|
|
|||||||
| IL-2 Sturmovik The famous combat flight simulator. |
 |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
|
|
#1
06-23-2008, 10:05 PM
|
|||
|
|||
It's not as simple as that. DX may be a wrapper for what is the basis of OpenGL, but it uses a different approach and optimizes rendering for effects and quality.
The outcome is, that with OpenGL you got to program many things manually that you get for free in DX. You can see the effect in IL2, as under DX the textures are smoother and look more real, though the engine was optimized for OpenGL! So depending on the application you can be faster with OpenGL, leaving out some of the routines of DX, while on other applications and especially when working for games and such renders, it's often more practicable to use DX, as you will more easily see, what you'll get in the end. OpenGL has just the advantage, that it is widely opensourced, while you make yourself a "slave" to M$ when using DX. 
|
|
#2
06-23-2008, 11:44 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
[QUOTE=Feuerfalke;44553] You can see the effect in IL2, as under DX the textures are smoother and look more real, though the engine was optimized for OpenGL!
QUOTE] I know nothing about either of them but I do get entirely the opposite effect here; when I use OpenGL my game looks smoother and more real? I get better fps with DX so I use that when online and I use OpenGL for flying offline and taking screenshots etc. since as far as I know you can only use "perfect" settings under OpenGL.
|
|
#3
06-24-2008, 08:26 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
[QUOTE=96th_Nightshifter;44555]
Quote:
The textures get filtered with DX so you can see the IL2s 8bit-textures with just 256 colors looking much smoother. DX also eliminates microstutters experienced during online-play largely. That has little to do with FPS, though. You get better FPS because you can only run the game in perfect mode under OpenGL, as you posted correctly, which directly effects rendering-distance for the landscape, for example. So while the whole game looks better under OpenGL at perfect mode, the TEXTURES look smoother and more realistic under DX.
|
|
#5
06-24-2008, 03:07 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
#6
06-24-2008, 05:41 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Here's a list of popular Open GL games * America's Army * Baldur's Gate 2 – Defaults to D3D * Call of Duty * City of Heroes * City of Villains * CodeRED: Alien Arena * Counter-Strike (not Counter-Strike: Source) * Darwinia - Patched to default to D3D * Doom 3 * Dwarf Fortress * Earth 2150 * Enemy Territory: Quake Wars * Far Cry – Defaults to D3D * Frets On Fire * FlightGear * Half-Life (not Half-Life 2) * Homeworld 2 * IL-2 Sturmovik: 1946 * Neverwinter Nights * Penumbra: Overture * Prey * Quake series * Rage * Scorched3D * Second Life * Serious Sam * Serious Sam 2 – Defaults to D3D * Soldier of Fortune series * Spring * Starsiege: Tribes * Star Wars Jedi Knight: Jedi Academy * The Chronicles of Riddick: Escape from Butcher Bay * Trainz - Also runs in D3D * Tribes 2 * Tux Racer * Ultima IX: Ascension * Unreal series * Warcraft 3 - Defaults to D3D in Windows * Wolfenstein: Enemy Territory * World of Warcraft - Defaults to D3D in Windows * Wurm Online * X-Plane Last edited by KG26_Alpha; 06-24-2008 at 05:44 PM.
|
|
#7
06-24-2008, 06:59 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Basically the only real difference between Open GL and DirectX in Il2 is Perfect mode period. Perfect mode gives you better clouds etc... But to answer the boader post here in part is the answer What is the difference between DirectX and OpenGL? The answer to this one is: everything. OpenGL was designed ages ago (pre 1990), while DirectX 1 was build (1994) specifically to draw game developers from DOS onto the new Windows 95 platform. DirectX is (to all intensive purposes) a Windows / Mircrosoft only solution, while OpenGL runs on most desktop operating systems that exist (including a variety of embedded platforms). While DirectX provides strong support for many features outside of 2D and 3D Graphics, OpenGL relies on external systems to provide that functionality (potential systems include: SDL, OpenAL, GLUT (OpenGL Utility Toolkit), or even DirectX). What does DirectX Compatible mean? When a graphics card is DirectX 9 Compatible, it means that it supports the DirectX 9 specification and can run software built to run on top of DirectX 9. Due to it’s history, each version of DirectX breaks compatibility with the previous version. As a devloper, I see this as a nightmare for Microsoft and the developers that work with DirectX. Mainly for a developer: if you are qualified in DirectX 10, you need to learn how to drive DirectX 11. Why is there only OpenGL 1 and 2? Considering that OpenGL is the older of the two, these numbers make OpenGL seem way out of date. The simple answer to this question is: Extensions. Where DirectX revises the entire platform with each release to incorporate new features, OpenGL has a system called Extensions. This allowed graphics card vendors to add new functionality without changing OpenGL itself. Those applications and games that needed the Extension can look ask the OpenGL system for the Extension, if it doesn’t exist: the game can work around not having the Extension, or explain to the user that their graphics card cannot support it. Major Extensions in recent years include: Multitexturing Normal Mapping Shaders Why is there no such thing as an “OpenGL compatible” graphics card? Again the answer is Extensions. Because the core OpenGL specification is so simple, almost any graphics card that is capable of any 3D graphics is OpenGL compatible. For that reason, no-one bothers with the idea of “OpenGL Compatible”. Why is there no such thing as an “OpenGL compatible” graphics card? Again the answer is Extensions. Because the core OpenGL specification is so simple, almost any graphics card that is capable of any 3D graphics is OpenGL compatible. For that reason, no-one bothers with the idea of “OpenGL Compatible”. The answer posted above is found by googling the question and is not my own work http://lemnik.wordpress.com/2007/05/...opengl-part-2/ Last edited by Bobb4; 06-24-2008 at 07:05 PM.
|
|
#8
06-24-2008, 07:46 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Doesn't mean OpenGL is bad, but it also doesn't mean it's more important or better than DX. While Unreal was developed, the strongpoints became pretty clear: ID-Software claimed OpenGL was the better choice for the Quake-Engine, because it was easily adoptable for other systems and ran on a very wide array of PCs, with and without 3D-acceleration at high framerates. EPIC decided to go for DX, because it was easier to achieve certain effects. Today this competition is even worse. While OpenGL is widely supported and can be adopted for other OS, DX is used by consoles and opens possibilities to easily exchange programs to and from these platforms.
|
|
#9
06-25-2008, 11:38 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Seriously though, the main difference b/n the two APIs is slowly becoming a non-issue in terms of graphical feature sets. OpenGL is opened sourced so it is perfectly adaptable to other OS platforms and IMO the code is much more user friendly. The down side is, it only handles graphics. OpenGL 2.1 (I think) is the official version, OpenGL3 is still some time away from being adopted. DX on the other hand is a real biatch to code in (although DXUT is making things easier) but has follow the complicated COM system, but, it can be used for other devices besides the GPUs. DX makes things less complicated when dealing with things like sound cards and gaming input devices. Although is only available on Windows, it is an API that melds well in to the OS. nVidia and ATI support both APIs on the cards we mainly use for this sim and I think it's mute to compare em this way. Both have their advantages and disadvantages and their fan boys/girls. I'm having fun learning DXUT at the moment, but the release of XNA 3.0 CTP has now really got my attention. It's a dream to code in but doesn't have joystick support (but there are ways around that  )
Last edited by Codex; 06-25-2008 at 12:19 PM.
|
|
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Where on earth did you hear that from?
Hybrid Mode
