Come to the dark side...

[lp rob1]

OK. I'm now offically an OpenGL fan. Looking at the differences between DX and GL makes me wonder why I chose DX in the first place! Really, OpenGL is the way to go.

1. Cross-platform development
DirectX can only nativly support Windows and the XBox 360. Linux can just about support DX through Wine or Cedega, both of which struggle to reverse-engineer it. DX 10+ can only be use on Vista or 7, but there are still lots of gamers who only have XP. That means that you either forfeit the features of DX 10+ to accomodate more users, or sacrifice the users to give some users a better experience.
On the other hand, OpenGL is completely cross-platform. Windows, Linux, Mac, iPhone, PS3 (through a wrapper), Wii, DS, PSP etc. Basically every single platform apart from the XBox 360. Not that anyone should use one, anyway. Also, OpenGL drivers are released by hardware manufacturers, so it doesn't matter what version of Windows you have, you are only limited to your hardware.

2. Power
DirectX 11 released new and exciting features like and compute shader. But OpenGL has had tesselation support (through an extension) for 3 years now, and there is OpenCL to provide the compute shader. So most of the *new* features in DX 11 aren't new at all!
OpenGL has faster draw calls than DirectX, meaning less time is spent rendering. Moar power!
OpenGL has extensions which add vendor-specific features for use on specific hardware. These extensions can be quickly made and used in programs. In DirectX there is more standardised code, but it takes half a year for new features to be incorporated into it.

3. Domination of proprietary APIs
If Microsoft dominates the gaming API industry then new features will begin to slack and prices will go up as there is no competition. Also, one company literally ruling over the computer software industry is a bad thing.

We need OpenGL. It is more powerful than DirectX, and is open-source. Game developers across the globe, scrap DirectX and take OpenGL! Obviously only this forum will see this, but pass it on! Vote for OpenGL or DirectX, and how it changed you!

Most of this info was taken from this website.

[Hieran_Del8]

That was a good article. But I'm not converted. I like the documentation availability, the api architecture, and the support. Plus, you're hitting a huge margin of the market. Sure, OpenGL hits everyone, but if you want to target everyone, consider using Ogre.

I don't like that DirectX 10 and 11 are not supported on Windows XP and before, but that's offset by the fact that neither must you worry about lost devices (due to the driver architecture overhaul) nor the fixed function pipeline. And everyone will eventually have a Vista/7 PC soon enough anyway.

Regarding api extensions, I'm somewhat against them. They target specific card vendors first, then are eventually pulled into the specification. It makes for a lot of muddied development all the time. I like having one set of interfaces to work with and develop for. Maybe that's why the guys at hamsterrepublic.com didn't like the idea of defining graphics front end interfaces in stone. They all use Linux!

If Microsoft dominates the gaming API industry then new features will begin to slack and prices will go up as there is no competition. Also, one company literally ruling over the computer software industry is a bad thing.

Actually, I can't think of any new features to add. I thought we could never do enough with DirectX 9, and now with tessellation and gpgpu computing available, I can't see how we can outgrow this feature set. There's too much to do. What else should be supported?

And one company ruling over computer software means full, certain support; a very well defined specification and documentation for any api ever written; and a well organized army of hackers bent on world domination. And they would rule, eating D3DX_PI like kings.

[Lonewolff]

What Hieran_Del8 said

Each to their own though

[lp rob1]

I don't like that DirectX 10 and 11 are not supported on Windows XP and before, but that's offset by the fact that neither must you worry about lost devices (due to the driver architecture overhaul) nor the fixed function pipeline. And everyone will eventually have a Vista/7 PC soon enough anyway.

That's just the problem. By the time everyone's got a Vista/7 PC, Microsoft will release DX 12 and tell everyone that they must buy another expensive OS just to use 4D rendering or something.

GL also allows you to release open-source software. Open-source is the way to go. How did OpenOffice.org get so popular?

[Hieran_Del8]

True, they could pull that off. They've limited the DirectX versions to certain operating systems in the past, such as Windows 95 starting with version 2.0a in Jun 1996, and support ending with 8.0a in Feb 2001. Windows 98 started with version 5.2 in Jun 1998, but ended with 9.0c in Dec 2006. Windows XP started on 8.1a in Oct 2001, and will not advance beyond 9.0c, although support is still live. For these os's, the directx support lasted 7, 8, and now almost 9 years.

One of the reasons for dropping support for older os's is greater functionality. As a Windows programmer, you fight with writing apps that use certain api's and controls that are not existent on older os's. For instance, WinSock2. Sure, Microsoft could take time to build it in for the Windows 95 and 98 environments, but they instead built it into a cleaner os with a more stable core. Interestingly, the oldest supported os for Winsock2 is 10 years old now.

As you know, DirectX 10 and 11 use api features and a driver system not existent in previous os's, so only Vista and 7 are supported. Will there need to be another driver core restructure? I don't think so. Since Vista came out in Jan 2007, I estimate it will continue receiving support until at least 2014, if not longer. And Win7 will maintain support through 2019. I don't see DirectX 12 requiring more than these os's. Still, I can't see a reason for any more versions of DirectX. Does anybody else? Maybe the non-d3d portion of the DirectX libraries being updated (like DirectInput, DirectPlay, animation management (which has always been a bear!))?

Open source is great. You can release open source DirectX app's, too. I've currently one project on sourceforge that is open source and uses DirectX 9, 10, and 11. It's legal. It's legal to write your own d3d overrides, too, such as: http://forums.amd.com/game/messageview.cfm?catid=279&threadid=135915&enterthread=y Actually, it'd be amusing to write a d3d 11 and dxgi override to run on winxp. Eh, with all those d3dx*.dll's, it might just be a pain, not to mention slower.

EDIT: Hey, OpenGL 4.1 was just released a few days ago. Interesting...

[lp rob1]

True, they could pull that off.

No, they will pull that off with you and Lonewolff hanging off Microsoft's every word...

[Lonewolff]

Uh Oh! Another Open-source debate!

[Hieran_Del8]

Lol. I'd like to try OpenGL sometime. Because it's a hobby, and wouldn't be fulltime, I like a well-defined architecture with documentation. I'll scratch the surface on OpenGL 4.1, see what they offer.

If the interfacing is anything like DirectX, I will be thrilled.

[Lonewolff]

Is it the fact that OpenGL is awesome? Or is it the cross-platformness that is the attraction here?

As, I am still struggling to find information about OpenGL without having to use something like Glut etc..