News has leaked that Microsoft has enabled support for OpenGL to work with the Vista compositing desktop, as of the most recent preview build. Previously Microsoft’s plan had been to force OpenGL to be translated to Direct3D, reducing performance by 50% and locking the OpenGL version to 1.4 only.
use OpenGL again?
I would think that most folks who buy Vista would be quite OK with using Direct3D … since that’s what many/most applications use to drive high-end graphics on Windows OS’s.
Unless it’s a question of video card support?
Because OpenGL is the one and only industry standard for 3D graphics?
Tom
//Because OpenGL is the one and only industry standard for 3D graphics? //
And … with most graphics software written for Windows is using Direct 3D … your point is …
And … with most graphics software written for Windows is using Direct 3D … your point is …
When you say graphics software you mean games?
Almost all professional graphics software like CAD or animation software like Maya (IIRC) uses OpenGL.
It’s only in the gaming world that Direct3D is the dominating force.
//It’s only in the gaming world that Direct3D is the dominating force.//
Ok, that makes sense — I wasn’t aware that CAD/Animation Software doesn’t use Direct 3D.
In that light … why the hell *wouldn’t* MS allow for OpenGL? Seems stoopid not to do so.
It’s only in the gaming world that Direct3D is the dominating force.
And lets not forget that all the id engines use OpenGL, and there’s a lot of games built on those engines.
And lets not forget that all the id engines use OpenGL, and there’s a lot of games built on those engines.
While we’re at it let’s also not forget that Carmack said he will be developing for the Xbox 360 which has many speculating that his next engine will be D3D based.
Also, the Unreal engine powered (and is powering) far more titles as id’s engines. It supports both, but the “default” is D3D.
As another poster already said, there’s a lot of professional 3D software NOT using Direct3D. In some areas, platform portability is important, and thats where – once again – MS technology is an absolute no-go.
Tom
As another poster already said, there’s a lot of professional 3D software NOT using Direct3D. In some areas, platform portability is important, and thats where – once again – MS technology is an absolute no-go.
Actually, in theory DirectX is portable; if one wanted to implement the whole API, cleanly from ground up, then yes, it would be possible, but at the same time, it would be very costly and considering that only games are the main target for DirectX, there is little incentive for it to occur.
As for another poster complaining about ‘vendor lock in’ – DirectX is more than just Direct3D; it is a complete API covering media, graphics, sound etc. etc. its a whole lot more complex and complicated than OpenGL.
Well “in theory” all things from MS are portable of course, but as you stated, it’s often just a matter of money (given to MS). Well when you talk about DirectX, that’s where SDL comes in place, it offers what DirectX (Direct3D, DirectPlay etc.) offers, but open, platform-independent (and platform-independency means more than running under 2K+XP, it means Win, Linux, Mac …). SDL is used for UT, Doom, ET, Quake, just to name a few.
Tom
Well “in theory” all things from MS are portable of course, but as you stated, it’s often just a matter of money (given to MS). Well when you talk about DirectX, that’s where SDL comes in place, it offers what DirectX (Direct3D, DirectPlay etc.) offers, but open, platform-independent (and platform-independency means more than running under 2K+XP, it means Win, Linux, Mac …). SDL is used for UT, Doom, ET, Quake, just to name a few.
Not even cash to Microsoft – just the shear cost of implementing such a large and complex set of API’s, then coupled with the fact that you would have to have co-operation with graphics card companies, it wouldn’t be an easy feat.
With SDL; its a good idea, but the problem as far as I see it is this – it needs better marketing and more people using it to make it a worthwhile ‘alternative’ to strapping oneself naked to DirectX vs. using SDL ontop of DirectX.
The problem with porting DirectX (or even just D3D) is the Pixel/Vertex Shader features.
You said it yourself, DirectX is more than just Direct3D… you also need graphics driver support
You said it yourself, DirectX is more than just Direct3D… you also need graphics driver support
True 🙂
Given how hard it is to get graphics card companies today just simply to provide basic UNIX support, it would be the equivilance of moving heaven and earth to get them to back DirectX on UNIX.
still many cross platform games use opengl like enemy teritorry, unreal tournament, and doom3.
http://www.opengl.org/applications/windows/games/
it makes sense to use industry standards and not use microsoft standards.
