Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 25th Apr 2007 22:13 UTC, submitted by Flatline
Games "Last Wednesday, a company called Falling Leaf Systems announced the availability of an alpha of something called the Alky Project. The Alky Project has a lofty goal: to liberate DirectX 10 gaming from the confines of Vista and bring it first to Windows XP, and then to Linux and OS X. The project plans to do this by building a converter that can take in a DX10 game executable and spit out a modified version that can be run on a (non-Vista) target OS. The target OS must be x86-based, which rules out the PPC version of OS X, since the converter doesn't do any binary translation."
Thread beginning with comment 234024
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: OpenGL
by cb_osn on Thu 26th Apr 2007 01:46 UTC in reply to "OpenGL"
cb_osn
Member since:
2006-02-26

Software should use OpenGL, not DirectX.

Unfortunately, OpenGL will continue to lose ground unless it is backed by an organization that takes an active interest in advancing it. I had high hopes when Khronos took over the ARB, but that has proved fruitless so far. The only advancements we've seen in OpenGL are in the form of vendor specific extensions from NVIDIA and ATI. This means writing separate graphics code for each vendor if you want to take advantage of the new features. Not to mention that fact that ATI OpenGL drivers are inconsistent and some of them are outright broken.

From a game developer's point of view, we choose DirectX (Direct3D in this context) because it is a consistent and well-supported API. We tend to avoid OpenGL like a plague because it has no direction, no strong leadership, and support is inconsistent across hardware, and the amount of effort involved in working around the issues simply isn't worth it to reach another ~6% of the market, the great majority of which don't tend to play games anyway (or if they do, they have a Windows setup for that purpose).

This is just one of those cases where the proprietary solution is technically superior to the open one.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: OpenGL
by trenchsol on Thu 26th Apr 2007 02:39 in reply to "RE: OpenGL"
trenchsol Member since:
2006-12-07

I don't think that OpenGL and DirectX are on the same level. OpenGL is graphics only. DirectX deals with graphics, sound, and other things. DirectX could be compared to SDL.

It is too bad that vendors don't use SDL more, since it is dual licensed.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[3]: OpenGL
by cb_osn on Thu 26th Apr 2007 04:03 in reply to "RE[2]: OpenGL"
cb_osn Member since:
2006-02-26

I don't think that OpenGL and DirectX are on the same level. OpenGL is graphics only. DirectX deals with graphics, sound, and other things.

DirectX actually includes Direct3D, DirectSound, DirectMusic, DirectInput, and DirectPlay.

DirectShow used to be part of DirectX, but has been moved to the Platform SDK.

For all intents and purposes, when talking about DirectX, we are usually referring indirectly to just Direct3D (which is roughly equivalent to OpenGL). The other components of DirectX are either deprecated (DirectPlay), too trivial to worry about (DirectInput), or usually unused in favor of other options (DirectSound, DirectMusic).

It is too bad that vendors don't use SDL more, since it is dual licensed.

SDL doesn't really make the OpenGL option more attractive. It is great for learning and demos, but it is not really a viable tool for professional game development.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: OpenGL
by Supreme Dragon on Thu 26th Apr 2007 03:18 in reply to "RE: OpenGL"
Supreme Dragon Member since:
2007-03-04

"Unfortunately, OpenGL will continue to lose ground unless it is backed by an organization that takes an active interest in advancing it."

As Linux gains marketshare, so will OpenGL. MS made a big mistake making DX10 Vista only.

"We tend to avoid OpenGL like a plague because it has no direction, no strong leadership, and support is inconsistent across hardware, and the amount of effort involved in working around the issues simply isn't worth it to reach another ~6% of the market"

Games like Doom3 use OpenGL and work great. Using OpenGL will also make the software available to millions of Mac and Linux users.

"This is just one of those cases where the proprietary solution is technically superior to the open one."

I think OpenGL and OpenAL are the superior choices.

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[3]: OpenGL
by cb_osn on Thu 26th Apr 2007 03:49 in reply to "RE[2]: OpenGL"
cb_osn Member since:
2006-02-26

As Linux gains marketshare, so will OpenGL. MS made a big mistake making DX10 Vista only.

