OpenGL in HL2

[qckbeam]

OpenGL > DirectX.

you see, it doesn't help if you don't give facts to back yourself up.

 

[GRIMEY]

Free, cross-platform, open standard.

 

[jonbob]

That doesn't automatically make it better than a closed-source, proprietary system.

 

[GRIMEY]

It actually does if you think about it.

 

[jonbob]

Please, do enlighten us. I may be missing something, but being open-source never automatically made software good; I always judged on things like functionality, speed, efficiency and stability.

Lots of people use Direct X, but Carmack chose OpenGl: maybe because it's better, maybe because he thought he could do more with it because of the masses of prior experience he's had, perhaps - God forbid - because he just flipped a coin. Monolith chose Direct X, as did Ubi, Lionhead. Not too many other people use OpenGL though, except Apple of course (and don't forget Shiny). Especially nice game devs will give you a choice though, like Croteam did with Serious Sam.

I realise they're both old, but compare AvP2 and Serious Sam: TSE, they both look very pretty, from the player's standpoint it doesn't really matter which API is used providing the game looks good and plays well on your system. It's the devs that have to put up with a bad choice in the end.

 

[Mountain Man]

Avoiding vendor lock-in is a good enough reason to embrace open standards. Cross platform compatability is also a worthwhile pursuit.

Don't be fooled into thinking that DirectX is better just because it is apparently the preferred choice among developers. You're forgetting that Microsoft has a large army of marketers and promoters who cut backroom deals and encourage developement houses to support Microsoft-centric solutions.

To put it another way, if a developer has a choice between OpenGL or DirctX with a big fat monetary incentive attached to it, do you really think the developer would choose OpenGL even if it were superior?

 

[Wilco]

Okay, heres a choice, You can buy a BMW M3 from a BMW approved User car dealer, or you can buy exactly the same car from me at exactly the same price. What do you choose?

The BMW car dealer. Its got a proffesional looking showroom, its gleamed the car up nice and shiny for you. And mainly, when it goes wrong you can bring it to them and ask them to look at it, safe in the knowledge they'll be on the problem soon.

Another veiwpoint. Monopolising a Market like Graphics APIs makes sense. If you live in the UK, think of it as the National Grid. They maintain all the pylons, make sure electricity gets where it needs to be, and that things run efficiently. If you have every supplier trying to run their own gird you've got 10 times the pylons, and every house has 3 different meters from when people changed suppliers.

Graphics API is a piece of infastructure in a PC, its a broker between Games and the cards themselves (customers and Energy suppliers). Having loads of standards make it complicated as graphics cards try and support all the different types. Obviously you cant apply the analogy too far, as there are 2 main APIs.

I'm in no positions to tell you which API is better in terms of performance, ease of coding, etc, but thats a general look at the situation. Microsoft has invested a lot in DirectX, it works, its got a financial reason to keep updating. Cross platform capability is good, but can easily be messed up by other things, most companies probably aim mainly for PCs, and if they can make it work on Apples etc without too much difficulty all the better.

 

[mrchimp]

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.

They meant it was too much of a pain in the arse untill receantly. NWN has Pixel shaders and that was released some time ago, but they are of a PS1.1 standard and were implemented by proffesionals.

I personally think OpenGL seems a little easier to grasp from a amature programmers perspective but I have no idea whats better when it comes to makeing a commercial game engine. Although I do know DX has alot of features that OpenGL doesn't that would be usefull for a next gen engine.

BTW if it wasn't for fanboyism OpenGL would have less people programming for it than it does now. John Carmack wouldn't stop useing OpenGL even if he had to carry on it's developement himself.

 

[OCybrManO]

and if they can make it work on Apples etc without too much difficulty all the better.

I'm worried about the advantage DirectX gives Microsoft in the Windows vs Linux arena. The more big games that switch to DirectX the harder it is for Linux to win over gamers. That is, unless Wine is constantly updated to support all of the major Windows games.

 

[Mountain Man]

Okay, heres a choice, You can buy a BMW M3 from a BMW approved User car dealer, or you can buy exactly the same car from me at exactly the same price. What do you choose?

The BMW car dealer. Its got a proffesional looking showroom, its gleamed the car up nice and shiny for you. And mainly, when it goes wrong you can bring it to them and ask them to look at it, safe in the knowledge they'll be on the problem soon.

