Board index » delphi » OpenGL vs DirectX

OpenGL vs DirectX

The more expensive 3D cards feature hardware OpenGL acceleration.

Rene

Quote
Denis Sarrazin wrote:

> I will have to create a software that will have a number of characteristics
> similar to that found in graphics games: a relatively large number of 3D
> objects moving about using various rules in a simplified 3D environment.  I am
> wondering is both OpenGL and DirectX will do the job for me?  If so, is any one
> of those better than the other one?  I have played a bit with OpenGL and
> Delphi, and a bit (less) with DirectX and Delphi.  They both seem to provide a
> rich set of features to help, but I'm concerned about OpenGL performance.  I
> know that Quake uses OpenGL, but I've been told that they use a "custom"
> version that they have optimized themselves.  The few tests that I have done
> with OpenGL don't seem to perform all that well.  Otoh, OpenGL seems, at this
> point, a nicer language and works well on both NT 4 and Win95.  DirectX will
> not work under NT unless I limit myself to DirectX 3, which I am loath to do.
> Are there any other issues regarding this?  Note that I am not interested in
> third party products that "wrap" either DirectX or OpenGL into components at
> this point.

> Tia,
> Denis
> Aquarius Creations
> dsarra...@{*word*104}us.ca
> http://www.{*word*104}us.ca/~dsarrazin/Homepage1.html

 

Re:OpenGL vs DirectX


Denis,

One thing you have to realize is that not all computers have video cards
that support OpenGL acceleration, while most of today's video cards do
support Direct X and Direct 3D acceleration. OpenGL is super slow on any
machine without an OpenGL accelerated graphics card. OpenGL to me is far
nicer than Direct 3D. There are tons of examples and their web page includes
man pages as well. It can be somewhat confusing, but you don't have to do
too much work yourself. If you play around with the examples, you can
develop a good understanding of the library.

John Owen

Quote
Denis Sarrazin wrote in message <35f35311.7375...@forums.inprise.com>...
>I will have to create a software that will have a number of characteristics
>similar to that found in graphics games: a relatively large number of 3D
>objects moving about using various rules in a simplified 3D environment.  I
am
>wondering is both OpenGL and DirectX will do the job for me?  If so, is any
one
>of those better than the other one?  I have played a bit with OpenGL and
>Delphi, and a bit (less) with DirectX and Delphi.  They both seem to
provide a
>rich set of features to help, but I'm concerned about OpenGL performance.
I
>know that Quake uses OpenGL, but I've been told that they use a "custom"
>version that they have optimized themselves.  The few tests that I have
done
>with OpenGL don't seem to perform all that well.  Otoh, OpenGL seems, at
this
>point, a nicer language and works well on both NT 4 and Win95.  DirectX
will
>not work under NT unless I limit myself to DirectX 3, which I am loath to
do.
>Are there any other issues regarding this?  Note that I am not interested
in
>third party products that "wrap" either DirectX or OpenGL into components
at
>this point.

>Tia,
>Denis
>Aquarius Creations
>dsarra...@{*word*104}us.ca
>http://www.{*word*104}us.ca/~dsarrazin/Homepage1.html

Re:OpenGL vs DirectX


I agree that OpenGL is far easier to implement than Direct3D (for a
beginner
like me). I recall reading somewhere that Direct3D and OpenGL will
eventually
be merged into a single library (by Microsoft ?) to have the best of
both
worlds.  Is it true?

Jacques

Quote
John Owen wrote:

> Denis,

> One thing you have to realize is that not all computers have video cards
> that support OpenGL acceleration, while most of today's video cards do
> support Direct X and Direct 3D acceleration. OpenGL is super slow on any
> machine without an OpenGL accelerated graphics card. OpenGL to me is far
> nicer than Direct 3D. There are tons of examples and their web page includes
> man pages as well. It can be somewhat confusing, but you don't have to do
> too much work yourself. If you play around with the examples, you can
> develop a good understanding of the library.

Re:OpenGL vs DirectX


OpenGL is a good choice for 3D work. Hardware is getting BEtter and cheaper.
Take a look at the S3 Savage ( www.s3.com ) Full ICL openGL drivers

And for the sound part you can use DirectX.
BTW Nobody forbids you to use them BOTH (openGL AND DirectX)
Use the 3D of OpenGL on a DirectX drawingSpace ?

N.Smit
coax...@telekabel.nl

"A good programmer is someone who looks both ways before
 crossing a one-way street."

Quote
Denis Sarrazin wrote in message <35f35311.7375...@forums.inprise.com>...
>I will have to create a software that will have a number of characteristics
>similar to that found in graphics games: a relatively large number of 3D
>objects moving about using various rules in a simplified 3D environment.  I
am
>wondering is both OpenGL and DirectX will do the job for me?  If so, is any
one
>of those better than the other one?  I have played a bit with OpenGL and
>Delphi, and a bit (less) with DirectX and Delphi.  They both seem to
provide a
>rich set of features to help, but I'm concerned about OpenGL performance.
I
>know that Quake uses OpenGL, but I've been told that they use a "custom"
>version that they have optimized themselves.  The few tests that I have
done
>with OpenGL don't seem to perform all that well.  Otoh, OpenGL seems, at
this
>point, a nicer language and works well on both NT 4 and Win95.  DirectX
will
>not work under NT unless I limit myself to DirectX 3, which I am loath to
do.
>Are there any other issues regarding this?  Note that I am not interested
in
>third party products that "wrap" either DirectX or OpenGL into components
at
>this point.

>Tia,
>Denis
>Aquarius Creations
>dsarra...@{*word*104}us.ca
>http://www.{*word*104}us.ca/~dsarrazin/Homepage1.html

Re:OpenGL vs DirectX


Merging Is true

--
N.Smit
coax...@telekabel.nl

"A good programmer is someone who looks both ways before
 crossing a one-way street."

Quote
Jacques Oberto wrote in message <35F56986....@NOSPAM.ibpc.fr>...
>I agree that OpenGL is far easier to implement than Direct3D (for a
>beginner
>like me). I recall reading somewhere that Direct3D and OpenGL will
>eventually
>be merged into a single library (by Microsoft ?) to have the best of
>both
>worlds.  Is it true?

>Jacques

>John Owen wrote:

>> Denis,

>> One thing you have to realize is that not all computers have video cards
>> that support OpenGL acceleration, while most of today's video cards do
>> support Direct X and Direct 3D acceleration. OpenGL is super slow on any
>> machine without an OpenGL accelerated graphics card. OpenGL to me is far
>> nicer than Direct 3D. There are tons of examples and their web page
includes
>> man pages as well. It can be somewhat confusing, but you don't have to do
>> too much work yourself. If you play around with the examples, you can
>> develop a good understanding of the library.

Other Threads