OpenGL in HL2

[A.I.]

OK, I don't know if this is legal to post it here, but has anyone noticed that the stolen buld of HL2 can be run only in OpenGL? BTW, in my opinion the stolen build is just a good promotion of things to come. There wasn't all bad about this incident afterall.

 

[magnetmannen]

dumbest post.......ever!

 

[Brian Damage]

It says that it runs in OpenGL, but I think that several people have independently verified that it is actually running in DirectX. Leftover stuff from the beginning of the programming process, I suppose...

Are you sure that that was entirely called for, magnetmannen?

 

[The Dark Elf]

magnetmannen. I don't like it any more than you but their allowed to talk about things like that, within reason *glares at those who'll eventually abuse the thread*

In reply, apparantly Brian's right, it doesn't run in OpenGL, but then its a build put together by the thief using what he stole, I'd not believe anything you see in it A. I.

 

[A.I.]

You're probably right... we better not belive anything about it... except that is going to be damn good!

 

[Blad3]

I wouldn't know anything about the download, but the game is obviously a DX9 game therefore it runs in DirectX 9...

 

[A.I.]

Well HL1 was an OpenGL if I remember right, but it had support for D3D. And the stolen build doesn't support software rendering either, it just switches back to OpenGL.

 

[Shuzer]

Well HL1 was an OpenGL if I remember right, but it had support for D3D. And the stolen build doesn't support software rendering either, it just switches back to OpenGL.

It runs in DX. You can demonstrate this by enabling the "DirectX boot logo" in nVidia card properties.. or.. by turning FSAA on in D3D and off in OpenGL on ATi cards.

 

[A.I.]

Cool trick! Thanks.

 

[The Dark Elf]

Shuzer

You can talk about it but not offer advice

 

[Shuzer]

Shuzer

You can talk about it but not offer advice

...how is that offering advice, exactly? I was stating the obvious, how you can prove that it runs in DirectX. Besides, it has DX9 shaders.. which, er, don't work in OpenGL. I don't know how/why people would think it runs in OGL in the first place.

Besides, it's not like I told him how to do something game specific..

 

[Crusader]

Yeah, it was kind of just general tips on how to tell what a program is running in.

 

[Fallout2man]

Generally speaking if it says OpenGL it's probably just a UI error of some kind, everyone and their brother on Slashdot was ranting and raving about how there'd be no Mac or *nix client for the game, which was firstly and formostly because everything was made using DirectX and not OpenGL, so they'd essentially have to redo the entire game engine to make their code OS portable.

 

[HybridM]

OpenGL is too old, the API is in serious need of an update (and is getting one). DirectX is stealing most of the market these days.

 

[Sparta]

Isn't Doom 3 gonna be in OpenGL format?

 

[Brian Damage]

Yes. I think that OpenGL actually recieved a certain amount of updating recently...

 

[magnetmannen]

sorry, i thought discussing the stolen software was strictly forbidden, and would lead to instant kick.

 

[Brian Damage]

Story parts and features, yes, engine features, no. That's how I interpret it, anyway.

Basically, anything that would spoil part of the game isn't allowed.

 

[Naft]

i thought gabe or someone had already said it wouldnt support open gl...in some e-mail or something, but i could be wrong.

 

[Shuzer]

i thought gabe or someone had already said it wouldnt support open gl...in some e-mail or something, but i could be wrong.

No, you're right.

 

[rebb]

OpenGL is too old, the API is in serious need of an update (and is getting one). DirectX is stealing most of the market these days.

LoL !

There have always been "updates" to OpenGL, in form of ARB Extensions ( which after some time often get into it as standard features ), but OpenGL doesnt usually make a big fuss about it, like DirectX does.

How Come about every Quake3 Engine Based Game runs on OpenGL ( CoD, MoH, ET etc ), and doesnt look like uber-shit ?

Thats because D3D isnt better than OpenGL, they just try to make everyone believe it. And Valve seems to be one of their main marketing slaves right now.
Ah well cant hurt to give a bunch of old MikeRowe-Soft Buddies some help right ?
:naughty:

 

[Zakat]

rebb, Lemme guess, you're some weird OpenGL fanboy..?

 

[rebb]

rebb, Lemme guess, you're some weird OpenGL fanboy..?

Zakat, Lemme guess, you're some weird Direct3D fanboy ..?

And let me guess, you dont know anything about Graphics Programming other than what you read in your Gaming Mag, right ?

 

[Zakat]

Well, kinda, sorry, but, from what I've heard from buddies in PC stores too, the DX has better support for things such as shaders rather than OpenGL.

 

[ukfilmer]

rebb = noobzilla. opengl hasnt been any good since... since.... no wait it was never good.

 

[The Dark Elf]

Zakat & rebb: enough with the insulting, just because someone prefers one type over the other doesn't give you any reason to act like that

Both OpenGL and DirectX have their pro's and cons. You use whatever does the best for what you need, simple as that.

 

[mrchimp]

I'v been reading the OpenGL forums quite a bit and the people on there seem to think DX is doing better in the proffesional gameing market because it come's with an SDK and is more up to date with pixel and vertex shaders. It was only receantly that the OpenGL shader language was released.

However the Doom 3 engine isn't exactly lagging behind is it?

 

[Zakat]

Sowwy daddy.*Husg Fenric*

 

[rebb]

@fenric :
Heh well, i was just returning the favor to Zakat .