You're building a false analogy because in this case, buying from the dealer is obviously a better deal, especially if the price the same.

Perhaps a better analogy would be either buy from a top tier BMW dealer along with its 200% price mark-up or buy from a smaller reputable dealer who'll sell you the same car at a substantially lower price but without a comprehensive service plan.

Anyway, choosing between OpenGL and DirectX is not analogous to buying a car. Unless you want to assume that a car from, say, Microsoft could only be driven on Microsoft approved roads as opposed to a car from, say, Open Source which could be driven on any road regardless of who paved it.

Graphics API is a piece of infastructure in a PC, its a broker between Games and the cards themselves (customers and Energy suppliers). Having loads of standards make it complicated as graphics cards try and support all the different types.

Nobody's asking for "loads of standards". A single non-proprietary standard is sufficient and OpenGL is the most obvious choice.

Cross platform capability is good, but can easily be messed up by other things.

I'm not sure what you're saying here. Hell, I'm not even sure you know what you're saying! There's no reason for cross platform compatability to "be messed up" if the developers are competent. Unreal Touranment 2003/2004, Return to Castle Wolfestien, Savage, Neverwinter Nights, America's Army, and several other titles feature concurrent versions for Windows and Linux, and as far as I know, they haven't gotten "messed up".

 

[crabcakes66]

Dont argue with anti-microsoft linux fanboys.....

Its like arguing with a woman.....there always right

 

[GRIMEY]

[QUOTE='jonbon"]from the player's standpoint it doesn't really matter which API is used providing the game looks good and plays well on your system.[/QUOTE]I think this says it all.

Do directx games run on my linux box? Nope.
How about my Powerbook? Nope.

Hmm...

 

[Mountain Man]

Dont argue with anti-microsoft linux fanboys.....

Its like arguing with a woman.....there always right

In other words, you don't have any reasonable counter argument so you resort to an ad hominem fallacy.

 

[crabcakes66]

In other words, you don't have any reasonable counter argument so you resort to an ad hominem fallacy.

1. No, I have several arguments.

...but my opinion is pretty much the same as Wilco's.


2. Usaully if something is free its sub-standard, like linux.......its great for people with above average intelligence with alot of free time. That however is very small percentage of people.

3. Basically your missing the big picture ....its called money, thats the bottom line.

4. Why would I want to use linux when I can use windows?



5. I use windows .....most other people use windows......why should the masses care if you cant run directx on your linux or mac machine?

They dont ..and I dont.

 

[GRIMEY]

lol crabcakes66, you don't make any sense.

 

[crabcakes66]

lol crabcakes66, you don't make any sense.

then read it slower..... here i will make it easy...open your eyes this time.

 

[psyno]

2. Usaully if something is free its sub-standard, like linux.......

Hmm I wonder what the standard is? Doesn't meet the critical bugs quota... Doesn't meet the security flaw quota. Doesn't meet the inefficiency standards.

I know nothing about the 2 APIs from a programming standpoint, but from a gaming perspective I know I prefer OpenGL, because I run Linux distros on a couple of my boxes, and because I have a Voodoo3 in one of my boxes (both questions of compatibility). NWN anyone?

 

[crabcakes66]

Hmm I wonder what the standard is? Doesn't meet the critical bugs quota... Doesn't meet the security flaw quota. Doesn't meet the inefficiency standards.

The standard is windows..... wether you like it or not.

You guys can tell me how inferior windows is all you want.....but that doesnt change any numbers.

I should probobly quit now....like i said before....there is no point arguing with you guys :dork: becuase your always right, later.

 

[GRIMEY]

Clueless...

 

[crabcakes66]

Clueless...

coming from a mac user...with a link in your sig to an online petition for valve to make HL2 for mac

 

[GRIMEY]

Theres something wrong with mac users?

(And no, I dont expect my sig to be taken seriously. It's just for fun.)

 

[Arno]

1. No, I have several arguments.

...but my opinion is pretty much the same as Wilco's.

OpenGL is not something some nerd made in his free time in some basement. It's designed and regulated by respectable companies. Check this overview of all the participating companies. That includes well-known companies such as IBM, Intel, ATI, Nvidia and Dell. The comparison with an unknown, untrusthworthy car dealer does not make any sense whatsoever.