Not Found
The requested URL /applications/windows/games/ was not found on this server.
http://www.opengl.org/products/platform/C5/
New Link: http://www.opengl.org/index.php/products/platform/C5
Select Windows and Games from the search-box on the right
I was talking to a 3D programmer who works on some in-house 3D application in the Oil Industry, and he was telling me that while Direct3D is great API for games, it is not as useful for industrial applications software that he works on. For instance there is something like 250 calls in OpenGL, which he uses, but only about a 100 or so are useful to games. I assume that Direct3D has implemented mostly those calls that are useful to games, but has not implemented everything that is useful for his industrial applications.
It’s probably a case of accuracy vs. speed. The push with Direct3D seems to be towards high speed, low accuracy, but done in such a way that visually emulates high-accuracy.
Industry OpenGL apps don’t have to look supa-pretty with nice reflective/warping water, but have to be 100% accurate in what they do.
I assume that Direct3D has implemented mostly those calls that are useful to games, but has not implemented everything that is useful for his industrial applications.
3D-Studio MAX seems to work just fine with Direct3D, so I don’t see why “industrial” applications wouldn’t.
Also, I don’t see how the two different APIs influence the accuracy, since these days the graphics card does the majority of the work.
Edited 2006-03-20 22:08
3ds Max is a program that many of us really, really, really like to stay away from.
Click the red button… crash.
3ds Max is a program that many of us really, really, really like to stay away from.
You know, if ILM thinks it was worthwhile during the production of their flagship movies (aka Star Wars prequels), then I’m probably going to take their word over yours.
1. The prequels didn’t represent much in the way of cutting edge animation or modeling.
2. In a private conversation with a developer at what-was-then discreet, he confirmed that the sole reason 3DSMax hasn’t been ported (when other tools of theirs have been) is because they got vendor-locked early on into the synergy between Microsoft dev tools and DirectX to make any kind of porting essentially a scratch rewrite. They also encouraged their users to develop processor-specific plugins, something even Adobe avoided. AFAIK only Rhino’s in the same boat.
Alias, Metacreations, DAZ3D, Maxon, and a plethora of others could easily have made the same choice but didn’t (in part because most started on Mac), but I don’t see too many 3D companies eager to go with DirectX. As others here have pointed out, DirectX is like the Cell processor: an engine optimized to speed, not power.
The bonus of DirectX is being able to write something quickly and get it to market before your competitor does, just like VisualBASIC (or hardcore Cocoa development on OS X). But the downside is your future is completely tied to one platform unless you’re willing to later code the way your competitors did from the beginning.
hahahahahahaha – 3d studio max…. hahahahahaha
Edited 2006-03-21 00:11
The API’s affect the result even though the card does the work. The API’s have different ways of telling the card how do it’s job. The card takes very low-level instructions, whereas using an API such as OpenGL or Direct3D, it is rather high level. Much is done by the API.
use OpenGL again?
No one does except UNIX-like platforms. Most older professional OpenGL apps now use Direct3D.
OpenGL is probably included for backwards compability reasons (aka ID software games and older apps).
Don’t be daft: most high end professional 3D software runs on OpenGL for the simple reason it is cross platform. Maya is the prime example.
And that app alone would be more than enough for ms to support OpenGL: the high end 3D graphics world is already running away from windows. Having OpenGL at 50% speed would kill them in the market.
I use it because it has a much better api, and is cross platform.
Most opensource 3d apps/games utilize opengl.
and i use winxp. raw dx code is ugly as hell. Managed dx is pretty good, but no one has the assemblies to run apps that use it.
That dx is faster than ogl was a widely propogated myth back in the day. When the api wars were on, opengl implementations were actually faster, better than directx, microsoft just denounced ogl saying it is fit only for precision applications.
Now, this is more true than it was then. Since directx gets all the hardware support/acceleration, naturally it is generally faster. If games started using ogl more then this would change. This was likely the reason doom 3 was ogl. Carmack probably liked the api and saw that if there were popular games using it it could beat dx. Seems that no one really followed suit though, so we are still in the closed, microsoft owned, directx world.
I can’t see why the original post was marked down to -3. When you go to mark someone down if asks if you want to mark down because:
Yes, this comment includes personal attacks/offensive language
Yes, this comment is off-topic
Yes, this comment is spam or includes advertisements
Yes, I disagree with this user/opinion
If you pick the last when then you get a rebuke and the article doesn’t get marked down…
This topic is full of comments being marked down because people have suggested that DX is better than OpenGL or there’s no need for OpenGL on Windows etc etc etc. Just because you think someone is talking a load of crap it doesn’t mean they should be marked down, does it?
I guess when a lot of people dont like what that person is saying they find a way of using the scoring system to mark the person down and I think it is fair. There are many close minded people. I have usually found that stupid posts usually get marked down correctly here at osnews. I like the socring system. If I spread FUD for example I should be modded all the way down as far as possible plain and simple.
