Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 20th Mar 2006 17:16 UTC, submitted by Kap
Windows 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.
Order by: Score:
v why would we ....
by rockwell on Mon 20th Mar 2006 17:34 UTC
RE: why would we ....
by el3ktro on Mon 20th Mar 2006 17:51 UTC in reply to "why would we ...."
el3ktro Member since:
2006-01-10

Because OpenGL is the one and only industry standard for 3D graphics?

Tom

Reply Score: 5

v RE[2]: why would we ....
by rockwell on Mon 20th Mar 2006 17:53 UTC in reply to "RE: why would we ...."
RE[3]: why would we ....
by flav2000 on Mon 20th Mar 2006 18:00 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: why would we ...."
flav2000 Member since:
2006-02-08

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.

Reply Score: 5

RE[4]: why would we ....
by rockwell on Mon 20th Mar 2006 20:37 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: why would we ...."
rockwell Member since:
2005-09-13

//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.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: why would we ....
by BryanFeeney on Tue 21st Mar 2006 00:49 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: why would we ...."
BryanFeeney Member since:
2005-07-06

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.

Reply Score: 3

RE[5]: why would we ....
by Varg Vikernes on Tue 21st Mar 2006 22:58 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: why would we ...."
Varg Vikernes Member since:
2005-07-06

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.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: why would we ....
by el3ktro on Mon 20th Mar 2006 18:01 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: why would we ...."
el3ktro Member since:
2006-01-10

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

Reply Score: 5

RE[4]: why would we ....
by kaiwai on Tue 21st Mar 2006 10:42 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: why would we ...."
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

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.

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: why would we ....
by el3ktro on Tue 21st Mar 2006 10:55 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: why would we ...."
el3ktro Member since:
2006-01-10

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

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: why would we ....
by kaiwai on Tue 21st Mar 2006 17:59 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: why would we ...."
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

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.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: why would we ....
by ThanhLy on Tue 21st Mar 2006 15:29 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: why would we ...."
ThanhLy Member since:
2006-03-14

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 ;)

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: why would we ....
by kaiwai on Tue 21st Mar 2006 18:00 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: why would we ...."
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

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.

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: why would we ....
by bedo on Mon 20th Mar 2006 18:41 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: why would we ...."
bedo Member since:
2006-01-03

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.

Reply Score: 5

RE[4]: why would we ....
by ronaldst on Mon 20th Mar 2006 20:10 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: why would we ...."
ronaldst Member since:
2005-06-29

Not Found

The requested URL /applications/windows/games/ was not found on this server.

Reply Score: 0

RE[5]: why would we ....
by jakesdad on Tue 21st Mar 2006 02:47 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: why would we ...."
jakesdad Member since:
2005-12-28
RE[4]: why would we ....
by BryanFeeney on Tue 21st Mar 2006 00:54 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: why would we ...."
BryanFeeney Member since:
2005-07-06

New Link: http://www.opengl.org/index.php/products/platform/C5

Select Windows and Games from the search-box on the right

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: why would we ....
by Spifmeister on Mon 20th Mar 2006 21:39 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: why would we ...."
Spifmeister Member since:
2006-03-20

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.

Reply Score: 5

RE[4]: why would we ....
by Tom K on Mon 20th Mar 2006 21:48 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: why would we ...."
Tom K Member since:
2005-07-06

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.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: why would we ....
by Weeman on Mon 20th Mar 2006 22:07 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: why would we ...."
Weeman Member since:
2006-03-20

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

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: why would we ....
by weirdnut on Mon 20th Mar 2006 22:37 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: why would we ...."
weirdnut Member since:
2006-01-19

3ds Max is a program that many of us really, really, really like to stay away from.

Click the red button... crash.

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: why would we ....
by Weeman on Tue 21st Mar 2006 08:53 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: why would we ...."
Weeman Member since:
2006-03-20

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.

Reply Score: 1

RE[7]: why would we ....
by snozzberry on Tue 21st Mar 2006 19:50 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: why would we ...."
snozzberry Member since:
2005-11-14

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.

Reply Score: 1

v RE[5]: why would we ....
by brianDoodz on Tue 21st Mar 2006 00:10 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: why would we ...."
RE[5]: why would we ....
by joshuap on Tue 21st Mar 2006 01:19 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: why would we ...."
joshuap Member since:
2006-03-01

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.

Reply Score: 3

v RE: why would we ....
by ronaldst on Mon 20th Mar 2006 20:29 UTC in reply to "why would we ...."
RE[2]: why would we ....
by RenatoRam on Mon 20th Mar 2006 21:34 UTC in reply to "RE: why would we ...."
RenatoRam Member since:
2005-11-14

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.

