Hello,I have 3dfx, but i don''t know what will be work faster DirecX or Glide? Does directX support all glide functions? (such as Fog )?

Glide will be faster as it is written directly for 3Dfx cards. Glide is also more portable (linux) if you want to go down that route.

Direct3D supports *more* functions than Glide, is more compatible (runs on *every* card out there, not just 3Dfx). It isn''t that far behind on speed aswell...

Glide is also a lot easier to program than D3D though, and I know a lot of people that started their 3D programming career with Glide and have now moved on to D3D/OpenGL

Since you are using a 3dfx card like me, I suggest you write the program in Glide. I tried doing some graphics in DirectX and got nowhere fast (ok, so I didn''t try that hard!). I have been using Glide for a few weeks and I am doing o.k. - I''ve got some textures & z-buffering happening.

If you do decide to go the Glide path there is some highly recommended reading at this address (which I am surprised 3dfx don''t seem to link to since it took me ages to find:

www.voodooextreme.com/glide3tutorial/

This is what got me going. You will need the latest glide 3.x compatible drivers.

As for compatibility with other video cards - if your program is that good gamers will hound card manufacturers till they release their own ''Glide wrapper'', Creative just did this with ''Unified''.

I can''t wait for those quad-chip Voodoo cards, Paulcoz.

Not to start another infamous graphics api war thread but the days of 3dfx dominance, arguably of course, are no longer with us. While I have only heard positive things about Glide, you'll probably want to migrate at some point to something along the lines of Direct X or OpenGL since they, unlike Glide (since its restricted to 3dfx cards), will run on just about any decent card out there.

Edited by - Sieggy on 1/7/00 11:36:31 AM

The fact that glide is more portable shouldn''t influence your decision to use it at all. Far more people use Windows, than the # of people that use 3dfx cards.

What are you saying?

That Glide is more portable than opengl?

Edited by - ZomeonE on 1/8/00 5:06:35 PM

I really think OpenGL should be the way to go. Easy, fast, portable. What more could you want? I also think that someone should write a library that lets you use OGL acceleration on your D3D card, allowing you to have accelerated OGL even if you have a D3D card. In theory this shouldn''t be too hard.

-Jey Kottalam
14 Year Old Computer Programmer
http://www.armageddongames.com

I just wanted to point out that my previous suggestion to use Glide was made on the basis that I personally have found it easier to program than DirectX.

I was certainly not stating that Glide is better than DirectX, or OpenGL.

Paulcoz.

Glide or Direct3D? The answer to this question has certainly changed over the last couple years, but here is my opinion...

If you are new to 3D Programming and you are trying to learn the ropes, choose Glide if you have a 3Dfx card. Glide is little more than a fancy triangle drawer. It''s pitifully easy to initialize and shut down, and you won''t be further confused with DirectX stuff. You are probably going to have enough trouble getting your engine to work without having to worry about the API you are using.

On the other hand, if you know 3D well and you are looking to make a game to distribute, Direct3D all the way. It''s just too compatible to ignore. Also, if you are planning on getting into professional game programming any time soon, Direct3D is a skill being actively recruited.