2. Usaully if something is free its sub-standard, like linux.......its great for people with above average intelligence with alot of free time. That however is very small percentage of people.

You can not compare a graphics API with an operating system. Linux is not the same as OpenGL.

3. Basically your missing the big picture ....its called money, thats the bottom line.

You missed the big list of companies I presented at point no. 1. They represent huge amounts of $$$.

4. Why would I want to use linux when I can use windows?

This has absolutely nothing to do with the OpenGL vs DirectX discussion. OpenGL runs just fine on Windows.

5. I use windows .....most other people use windows......why should the masses care if you cant run directx on your linux or mac machine?
They dont ..and I dont.

I certainly don't care, but why should this point make OpenGL any less attractive then DirectX? Why don't you start giving some arguments why in your opinion DirectX is superior to OpenGL?

I believe the average gamer won't notice any difference between OpenGL and DirectX. Only a developer can tell which one is easier to work with and even then it still depends on personal preference.
I personally give the edge to OpenGL, but that's just because my favorite game (Wolfenstein: ET) runs on OpenGL and I like how easy it is to program simple OpenGL applications.

 

[jonbob]

It must be possible to port Direct X games to Linux or Mac, because Ut2k3 runs on Linux and Halo runs on Mac OS X. Of course OpenGL has an edge there; I'm sure it's easier to port its games than DirectX ones.

 

[Mountain Man]

1. No, I have several arguments.

2. Usaully if something is free its sub-standard, like linux.......

With that you just demonstrated your level of ignorance. I didn't bother reading the rest of your post.

It must be possible to port Direct X games to Linux or Mac, because Ut2k3 runs on Linux...

Epic coded an OpenGL renderer for the Linux and Mac versions. Not sure about Halo.

 

[nc17]

The leak doesnt run in OGL, it is just a gui error, hl2 doesnt contain any OGL code

The gui in the leak is just a placeholder

 

[Fallout2man]

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:

The OpenGL core itself hasn't been uptaded in eons, the arb and other such extensions are often vendor specific, meaning you have to program them again for different cards. This is grossly inefficient when you have a solution that can work the same for any hardware and supports all the new bells and whistles. Also, the ARB is an assembly-like language, I don't know about how but I don't want to be writing every shader I want for a game I make in assembly.

@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.

As mentioned above, the ARB language is not a practical choice for any sane developer. Carmack's a nut so he doesn't care he has to program in assembly. Secondly, GSlang is only supported by ATI cards in their newer drivers, and the gSlang compilers are severely lacking at this point, I'd wait a few more generations of driver releases (possibly two or more major version increments) before they get capable enough for practical use. CG as far as I'm aware is similarly only supported by nVidia cards, while I'm not certain about its prefornace, having two different languages, each only supported by one major video card vendor, for use with OpenGL seems to mean you run into the same issue I stated above, programming it twice and optimizing each for its own interface. This is a gross waste of time when a simple and complete solution is available allready.

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!

First of all, OpenGL is an open "standard" not open source, not in the least bit, in fact it's even propriatary, why do you think there's a MesaGL named OpenGL implimentation, because the "standards" board requires a licensing fee for calling it an official implimentation. I hardly see this as any advantage. Also, Windows only API hardly matters when 94-96% of the desktop PCs in existence run windows in one version or another.

Free, cross-platform, open standard.

Not really free at all, cross platform is only an advantage if you've got a serious market on that platform, games do not, open standards as stated above != open source.

I think this says it all.

Do directx games run on my linux box? Nope.
How about my Powerbook? Nope.

Hmm...

Why would you even be playing games on your linux box or powerbook? Let me break this down, they were NOT INTENDED FOR USE PLAYING GAMES. Each device and OS has its specific set of uses. This is the same idea the guys at slashdot have a hard time understanding.

Apples are excellent for graphic design, audio/video editing/creation, they do images and all sorts of things great, they're a boon to content creators and editors. A Mac is also amazingly easy to use, though it takes more control out of the user's hands. In fact I'm surprised so many mac lovers trash windows despite the fact you really only have a choice of using propriatary hardware with a mac (yes some third party vendors exist, such as nvidia making mac graphics cards, but those are rare). And I'd argue being locked into propriatary hardware is much worse then software.