Well a lot of softwares use OpenGL…especially professional tools like CAD/CAM and those thousands of dollars worth of software that are used by big movie houses and so on. I think MS would have to have been barking mad to have it as a wrapper working through DX. Think of the performance overhead! It is stupid not to include OpenGL. MS has already established dominance in the gaming market with DX. Trying to put out OpenGL support just makes them look bad. OpenGL is here to stay.
It would be a smart move for microsoft (in the company’s POV) if Vista ditched/artificially break openGL. If every graphics application that aimed to be run on Vista had no option besides using D3D, then it would be virtually impossible for them to write code that aimed to be multiplatform. Therefore, there would be a lot of applications that would be exclusive to windows and other OSs would be left alone in the dark.
Of course if Microsoft did that, they would be giving the screw of a lifetime to every computer user in the world because they would be, in effect, cementing the company’s monopoly on domestic and professional desktop computing.
Vendor locking…
If Microsoft dropped support for OpenGL, wouldn’t that benefit Apple, esp. now that it’s on Intel? I wonder just how happy Dell would be?
Vendor locking…
If Microsoft dropped support for OpenGL, wouldn’t that benefit Apple, esp. now that it’s on Intel? I wonder just how happy Dell would be?
That makes no sense at all. DX only runs in windows, Apple uses OpenGL. How does MacOS running on intel come into factor what API devs choose to program with? Where does Dell fit into all this, they just make hardware for a lords and masters in redmond.
Also it’s important to remember that the PSP uses OpenGL ES 2.0. Very likely the PS3 also uses that same API.
I’d guess that one of the reasons, if not the biggest reason for the threat to kill OpenGL on Vista was to target PS3/PSP development.
Any concerted effort to make using OpenGL programs less favorable on Vista would simply discourage adoption of Vista by the workstation market. If the desktop effects turn off and on every time they start using their software packages on Vista, thus annoying them, they’ll ask themselves why they’re upgrading from XP Pro when what they have works well now. People pay more for their professional applications than they do for Windows, and it is those applications and not Windows that provides them their revenue. Pissing off the ISVs that make those applications and the users that rely on them at the same time is just a bad idea, and I never really understood where Microsoft was finding the testicular fortitude to do so in the first place.
“It would be a smart move for microsoft (in the company’s POV) if Vista ditched/artificially break openGL.”
Only if you consider losing big and prestigious clients a smart thing to do.
In many professional environments, network transparency is a must-have feature. OpenGL is network transparent, as is the whole X protocol. I do not know whether Direct3D and DirectDraw are network-transparent, perhaps someone here knows.
Also note that Windows is not entirely dominant in the professional graphics world. Sure, there are many windows workstations, but there are also many *nix ones, so having a cross-platform API is useful.
By the way the professional computer graphics world has been one of the first domains where Linux has been used in production environments. I remember that already the Titanic movie (1997) had its computer effects rendered under Linux. Today, most computer animation studios have Linux clusters.
I do know that such rendering does not use OpenGL or D3D. That was only an example showing that the professional computer graphics world isn’t 100% Windows, hence a cross-platform API like OpenGL makes sense.
Edited 2006-03-20 18:40
It is highly unlikely that professional softwares will switch to DX just because MS decides to use DX emulation for OGL in Vista. They are just going to stop supporting that platform due to the performance problems. (and their users tend to be more loyal to their applications than to the underlying OS) There is not much for MS to gain from this: the professional market is very small and this move will only push pro users to OS X and Linux.
On the other hand, with the upcoming release of PS3 and Revolution, DX’s position in the gaming industry may erode. Game consoles, using specialized hardwares, will always beat (upgrade cycles notwithstanding) the generic hardware of a PC when it comes to gaming performance. This means the importance of the Windows platform will be lessened and the real battle will be played in the console world. Looking at the big three consoles, both PS3 and Revolution use variants of OGL, which is also supported fully by all major platforms. Now which API would you choose?
Edited 2006-03-20 18:45
Previously Microsoft’s plan had been to force OpenGL to be translated to Direct3D, reducing performance by 50% and locking the OpenGL version to 1.4 only.
This is highly misleading. It has always been the case that this scenario only came into play if there was no ICD provided by the vendor.
“Previously Microsoft’s plan had been to force OpenGL to be translated to Direct3D, reducing performance by 50% and locking the OpenGL version to 1.4 only.”