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: why would we ....
by Botty on Mon 20th Mar 2006 22:39 UTC in reply to "RE: why would we ...."
Botty Member since:
2005-09-11

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.

Reply Score: 2

RE: why would we ....
by sean batten on Tue 21st Mar 2006 17:11 UTC in reply to "why would we ...."
sean batten Member since:
2005-07-06

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?

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: why would we ....
by suryad on Tue 21st Mar 2006 18:31 UTC in reply to "RE: why would we ...."
suryad Member since:
2005-07-09

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.

Reply Score: 1

...
by suryad on Mon 20th Mar 2006 17:42 UTC
suryad
Member since:
2005-07-09

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.

Reply Score: 5

Vendor locking
by GreatBunzinni on Mon 20th Mar 2006 18:23 UTC
GreatBunzinni
Member since:
2005-10-31

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.

Reply Score: 5

RE: Vendor locking
by MikeekiM on Mon 20th Mar 2006 18:32 UTC in reply to "Vendor locking"
MikeekiM Member since:
2005-11-16

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?

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Vendor locking
by robojerk on Tue 21st Mar 2006 16:44 UTC in reply to "RE: Vendor locking"
robojerk Member since:
2006-01-10

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.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Vendor locking
by bnolsen on Tue 21st Mar 2006 18:37 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Vendor locking"
bnolsen Member since:
2006-01-06

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.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Vendor locking
by Get a Life on Mon 20th Mar 2006 19:20 UTC in reply to "Vendor locking"
Get a Life Member since:
2006-01-01

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.

Reply Score: 5

RE: Vendor locking
by Soulbender on Tue 21st Mar 2006 08:42 UTC in reply to "Vendor locking"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

"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.

Reply Score: 1

Network transparency & Cross-platform
by jacquouille on Mon 20th Mar 2006 18:37 UTC
jacquouille
Member since:
2006-01-02

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

Reply Score: 4

OGL is here to stay
by someone on Mon 20th Mar 2006 18:40 UTC
someone
Member since:
2006-01-12

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

Reply Score: 5

Misleading news text
by n4cer on Mon 20th Mar 2006 19:17 UTC
n4cer
Member since:
2005-07-06

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.

Reply Score: 5

RE: Misleading news text
by MamiyaOtaru on Tue 21st Mar 2006 03:36 UTC in reply to "Misleading news text"
MamiyaOtaru Member since:
2005-11-11

"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?

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Misleading news text
by someone on Tue 21st Mar 2006 07:39 UTC in reply to "RE: Misleading news text"
someone Member since:
2006-01-12

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!

Reply Score: 1

Most of what....
by kingbahamut on Mon 20th Mar 2006 19:37 UTC
kingbahamut
Member since:
2005-07-29

Ive seen referenced into what Vista has eye candy wise, isnt near as good as what XGL offers.

2 cents.

Reply Score: 4

RE: Most of what....
by snozzberry on Tue 21st Mar 2006 19:30 UTC in reply to "Most of what...."
snozzberry Member since:
2005-11-14

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.

Reply Score: 1

If MS had followed through on this..
by Ronald Vos on Mon 20th Mar 2006 22:38 UTC
Ronald Vos
Member since:
2005-07-06

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!

Reply Score: 2

sappyvcv Member since:
2005-07-06

Um.. no, because it would be running Full Screen and likely with third-party drivers, so it wouldn't have been an issue.

Reply Score: 1

Ronald Vos Member since:
2005-07-06

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?

Reply Score: 1

sappyvcv Member since:
2005-07-06

Because it wouldn't be translating to D3d in full screen. The DWM would be disabled and OpenGL would take over the screen.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: why would we ....
by Nicram on Tue 21st Mar 2006 00:17 UTC
Nicram
Member since:
2006-01-31

/* 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

Reply Score: 3

v RE[3]: why would we ....
by raver31 on Tue 21st Mar 2006 02:10 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: why would we ...."
RE[4]: why would we ....
by sappyvcv on Tue 21st Mar 2006 02:43 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: why would we ...."
sappyvcv Member since:
2005-07-06

I knew it!!

Reply Score: 2

v Game Over for OpenGL by 2007
by proforma on Tue 21st Mar 2006 07:49 UTC
RE: Game Over for OpenGL by 2007
by someone on Tue 21st Mar 2006 08:21 UTC in reply to "Game Over for OpenGL by 2007"
someone Member since:
2006-01-12

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

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: Game Over for OpenGL by 2007
by Soulbender on Tue 21st Mar 2006 08:48 UTC in reply to "Game Over for OpenGL by 2007"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

"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"....

Reply Score: 2

Pro 3D software
by ThanhLy on Tue 21st Mar 2006 15:26 UTC
ThanhLy
Member since:
2006-03-14

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.

Reply Score: 1