When Linux starts making a blip in the gaming market, my studio (as well as others) will start taking it seriously as a target platform. We have nothing against it-- the demand for games just isn't there yet.

Games like Doom3 use OpenGL and work great.

id was the last professional game studio to use OpenGL exclusively. And even John Carmack has moved on to Direct3D as the primary technology for his next engine. This leaves OpenGL (if it is even implemented at all) as a second place API.

I think OpenGL and OpenAL are the superior choices.

That's fair, and we do use OpenAL for our audio framework because it is simply better than DirectSound. I still disagree with regard to OpenGL, because I've had the experience of using it over the last decade or so, and I've (sadly) watched it fall to pieces in the last few years.

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[2]: OpenGL
by miles on Thu 26th Apr 2007 08:51 in reply to "RE: OpenGL"
miles Member since:
2006-06-15

or if they do, they have a Windows setup for that purpose


I do understand editors would concentrate on the biggest market, and have nothing against it since they're not yet convinced publishing games for Linux won't make them loose money.

I do buy/play games, but I never buy any games that only work in Windows. The assumption that publishing games for Windows only because Linux user would keep Windows if they want the game is less and less true - as users get happy with Linux, they resent having to reboot in Windows just for a game (same go for Mac users with BootCamp). When you're use to a decent OS, having to maintain/use Windows is painfull (and time consuming, whereas players would rather spend their time playing ;) ).

Actually, I got to buy less mainstream games and get used to playing a few "great" games that happen to be under Linux. I play far more Go (a board game) now, not because it's cheaper, but because it runs flawlessly under my OS of choice.

So the attitude of mainstream editors is only advantageous short-term - they might one day realize they're losing a growing share of their loyal supporters (the one that buy games). I'm just sick of supporting an industry so it can keep putting my nose in the mud (to stay polite) that is a Windows installation.

Note : I agree some people like Windows - I just don't and haven't met anyone that does - the Windows users I met in real-life just keep having one problem after another.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[3]: OpenGL
by psychicist on Thu 26th Apr 2007 18:27 in reply to "RE[2]: OpenGL"
psychicist Member since:
2007-01-27

In the past few years I have bought many outlet Windows games hoping they would at a certain point in time run under WINE. Sadly I haven't got many of them to work but I am looking forward to running them in the next versions of virtualisation products that support 3D.

A few years ago I made dual-boot installations for gaming (Windows) and real work (Linux). The Windows installations kept dying so I won't even bother with physical Windows installations anymore.

The aforementioned will be the only ways I will ever play them again because like you I am not willing to give up the stability and security of my current software system to play some Windows-only game. The games would otherwise still be sitting on my shelf for many years.

Fortunately there are very powerful consoles nowadays that can function as both game stations and computers so Windows gaming becomes less and less relevant.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[2]: OpenGL
by fresch on Sat 28th Apr 2007 09:59 in reply to "RE: OpenGL"
fresch Member since:
2006-09-12

and support is inconsistent across hardware


Every graphics card you can buy today supports OpenGL!?

Graphics software used by professional companies like Pixar uses OpenGL?

Since Macs are widely spread in the scientific research section, and they also have a need to visualize 3D data, and OSX doesn't support DirectX they surely use OpenGL?

And what about the game consoles? They don't all run an MS operating system, so they don't all use DirectX?

And then there are 3D capable mobile devices, like mobile phones. Which once again do not all use MS operating systems and therefore do not all support DirectX.

DirectX => Microsoft => IBM compatible PC

Everything (and there is a lot of it ;) besides IBM PCs with an MS operating system uses OpenGL or something proprietary.

The base features of the OpenGL standards are supported by graphics hardware if it says it supports that standard, so most consumer graphics cards today have at least support for OpenGL 1.2 and the nVidia ones even for 1.4.

DirectX is used by almost all game developers because it is "The Default" and "It Just Works", not to forget "It's Good Enough" and "Everyone Uses It".

So, there you have it ;)

Reply Parent Score: 1