truth be told, it is because OpenGL is a more noble software.
It is a collaboration based open source graphics processing software. Thus very little monetary investment is present for the development of OpenGL.
DirectX is a proprietary software with millions of dollars spent each year into improving the software.
Currenlty DirectX is much more efficient than OpenGL and haves more shading techniques implemented in the graphics engine.
truth be told, it is because OpenGL is a more noble software.
It is a collaboration based open source graphics processing software. Thus very little monetary investment is present for the development of OpenGL.
DirectX is a proprietary software with millions of dollars spent each year into improving the software.
Currenlty DirectX is much more efficient than OpenGL and haves more shading techniques implemented in the graphics engine.
I must say that I don't know much about it, but in almost all articles that I've real OpenGl is superior. Maybe it's because peoples love opensource?
The only reason why most games run better in DirectX is because many developers write for DirectX, which is exactly what Valve is trying to change because it's widely accepted that openGL is better than DirectX. _________________
[AM]Misery wrote:
FangBanger wrote:
What is the best way for a lv19 Soldier to solo Sledge on Borderlands?
I knew someone would argue with the L4d example working better on linux than on Windows.
It's because it is not the same game :/ L4D was optimized and pretty much remade to run on linux by valve. That's why it was not a direct port straight ahead and shouldn't really compare.
Not all games are perfect and L4D is a good example of poor resource management.
Porting a whole game from DirectX to OpenGL is not really hard if you are not using specific DirectX features that OpenGL doesn't have. (And same backwards). Valve took it's time to port L4D because they were optimizing it, and that's not to blame. It is a good thing that they took the time to optimize the core of one of their games, but it is a shame that since it runs fine on most desktops. They are not doing the same optimization for the windows version. (Or maybe it is a marketing strategy for when steam machines are out so people can use the excuse of L4D running better on linux than on windows.)
Its not a "it runs better in DirectX because devs write for DirectX", I'm a dev and I have written code for both DirectX and OpenGL.
Its about using whats best available. DirectX is a windows only graphics engine. OpenGL can be used in android, mac and blackberry. (though not the same OpenGL)
It is not widely accepted that OpenGL is better than DirectX, I'm not sure when you are getting you info. DirectX runs better and it is way more clean than OpenGL (from a developer standpoint), Also it handles better materials composition(this is on a more personal note.). Lately OpenGL has been playing catching up (Though it has not been always that way)
TL;DR: No, you are wrong. straight comparisons of DirectX vs OpenGL in performance and features has always had DirectX on the winning side.
L4D is a better software for linux than for windows, because it was ported and refined.
>implying microsoft doesnt pay developers to use directX as a marketing scheme as well
you're not even admitting openGL is worse, you're only saying its currently behind directx, and that reason is because no one was pushing openGL while everyone was pushing directx, now that windows is shit and valve is pushing openGL it has the potential to run better than directx
plus you're talking about porting things from directx to opengl, it would be optimal to just design for openGL in the first place, which will happen if steam machines take off in a big way
Its because openGL is not bad, I don't want to say that. DirectX is just better.
Of course openGL has the potential to overrun DirectX if there is investment in it's development, there is no doubt about it, but it is not it's current situation.
There is no such a thing as design for openGL or design for DirectX.
For the consumer it looks very important because it is the medium in which they can visualize the games, but choosing the graphics engine to use while developing a game is less than 10% of the game itself. Using directX or OpenGL is not a huge task to change, and some devs even go all the way and make their games work on both.
Microsoft doesn't directly pay devs to use DirectX, they do by investing into educating microsoft developers into using DirectX..
There are tonz of easy to understand tutorials on how to learn DirectX and how to port OpenGL to DirectX (some with program examples and even videos)
Sadly since there is noone really benefiting from OpenGL development other than the community, starting to develop OpenGL is not easy and you need a much more advanced programming skill set. Luckily Google is a big supporter of OpenGL and they are teaming up with other companies to improve the OpenGL documentation (since they use OpenGL for android and it benefits they).
My point is:
As of today, for PC and only Windows PC: DirectX is better than OpenGL, it runs better, it is easier to learn, it is easier to code and haves more features.
----------------------
sorry about the walls of text, game dev is my thing.
