Hi, guys, i''m just interesting, OpenGL has a future ? If my game will be finished after 2-3 years, can it be, that opengl will not longer be supported by new cards, that will be arrived on stock ? There is a reason to continue develop for opengl ???

Of course OpenGL has a future.

On non-Windows platforms, OpenGL is one of the only ways to go. It has survived for a very long time, is supported on just about every platform you could name that supports graphics, and has a huge following in the world. OpenGL has enough of a future that Apple licensed it for MacOS. And, although Microsoft seems that it''d be more than happy if OpenGL simply were to die, it has enough of a future that they still support it in Windows 2000. More and more developers are using OpenGL for their games, increasingly often exclusively.

OpenGL won''t be going away anytime soon. Apparently there *is* a God in Heaven. =)

OpenGL has a future...
In fact it''s the future, cause it''s well designed, fast, supported by most OS, well documented, and evolutive.
M$ want it''s DirectX to be the future of windows games, but it''s much more intresting to create a game using OpenGL to support more OS.
After all, if you dislike M$ or the monopolistic position it has, you must make your apps/games available on alternative OS, or you''re supporting M$ egemony...

Make your choice...

-* Sounds, music and story makes the difference between good and great games *-

Please look at my current test:

I made a huge ball: 63000 triangles.
I put the same geometry into "xfile" of Direct7SDK and into an OpenGL program. 3D card is Geforce DDR.

The resut shows OpenGL is 15% faster in simple geometric draw:

OpenGL: 23fps,
Direct7 T&L on: 20fps,
Diorect7 T&L off 18fps,

OpenGL is faster, and easier to use. No reason to use Direct3D.

Of course, DirectSound, DirectMusic are very good tool, so
best method for Windows version development is to combine OpenGL, DirectSound, and DirectMusic .

By the way, the most serious problem is about anti-trust problem that could break up Microsoft.

Kate

Edited by - kate on 3/6/00 5:23:56 PM

I''m not surprised you found openGL faster on a geforce. Opengl automatically takes advantage of the geforce''s hardware t&l, whereas direct3D cannot without using the new D3D functions, so it would make sense that GL would be faster. I''d be curious to know which would be quicker if the test was fair though.

I''ve assumed for the sake of this post that you''re not using the extended d3d functions. Apologies if I''m wrong.

The test appeared to be fair. Kate stated the result with hardware T&L on and off.

If you enumerate the T&L device properly on DX7 then it''ll atomatically take advantage of the hardware as OpenGL does.

Having said this, the result does still surprise me.

OpenGL does still have a future but D3D 7''s feature list is currently bigger than OpenGL''s (spec 1.2x anybody - didn''t think so ). Because we haven''t seen the new version yet, OpenGL''s extension mechanism is getting pretty crowded. Its a right pain in the arse to trap for all the supported extensions on a particular card -- you don''t have this problem with D3D 7.

A great shame. Vendors need to get their fingers out and release 1.2 compliant drivers so the ARB can get working on 1.3.

My 2p''s worth....

Paul Groves.
http://home.clara.net/paulyg
OpenGL for Beginners

quote:

---

...then it''ll atomatically take advantage...

---

Ahh, atomatically LOL!

Paul Groves.
http://home.clara.net/paulyg
OpenGL for Beginners

Pauly, excuse me but Direct3D functions as OpenGL ones, aren''t all supported by all cards on the market.
When you program with Direct3D you have to check the available CAPS, that is the available hardware functions...
As for OpenGL extensions.
So not much difference, the problem with D3D is that some features such as Cube Environnement Mapping are already programmed, and you will certainly use it, while your implementation could be faster...
It''s a mix od High and Low level API, so I dislike Direct3D, and I won''t support it cause I don''t want to support M$ exclusivly.

-* Sounds, music and story makes the difference between good and great games *-

Okay, so perhaps I should have said:

If the hardware T&L device gets enumerated properly then DX7 will automatically take advantage of it....

I knew what I meant

Besides, we don''t know if the code was completely similar do we? What if vertex buffers (or whatever they''re called these days) were used in D3D and display lists were used in OpenGL? That would make the test unfair as OpenGL never lets you access that data again - meaning it can do lots of driver specific optimisations.

Ho hum, it''d be nice for vendors to release the specifications of their drivers so we know exactly whats going on.

Paul Groves.
http://home.clara.net/paulyg
OpenGL for Beginners

Oh well at least you can have fun with SGI''s reference Software OpenGL implementation.

( Anyone looked at it, I have! HEADACHE! )

OpenGL certainly has a future, though it is more narrowly focused than D3D. This is both an advantage and a disadvantage. Personally I''d never support a single extension if it was up to me, but *sigh* it isn''t.

Yet somehow I get the feeling a lot of these vendors would rather tack on a load of ( often rubbish ) extensions onto the existing spec instead of moving on to the next one, which has been defined.
GET OFF YER ASS PEOPLE I WANT MY HW SUPPORT FOR CONVOLUTION FILTERING!

( calm down keith, take your pills )