*nix was intended for use as a network/server OS, it's strengths are in its security, stability, reliability and because it was designed with the idea in mind. It's not user friendly at all but it gives the user total power and control. I use it fairly often administrating a dedicated server. It's lovely for doing that. *nix's primary strengths are in providing servers and services to client PCs running other things.

Windows is the lowest common denominator, not as powerful as *nix, not as easy as a mac, somewhere in between, it has more bugs and more security flaws because it's intent is to be a desktop for the common everyday computer user. In short it was designed so that it can run almost anything, and do just about anything. As the saying goes, a jack of all trades is a master of none, thusly windows obviously lacks the stability and security of *nix and the ease of use of a mac. Anyone selling to a desktop market not centered in content creation/editing would primarily pitch to windows.

Neither of these OSes is inherantly superior to the other, they all excel at their designed purpose. You don't see me using windows for a server (I pity the poor souls who do) or using *nix to create and edit movies do you?

It must be possible to port Direct X games to Linux or Mac, because Ut2k3 runs on Linux and Halo runs on Mac OS X. Of course OpenGL has an edge there; I'm sure it's easier to port its games than DirectX ones.

UT2K3 has both OpenGL and DirectX renderers. It's been this way for a long time. Since they allready established using both renderers very early on, it wasn't that hard to gradually keep them both up to date. The hard thing is creating a totally new and up to date renderer from scratch.

 

[Wilco]

First of all, I'm a completely trustworthy guy

Okay so I did what I hate, jumped in with my own opinion on something I dont know much about. So I'll just move along and retract that . But to me what I said seems logical, Microsoft has an advantage with having actually written Windows, I know people get worked up on anti-trust cases, but to me it seems logical that people who have intimate knowledge of the OS should also write things like Graphical API's etc. Perhaps its unfair if you use the advantage to hack programs like Office etc, but for another API it makes sense. OpenGL can't have the same kind of support as DirectX has. I don't know anything about the details of the APIs, and what's good and whats bad, if there is an actual games programmer here who can explain it I'd be happy to listen.

 

[GRIMEY]

Also, Windows only API hardly matters when 94-96% of the desktop PCs in existence run windows in one version or another.

Naive attitude.
And "94-96%" are jibberish statistics.

Why would you even be playing games on your linux box or powerbook? Let me break this down, they were NOT INTENDED FOR USE PLAYING GAMES."

So why are there linux verisons of many games?
The OS on my powerbook is designed to do anything, which includes running games (and believe it or not, some people like to play games on their laptop).

A Mac is also amazingly easy to use, though it takes more control out of the user's hands.

Rubbish!

or using *nix to create and edit movies do you?

Guess what Mac OS X is based on.


There are a few more problems with your post (I have pointed out the main ones).
You did make a few good points, though.

 

[bastard_loud]

If you want to play games, use windows or buy a console. Dorks.

 

[Hobbit]

There are a few more problems with your post (I have pointed out the main ones).
You did make a few good points, though.

Problems? You have done nothing to rebutt him. Your whole post is a "problem".

 

[Fallout2man]

Naive attitude.
And "94-96%" are jibberish statistics.

Well, generally speaking whenever I look at the stats for any major website it's over 90% windows users, I hear the same stats many other places. I've never seen anyone give any "official" stats. Though I hear *nix has roughly 3% of the market apple has about 4% The dash was to indicate I am not sure, but believe it's a range in between those numbers somewhere most likely.

So why are there linux verisons of many games?
The OS on my powerbook is designed to do anything, which includes running games (and believe it or not, some people like to play games on their laptop).

Because the folk at slashdot would never shut up if someone didn't put some major game over. Do you have any idea how much these guys rant and rave whenever X game doesn't have a Mac and *nix port? Generally speaking each OS has its strengths and its weaknesses and shortcomings, generally speaking I can come to the reason it was not designed for games because it lacks any true full-fledged API for handling both graphics and video as well as audio and other multimedia. Microsoft did this with DirectX to support making games on windows, I've yet to see apple nor *nix make any serious efforts. Of course with *nix that's not even really possible due to its very nature.

