OpenGL or DirectX

I want to start learning about developing 3D games, and I wanted to find out
what some of you think is superior and or more programmer friendly to the
new comer OpenGL or DirectX


--
Steven Binion
stevenbinion@the-binions.com
http://the-binions.com

AIM: stevebinion
MSN: stevenbinion@hotmail.com
Yahoo: stevenbinion

Steven Binion wrote:

> I want to start learning about developing 3D games, and I wanted to find out
> what some of you think is superior and or more programmer friendly to the
> new comer OpenGL or DirectX

Neither is superior in terms of performance. IMO OpenGL is easier to
understand, though the difference is not great.

"Steven Binion" <stevenbinion@the-binions.com> wrote in message
news:8Q8pb.2113$Oo4.96@newsread1.news.atl.earthlin k.net...
> I want to start learning about developing 3D games, and I wanted to find
out
> what some of you think is superior and or more programmer friendly to the
> new comer OpenGL or DirectX
>

DirectX is great for games, OpenGL only concerns graphics. If you plan to
run your stuff under something else than Windows, OpenGL is the only thing
you can use though. You can't make a game only with OpenGL. You'll have to
use some network library (like WinSock2), some sound library (probably
Direct Sound) and input library (Direct Input). So if you want to make a
game, maybe it's better to look into DirectX, since the syntax and way to
think will be familiar across libraries. If you want to have real fun
though, use OpenGL for the graphics, and DirectInput, DirectPlay and
DirectSound for the rest. OpenGL is much easier in my own opinion that
Direct3D. And there's no trouble mixing the two. Heck, you can even have a
Direct3D window and have a OpenGL window as a child!

Have fun!

Hi,
OpenGL and DirectX are apple and oranges. OpenGL is a graphic library
that helps you display 2D and 3D pictures. DirectX is a library that helps
you drawing, playing sounds, sending data over the network. In fact, DirectX
is probably what comes closest to a game programming library. OpenGL only
does graphics.

I suppose what you meant was what's is better between OpenGL and
Direct3D. Personally, I prefer OpenGL because the code I write with it can
run on Linux and MacOS, while Direct3D is Windows centric, and works only
under Windows. Some clever people managed to have it run under Linux, but
it's prone to crashes and is not as fast.

In terms of features, both API are about the same, though Microsoft
seems to be pushing more the enveloppe when it comes to 3D. While the while
OpenGL comitee has to agree on adding a feature to OpenGL, Microsoft is the
only one to decide if a new feature is part of Direct3D, which makes the
adoption of new techniques faster. But feature wise they're still about the
same. Some people will argue that DirectX is faster, some will argue OpenGL
is. That I can't tell you.

What I can tell you though is that OpenGL programming is very easy to
learn and understand. I always found the basic concepts of Direct3D harder
to understand than OpenGL, but that's just me. A good introduction to OpenGL
can be found at Nehe Productions at http://nehe.gamedev.net/

Have fun!

Well sounds like I may want to learn both then eventually. but for now. Just
start with using DirectX. once I start grasping it, take a look at the
OpenGL and see how well I do on incorporating it into the Direct3D Thank you
for giving me some feedback on this issure.

--
Steven Binion
stevenbinion@the-binions.com
http://the-binions.com

AIM: stevebinion
MSN: stevenbinion@hotmail.com
Yahoo: stevenbinion
"Fronsac" <fronsacqcN05PAM@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:E2hpb.12915$of7.493612@wagner.videotron.net.. .
> "Steven Binion" <stevenbinion@the-binions.com> wrote in message
> news:8Q8pb.2113$Oo4.96@newsread1.news.atl.earthlin k.net...
> > I want to start learning about developing 3D games, and I wanted to find
> out
> > what some of you think is superior and or more programmer friendly to
the
> > new comer OpenGL or DirectX
> >
>
> DirectX is great for games, OpenGL only concerns graphics. If you plan to
> run your stuff under something else than Windows, OpenGL is the only thing
> you can use though. You can't make a game only with OpenGL. You'll have to
> use some network library (like WinSock2), some sound library (probably
> Direct Sound) and input library (Direct Input). So if you want to make a
> game, maybe it's better to look into DirectX, since the syntax and way to
> think will be familiar across libraries. If you want to have real fun
> though, use OpenGL for the graphics, and DirectInput, DirectPlay and
> DirectSound for the rest. OpenGL is much easier in my own opinion that
> Direct3D. And there's no trouble mixing the two. Heck, you can even have a
> Direct3D window and have a OpenGL window as a child!
>
> Have fun!
>
>
>

Thank you for giving me some feedback on this question. and for the link. I
definately know now to start with DirectX first as Windows is what I work
with, and I program in MS VC++, I'll start with OpenGL after I get a fair
grip on DirectX and incorporate the OpenGL


--
Steven Binion
stevenbinion@the-binions.com
http://the-binions.com

AIM: stevebinion
MSN: stevenbinion@hotmail.com
Yahoo: stevenbinion
"Fronsac" <fronsacqcN05PAM@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:F6cpb.10313$of7.251914@wagner.videotron.net.. .
> Hi,
> OpenGL and DirectX are apple and oranges. OpenGL is a graphic library
> that helps you display 2D and 3D pictures. DirectX is a library that helps
> you drawing, playing sounds, sending data over the network. In fact,
DirectX
> is probably what comes closest to a game programming library. OpenGL only
> does graphics.
>
> I suppose what you meant was what's is better between OpenGL and
> Direct3D. Personally, I prefer OpenGL because the code I write with it can
> run on Linux and MacOS, while Direct3D is Windows centric, and works only
> under Windows. Some clever people managed to have it run under Linux, but
> it's prone to crashes and is not as fast.
>
> In terms of features, both API are about the same, though Microsoft
> seems to be pushing more the enveloppe when it comes to 3D. While the
while
> OpenGL comitee has to agree on adding a feature to OpenGL, Microsoft is
the
> only one to decide if a new feature is part of Direct3D, which makes the
> adoption of new techniques faster. But feature wise they're still about
the
> same. Some people will argue that DirectX is faster, some will argue
OpenGL
> is. That I can't tell you.
>
> What I can tell you though is that OpenGL programming is very easy to
> learn and understand. I always found the basic concepts of Direct3D harder
> to understand than OpenGL, but that's just me. A good introduction to
OpenGL
> can be found at Nehe Productions at http://nehe.gamedev.net/
>
> Have fun!
>
>

As hard as they are to compare, I still say you shouldn't waste your time
with OpenGL, it's overblown if you ask me.

