority of their products are made in Java, which as far as I know uses OpenGL, and though I know RuneScape's graphics are awful, I found some of the games on their other website quite impressive. So I wouldn't say OpenGL is a closed door to those who want to develop professional games. That's just my opinion though.

The both API's must provide back compatibility for all games,but do it using different ways,and from such point of view DX seems me more "right". I would say that after DX9+D3DX library release OGL had no chance at Windows+Intel platform. BTW,DirectX provide also DirectInput and DirectSound components,and mutual compatibility of all this DX parts was tested.
Games based at XNA stil seems me too simular.I remember that once apon a time in DX was Render Morphics legacy,later -DX6 retained mode,it's almost "engines" providing high level functions ,but they were too slow and limited.Now we can see another one attempt...

Quote: Original post by phantom
The VAST majority of games are produced using D3D. (afaik only iD and Blizzard use OpenGL as the only/primary renderer in the AAA space, and iD have a large legacy code base and Blizzard are trying to take over every platform ever).

Blizzard's games (well, WoW at least) use a Direct3D rendering pipeline on Windows, despite having a completely perfectly good OpenGL pipeline for their Mac version. That alone should be a red flag about the state of OpenGL on the Windows platform.

Quote: I'm sure Promit is tired of repeating himself, so I'll say it for him: games on the PS3 generally avoid PSGL (which in turn was forked off OpenGL ES, not OpenGL proper) on account of it being a slow piece of junk -- and instead use CTM, a proprietary PS3 API.

It actually turns out that the id guys are using PSGL for Rage -- except that they're replacing all the important bits with GCM (not "CTM") code. So it's only almost completely useless.

What I've heard from Windows developers in the trenches, more or less, is that ATI's OGL drivers vary in quality from mediocre to just plain bad, and Intel does even worse. Those two together comprise what, about 60-80% of the total computing market? (Unfortunately the Steam hardware survey is biased somewhat differently.)

Quote: Of course. OpenGL isn't dead; there are still people using it. It's just that most games use D3D.

"Dead" is a very strong word. But who in the AAA space other than id Software is making OGL based Windows games anymore? The only others I've found are people licensing idTech. And if you look at the events and quotes surrounding OpenGL 3.0, it sounds like even Carmack was completely blindsided and annoyed. The next iteration of idTech was started long before that happened, but I'm curious to see if 3.1's "deprecate-to-extension" model is enough to appease what may be the last cutting edge game graphics people using that thing.

Quote: Original post by Promit

Quote: Original post by phantom
The VAST majority of games are produced using D3D. (afaik only iD and Blizzard use OpenGL as the only/primary renderer in the AAA space, and iD have a large legacy code base and Blizzard are trying to take over every platform ever).

Blizzard's games (well, WoW at least) use a Direct3D rendering pipeline on Windows, despite having a completely perfectly good OpenGL pipeline for their Mac version. That alone should be a red flag about the state of OpenGL on the Windows platform.

huh.. I didn't realise that; granted I did kinda make the assumption that they were OGL everywhere because of the guy on the OGL.org forum who works for them and has been saying things about the new specs in relation to what they are doing.

Well they are still using it. You can even enable it in Window via a command line switch, I believe. But by default you get the D3D renderer.