@ukfilmer :
yeah whatever you say, i bet youre a flaming "omg nvidia si teh sux" poster on forums ? I bow to your ignorance.

@mrchimp :
You could write Pixel and Vertex Shaders already, before there was glSlang, before there was Cg ( which supports both OpenGL and Direct3D btw ), you could even write Pixel and Vertex Shaders in Direct3D before there was HLSL. Those are all just highlevel API Approaches for making the life of Shader-Writers easier.

Judging from some answers in this thread, this is completely unknown to many.

 

[The Dark Elf]

@fenric :
Heh well, i was just returning the favor to Zakat .

@ukfilmer :
yeah whatever you say, i bet youre a flaming "omg nvidia si teh sux" poster on forums ? I bow to your ignorance.

@mrchimp :
You could write Pixel and Vertex Shaders already, before there was glSlang, before there was Cg ( which supports both OpenGL and Direct3D btw ), you could even write Pixel and Vertex Shaders in Direct3D before there was HLSL. Those are all just highlevel API Approaches for making the life of Shader-Writers easier.

Judging from some answers in this thread, this is completely unknown to many.

"@ukfilmer :
yeah whatever you say, i bet youre a flaming "omg nvidia si teh sux" poster on forums ? I bow to your ignorance."

rebb? what did I just say?

 

[jonbob]

OpenGL can't be all bad, I mean, it's not as if Carmack couldn't have chosen DirectX if he wanted to - uber-codingmonkey that he is. But still, DirectX has to be popular for a very good reason too.

 

[Brian Damage]

From what I understand, OpenGl is easier to learn and to program the less complicated stuff in, but harder to achieve complex things with.

Direct 3D is harder to learn, but you can get complex things done more quickly.

I think. Someone correct me if I'm wrong.

 

[mrchimp]

@fenric :
Heh well, i was just returning the favor to Zakat .

@ukfilmer :
yeah whatever you say, i bet youre a flaming "omg nvidia si teh sux" poster on forums ? I bow to your ignorance.

@mrchimp :
You could write Pixel and Vertex Shaders already, before there was glSlang, before there was Cg ( which supports both OpenGL and Direct3D btw ), you could even write Pixel and Vertex Shaders in Direct3D before there was HLSL. Those are all just highlevel API Approaches for making the life of Shader-Writers easier.

Judging from some answers in this thread, this is completely unknown to many.

People who have written there own 3d engines have said they couldn't implement shaders in OpenGL untill receantly. Nobody ****ing cares if it was theoretically possible, you don't even need a highlevel language to write a 3d app but nobodys going to try it.

 

[A.I.]

From what I understand, OpenGl is easier to learn and to program the less complicated stuff in, but harder to achieve complex things with.

Direct 3D is harder to learn, but you can get complex things done more quickly.

I think. Someone correct me if I'm wrong.

I was talking with a coder nearby and he said that DirectX is in a mess, while OpenGL's structure is more systematical.

 

[rebb]

People who have written there own 3d engines have said they couldn't implement shaders in OpenGL untill receantly. Nobody ****ing cares if it was theoretically possible, you don't even need a highlevel language to write a 3d app but nobodys going to try it.

Did i say theoretical ?
It was possible by using an Assembly-Like Language for a long time.

Are you sure those ppl dont mean that they couldnt implement Shaders in OpenGL's OWN High-Level Shading Language ? Cause thats what was implemented just recently. However it has been possible to implement Pixel/Fragment Shaders for both OpenGL and DirectX through Cg, which is another HighLevel Shading Language. And if i recall correctly, it was there even before HLSL ( which is the High Level Shading Language of Direct3D ).

All im trying to do here is do something against the blind fanboyism, by getting some facts straight. In Fact, Direct3D wouldnt even exist if OpenGL hadnt been around. But ppl love to forget such things these days, just as they love to forget that there wouldnt be their fanboy-fetish ATI if there hadnt been nVidia and 3dfx.

Thanks for your time.

 

[Gorgon]

From what I understand, OpenGl is easier to learn and to program the less complicated stuff in, but harder to achieve complex things with.

Direct 3D is harder to learn, but you can get complex things done more quickly.

I think. Someone correct me if I'm wrong.

You are very correct Brian......... :thumbs:

Oh man, Carmack is a Graphic's God. He knows every single bit in OGL.

I wish I have his Brian. :E

 

[Mountain Man]

The biggest advantage of OpenGL is the fact that, as its name implies, it's an open, non-proprietary API. DirectX is a Windows only API while OpenGL (and it's audio equivelent OpenAL) can be supported by any operating system and in fact is supported by Linux and OS X. Using open standards not tied to any one operating systems makes portability and cross-platform support much easier.

And just to head off the Windows-centric crowd, I have to add that, yes, cross-platform support is a good thing!

 

[iamaelephant]

In the end, who gives a crap? If it looks pretty on my screen and gives me a decent frame rate, I couldnt care less what language it's written in. For the record, I dont understand most of the technical mumbo jumbo above, and you must remember that most gamers out there are just like me - they couldnt care less.

 

[qckbeam]

In my experience, OpenGL is much easier to come to terms, while DirectX can make things a bit complicated. They can both be made to do really powerful and amazing things though, in the hands of the right programmer. I personally prefer DirectX. People say it's tough, and at first it is, but once you move past the semi-confusing lingo, it's really quite nice. I like the DX structure, but OpenGL is great too. It's really not the API, it's the programmer behind it.

 

[GRIMEY]

OpenGL > DirectX.