This is highly misleading. It has always been the case that this scenario only came into play if there was no ICD provided by the vendor.
correct. The issue that remained (which was much less of an issue) is that running an app that used sich an ICD would cause the aero glass compositor to be disabled. Not such a bad thing in itself (especially if the app is fullscreen) but it still would have caused a few joe user types to believe that “opengl apps break my vista” by disabling the glass effects. ISVs who used opengl would have had to answer for that to those joe users. Hardly armageddon, but not cool.
So, if MS is now supporting opengl more fully, does that situation remain? Have they found a way to have ICDs and aero glass coexist? Or will ICDs be unnecessary now that Microsoft’s implementation won’t be crippled?
MS’s implementation has *always* been “crippled” (well, at least slower than 3rd party OGL implementations)
Having OGL and hardware accelerated compositing coexisting is entirely possible (along with all the special compositing effects): Just look at Quartz Extreme and OGL under OS X!
Right now, you have 3 possible scenarios: 1. The IHV provide no OGL implementation and you will use the DX emulated default implementation (I think this only occurs when you have an integrated graphics card, and we all know how well suited they are for OGL acceleration…) 2. IHV did not update their OGL implementation for Vista: Aero Glass will be disabled in this case, but this won’t affect OGL games at all since they run under full screen 3. IHV provide an updated OGL implementation for Vista: Everything works perfectly!
Ive seen referenced into what Vista has eye candy wise, isnt near as good as what XGL offers.
2 cents.
Ive seen referenced into what Vista has eye candy wise, isnt near as good as what XGL offers.
Speaking as an Apple fanboy, XGL will keep Apple very busy over the next few years. Swirling-cube desktop switching on OS X may look similar, but those of us who use it see both the coming and the passing screen freeze during the animation and XGL carries the load of running everything during it.
If MS had followed through on this a game like Doom 3, which uses OGL for portability reasons, would run crappier on Vista than on Linux/Mac!
Um.. no, because it would be running Full Screen and likely with third-party drivers, so it wouldn’t have been an issue.
I’m probably missing something then. How would first translating OGL to D3d still be able surpass being able to ‘use’ OGl ‘directly’, as in without unneeded in between steps?
Because it wouldn’t be translating to D3d in full screen. The DWM would be disabled and OpenGL would take over the screen.
/* This was likely the reason doom 3 was ogl. */
The reason was that Carmacj just like OpenGL more & for him it is just “better”. He feel better with OpenGL.
The second rason is that John Carmack is Linux fan. He helped to many projects to make them better (matrox drivers for example). So OpenGL is better API for multiplatform gaming. Yes. Linux users deserve to play cool games too
Edited 2006-03-21 00:21
No… Us Linux users do not deserve cool games, we are too busy in our basements, drinking kool-aid, wearing our tin-foil hats, popping our pimples, and waiting for the big bad man from Microsoft coming around, formatting our PCs and installing Windows on them.
I knew it!!
With Direct 3D 10 and the the new video drivers on Vista. It is pretty much game over for OpenGL for most things in the industry.
Not true… Right now, it is clear that generic PCs are no longer going to match consoles when it comes to gaming performance. The gaming war is now going to be played on the console side instead.
On this side, only XBox uses DX as its API. Both Sony and Nintendo use variants of OGL. Note that DX dominated the PC gaming industry due to historical reasons. At this time, both DX and OGL are fully accelerated by hardware and differ very little in terms of performance, features, or ease of use.
The only difference between them is that OGL is available on more platforms compared to DX.
As for professional applications, OGL is much more suitable than DX3D, since DX3D is never designed for generic graphics (it is specifically designed for gaming). I don’t think the situation here is going to change anytime soon (or for the next 5-10 years, for that matter, since OGL is open and constantly being updated)
Edited 2006-03-21 08:26
“It is pretty much game over for OpenGL for most things in the industry.”
It is obvious that you have very extensive knowledge of “the industry”….
Sorry for jumping in late to the game.
AutoCAD and 3D Studio Max right now are Windows only, and at least 3DS has viewport support for D3D. So you can choose between OpenGL/D3D.
Other 3D content creation programs (like Maya and XSI) already have Linux ports for a long time now, and this Linux vs. Windows battle is nothing new. If a software vendor (such as Autodesk) wants to be Windows only, then they’ll develop towards Vista, simple as that.
These pro 3D applications have millions of lines of code, modules from licensed 3rd party code libraries, all of which have little to nill to do with the 3D viewport. I’m speaking as someone who uses 3D content creation software, and even *attempted* to code one as well. It’s quite easy to hop between either 3D APIs. Even game developers learned how to implement both APIs in their game engines.