In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Hadron
<hadronquark@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote
on Fri, 10 Oct 2008 05:02:04 +0200
<gcmgis$9fc$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
> The Ghost In The Machine <ewill@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Hadron
>> <hadronquark@xxxxxxxxx>
>> wrote
>> on Thu, 09 Oct 2008 15:30:31 +0200
>> <gcl113$hum$3@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
>>> The Ghost In The Machine <ewill@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>>>
>>>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Moshe Goldfarb.
>>>> <brick.n.straw@xxxxxxxxx>
>>>> wrote
>>>> on Wed, 8 Oct 2008 13:20:23 -0400
>>>> <5sci7mv1yuwt.1rav3i0nchmz0$.dlg@xxxxxxxxxx>:
>>>>> On Wed, 08 Oct 2008 17:01:54 +0000, Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>>>>> Hash: SHA1
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Gaming on Linux ¡V What are your options?
>>>>>
>>>>> Buy a WII or xBox360.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> There you are, problem solved. Nice solution Moshe!
>>>>
>>>> </sarcasm>
>>>>
>>>> Granted, I'm still waiting for a good comparison on OpenGL
>>>> versus DirectX; to me it's six of one, half a dozen of
>>>> another,
>>>
>>> Yes, well ....
>>>
>>>> with a note that OpenGL looks more complicated to
>>>> program correctly, and DirectX requires more data to set
>>>> itself up -- basically, DirectX requires one to load a map
>>>> and/or object descriptions, whereas OpenGL just requires
>>>> an event/timer loop with API calls that change display
>>>> state, but that induces certain risks if one doesn't use
>>>> the calls in the right sequence.
>>>
>>> You don't say? Are you doing a Jeb here because that sounds like a load
>>> of nonsense. You are suggesting that SW using Dx does not have "API
>>> Calls" and event/timer loops? Because if you are ....
>>
>> Dunno if it does or not. I'm not that familiar with DirectX.
>
> I know you dont know. Which makes me wonder why you made it up. You're
> clearly smart enough not to have to do that. It's straight out of
> Liarnut's MO.
>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Most games will of course want to eventually define some sort
>>>> of object set -- e.g., "it rotates slowly, fires at the user
>>>> with {object} bullets, and can be defeated if one jumps on
>>>> the button on the top" or some such.
>>>
>>> All of which is nothing to do with Direct X or Open GL of course.
>>
>> AFAIK, DirectX has objects; OpenGL does not.
>>
>> However, see
>>
>> http://www.codersource.net/published/view/328/directx_programming_in.aspx
>>
>> This apparently draws a pure white window in DirectX/C#, if that.
>> There is an event loop:
>>
>> UsingDirectX form = new UsingDirectX();
>> if(!form.InitializeDirect3D()) { ... }
>> form.Show();
>> while(form.Created)
>> {
>> form.Render();
>> Application.DoEvents();
>> }
>
> Immaterial. The game engine will take care of that. And there is a big
> difference between telling the high level "device" to display to how the
> game objects walk, talk and think!
True.
>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Of course OpenGL also runs on non-Microsoft operating systems,
>>>> which is a plus.
>>>
>>> Most games developers don't think so.
>>
>> For most games developers, it makes little difference. They develop
>> on
>
> You are totally wrong. It makes a lot of difference. The APIs are
> different. The support is different.
Why would it make any difference to those that develop
the map artwork? A mesh is a mesh, a texture a texture.
In any event, DirectX 10 is the preferred solution, easier
to work with from all accounts.
>
>> a piece of hardware, most likely Windows Vista with DirectX 10 and a
>> whalloping good graphics card, and have done with it.
>
> Total guess work on your part.
Acknowledged. But anyone developing state-of-the-art games
on CGA hardware isn't going to get very far. ;-)
>
>>
>> Most games are map data anyway. Look at Unreal, Quake, and
>> the venerable DOOM; the code is a tiny piece of the puzzle.
>
> That has nothing to do with it. That is true of both APIs. Size doesnt
> equate to time. They can have 100 artists churning out models but are
> unlikely to have 100 top notch 3d and AI programmers working on the
> code.
And they don't need to, with DirectX. It's all done.
>
>>
>>>
>>> I was hoping that PS3 would see people pick up on OpenGL some more. It
>>> does not seem to have happened so far. Time will tell.
>>>
>>
>> OpenGL is nice to work with but it's not what the majority will use, sad
>> to say.
>
> Because DirectX is easier and more likely to make money for them. Lots
> of games companies dropped OGL and moved to Dx. MS courted the video
> card people and worked WITH THEM to further the tech. The OGL guys sat
> there with their head in the sand and said "we do it properly". Well, we
> have seen the result.
>
There you have it; added NRE and benefit. Not only is
DirectX easier to work with to begin with, but nobody in
OpenGL land can provide support.
--
#191, ewill3@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Linux. Because Windows' Blue Screen Of Death is just
way too frightening to novice users.
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **
|
|