Joined: 15 Apr 2011 Posts: 314 Location: P. Sherman 42, Wallaby Way, Sydney
Posted: Tue Jan 07, 2014 6:09 pm Post subject:
does't OpenGl have extensions, so tht way it has more features?
Also Valve said that TF2 runs better on OpenGl than on Direct after only few months tweaking it.
does't OpenGl have extensions, so tht way it has more features?
Also Valve said that TF2 runs better on OpenGl than on Direct after only few months tweaking it.
Sure there are libraries that you can use on top of OpenGL, there are lots of them for DirectX as well. I'm talking about core features like light passes, raytracing, triangles optimization/tessellation, levels of detail, balance loading, etc.
I haven't seen a benchmark on TF2, but from my experience and what should be expected in relation to other benchmarks, TF2 should run as good or worse in OpenGL than in DirectX. If it runs worse then valve can compensate by optimizing the game for their Linux version. (Testing the windows OpenGL verion vs the windows DirectX version should give you a good comparison point )
Joined: 15 Apr 2011 Posts: 314 Location: P. Sherman 42, Wallaby Way, Sydney
Posted: Tue Jan 07, 2014 6:22 pm Post subject:
gogodr wrote:
paupav wrote:
does't OpenGl have extensions, so tht way it has more features?
Also Valve said that TF2 runs better on OpenGl than on Direct after only few months tweaking it.
Sure there are libraries that you can use on top of OpenGL, there are lots of them for DirectX as well. I'm talking about core features like light passes, raytracing, triangles optimization/tessellation, levels of detail, balance loading, etc.
I haven't seen a benchmark on TF2, but from my experience and what should be expected in relation to other benchmarks, TF2 should run as good or worse in OpenGL than in DirectX. If it runs worse then valve can compensate by optimizing the game for their Linux version. (Testing the windows OpenGL verion vs the windows DirectX version should give you a good comparison point )
I don't know about other features but tessellation is supported on OpenGl
does't OpenGl have extensions, so tht way it has more features?
Also Valve said that TF2 runs better on OpenGl than on Direct after only few months tweaking it.
Sure there are libraries that you can use on top of OpenGL, there are lots of them for DirectX as well. I'm talking about core features like light passes, raytracing, triangles optimization/tessellation, levels of detail, balance loading, etc.
I haven't seen a benchmark on TF2, but from my experience and what should be expected in relation to other benchmarks, TF2 should run as good or worse in OpenGL than in DirectX. If it runs worse then valve can compensate by optimizing the game for their Linux version. (Testing the windows OpenGL verion vs the windows DirectX version should give you a good comparison point )
I don't know about other features but tessellation is supported on OpenGl
I know, all the features I wrote are supported by both engines. They are done in very similar ways, some work better on DirectX and others work better in OpenGL, some others are missing in OpenGL and even more depending on which version of OpenGL you are using.
but overall DirectX is more efficient
Joined: 15 Apr 2011 Posts: 314 Location: P. Sherman 42, Wallaby Way, Sydney
Posted: Tue Jan 07, 2014 6:57 pm Post subject:
gogodr wrote:
paupav wrote:
gogodr wrote:
paupav wrote:
does't OpenGl have extensions, so tht way it has more features?
Also Valve said that TF2 runs better on OpenGl than on Direct after only few months tweaking it.
Sure there are libraries that you can use on top of OpenGL, there are lots of them for DirectX as well. I'm talking about core features like light passes, raytracing, triangles optimization/tessellation, levels of detail, balance loading, etc.
I haven't seen a benchmark on TF2, but from my experience and what should be expected in relation to other benchmarks, TF2 should run as good or worse in OpenGL than in DirectX. If it runs worse then valve can compensate by optimizing the game for their Linux version. (Testing the windows OpenGL verion vs the windows DirectX version should give you a good comparison point )
I don't know about other features but tessellation is supported on OpenGl
I know, all the features I wrote are supported by both engines. They are done in very similar ways, some work better on DirectX and others work better in OpenGL, some others are missing in OpenGL and even more depending on which version of OpenGL you are using.
but overall DirectX is more efficient
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You cannot attach files in this forum You can download files in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
Reputation: 125