I'll keep that in mind. I haven't heard enough support on it, to make it
worth my while anyway.


--
Steven Binion
stevenbinion@the-binions.com
http://the-binions.com

AIM: stevebinion
MSN: stevenbinion@hotmail.com
Yahoo: stevenbinion
"Xyllon" <spam@spam.spam> wrote in message
news:%EHpb.6304$Bv6.1934469@news1.epix.net...
> As hard as they are to compare, I still say you shouldn't waste your time
> with OpenGL, it's overblown if you ask me.
>
>

Steve, you should probably take into account the fact that OpenGL does run
under Windows, but DirectX doesn't run under anything OTHER than Windows.

I'm in a Computer Graphics class this semester. We're using OpenGL. I
chose to do all my work on Linux, because I know that toolset "well enough".
Other people are doing their work on Windows boxes. The graphics code,
using OpenGL, is IDENTICAL between the two platforms.

Or you could just take judicious note of the fact that id ported Doom to
Silicon Graphics workstations using OpenGL...

"Steven Binion" <stevenbinion@the-binions.com> wrote in message
news:CYmpb.3120$9M3.961@newsread2.news.atl.earthli nk.net...
> Thank you for giving me some feedback on this question. and for the link.
I
> definately know now to start with DirectX first as Windows is what I work
> with, and I program in MS VC++, I'll start with OpenGL after I get a fair
> grip on DirectX and incorporate the OpenGL
>
>
> --
> Steven Binion
> stevenbinion@the-binions.com
> http://the-binions.com
>
> AIM: stevebinion
> MSN: stevenbinion@hotmail.com
> Yahoo: stevenbinion
> "Fronsac" <fronsacqcN05PAM@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:F6cpb.10313$of7.251914@wagner.videotron.net.. .
> > Hi,
> > OpenGL and DirectX are apple and oranges. OpenGL is a graphic
library
> > that helps you display 2D and 3D pictures. DirectX is a library that
helps
> > you drawing, playing sounds, sending data over the network. In fact,
> DirectX
> > is probably what comes closest to a game programming library. OpenGL
only
> > does graphics.
> >
> > I suppose what you meant was what's is better between OpenGL and
> > Direct3D. Personally, I prefer OpenGL because the code I write with it
can
> > run on Linux and MacOS, while Direct3D is Windows centric, and works
only
> > under Windows. Some clever people managed to have it run under Linux,
but
> > it's prone to crashes and is not as fast.
> >
> > In terms of features, both API are about the same, though Microsoft
> > seems to be pushing more the enveloppe when it comes to 3D. While the
> while
> > OpenGL comitee has to agree on adding a feature to OpenGL, Microsoft is
> the
> > only one to decide if a new feature is part of Direct3D, which makes the
> > adoption of new techniques faster. But feature wise they're still about
> the
> > same. Some people will argue that DirectX is faster, some will argue
> OpenGL
> > is. That I can't tell you.
> >
> > What I can tell you though is that OpenGL programming is very easy
to
> > learn and understand. I always found the basic concepts of Direct3D
harder
> > to understand than OpenGL, but that's just me. A good introduction to
> OpenGL
> > can be found at Nehe Productions at http://nehe.gamedev.net/
> >
> > Have fun!
> >
> >
>
>

Steve:

The core difference between OpenGL and Direct3D is the former has some
slightly higher level interfaces. In Direct3D the only surface you have
is a triangle, whereas OpenGL offers more complex polygons.

That being said, it should also be said that any programmer worth his salt
could easily, effortlessly, and painlessly write a simple shim that allows
him to work with squares and trapazoids and what not even though Direct3D
only works with triangles. This offers a really nifty advantage.

I mean it would be platform independant, as your vanila shim should easily
be able to work with Direct3D or OpenGL (why should the higher-level game
logic care?). There is good reason for this in our more mundane
experiences. Early GUI toolkits for Java looked identical on any given
platform, but they didn't look `at home' on any platform. I could whip up
some GUI that worked fine in KDE, but it didn't look like a KDE window.
The same was true when it ran on MS Windows. No matter what I did, the
buttons and such looked like Java buttons rather than MS Windows push
buttons. Netscape (IMHO) has the same problem now too. That damn toolbar
looks like nothing else in linsux or in MS Windows. Considering there are
only so many ways to create a window one would think writing a shim (which
would call the native API) would have been obvious to those
knuckleheads...

My advice to you is simple. If you wish to learn more about OpenGL and
Direct3D, I suggest you write a vanilla shim that will let your game treat
either of the two as a black-box back-end. Your game interfaces with the
shim, not OGL or D3D. You will learn quite a *LOT* about both w/o even
comming close to completing said shim.

I have found (through painful experience) the Ease of Use would be the
following ordered list OpenGL->Direct3D->OpenScene.

I'm off-topic and rather obtuse most of the time, but I do hope this
helps,
</RANT>