Since there are so many distros, each with only the kernel they use in common (and most likely the fact they use one version or another of the GCC and GlibC)that to weave a *nix cross-platform API would not really be possible unless you managed to get every distro to include it by default (doubt you could) plus make sure it works perfectly on each distro (Very hard thing to do).

Rubbish!

General rule of thumb is you can't be both easy to use and give total control at the same time, you can have ways to switch between them but never both at once, this is because the very nature of simplicity.

Guess what Mac OS X is based on.

*BSD , I believe FreeBSD to be specific, which they're welcome to do thanks to Berkely's licensing system, which unlike the GPL allows people to make its code into propriatary applications.

There are a few more problems with your post (I have pointed out the main ones).
You did make a few good points, though.

Well just trying to address everything I felt needed addressing since I last checked the thread ^_~

 

[crabcakes66]

With that you just demonstrated your level of ignorance. I didn't bother reading the rest of your post.

In the river of denial aye?

Does it really matter wether mac/nix OS's make up 2% or 8%?

Its still a fairly insignificant portion compared to windows.

If you would consider for a moment that you might not be correct in assuming that just becuase linux/opengl are free they are better from a developers standpoint.

But I think you like a few others in this thread are only coming from the standpoint that your linux users who are sore about not being able to run DX games on your systems.

I think as far as opengl and D3D go....its all about the developers preferance...there experiance with the specific API...and what there trying to do........not wich one is better.


But again....microsoft supports and pushes DirectX to devs........ and 90%+ of people use there OS's....

And I THINK DX is not just a gfx SDK, it includes a whole suite of things to construct an entire game....

..mabey im way off....let me know. :imu:

 

[Fallout2man]

In the river of denial aye?

Does it really matter wether mac/nix OS's make up 2% or 8%?

Its still a fairly insignificant portion compared to windows.

If you would consider for a moment that you might not be correct in assuming that just becuase linux/opengl are free they are better from a developers standpoint.

OpenGL isn't even free, it's every bit as propriatary as DirectX, the only difference is it's cross-platform. As for "open standard" it's more a term for "open to any coproration with enough money." Did you know Microsoft is on this OpenGL board too? Yes it's free to use it for any game, but so is DirectX. So really it isn't even free, at least not freer then DirectX, it just works on other platforms.

But I think you like a few others in this thread are only coming from the standpoint that your linux users who are sore about not being able to run DX games on your systems.

I think as far as opengl and D3D go....its all about the developers preferance...there experiance with the specific API...and what there trying to do........not wich one is better.

That's not even all it, it's what will do the most for the least cost. Yes OpenGL can do everything D3D can do, but you'd need to spend 10x as much work getting it as you would using DirectX. The main standard has not been updated in eons, and the supposed OpenGL 2 spec is nowhere to be seen. I have to wonder if they're even making it, as it was due out ages ago. The fact is OpenGL poses more problems then it solves.

But again....microsoft supports and pushes DirectX to devs........ and 90%+ of people use there OS's....

And I THINK DX is not just a gfx SDK, it includes a whole suite of things to construct an entire game....

..mabey im way off....let me know. :imu:

Yes, Correct, DirectX is much more then D3D, there's Direct Sound, an audio solution for the latest sound technologies, Direct Input, for supporting practically every type of input device under the sun, and Direct Show, a very nice multi-media layer for displaying movies and other such content. DirectShow also lets you easily extend its power by writing "filters" to add additional video/audio codecs to it.

As for Microsoft pushing, I think it did do this a lot at first, however around DirectX 8 or 8.1 I think they didn't have to anymore. It was around then that DX became easier to deal with then the many varying "extensions" to OpenGL that do the same thing. The only person at this point who refuses to use DirectX at all is Carmack, and as I said above, he's quite frankly a nut, like one of those art geniuses that is totally insane, with his art being his 3D engines.

So really at this point MS needs no pushing, they've got a dominant market, even if the OpenGL 2.0 spec were released today as well as full implimentations optimized for Each OS, it'd still take a long time to convert people over even if it were better, because the fact is MS has built themselves a fairly good reputation with DirectX 8-9 with regards to Game APIs.

To that extent I pose a question to OpenGL supporters. Is the current method they use a good one? They release one standard and then extend it slightly and let it sit mostly for a decade or so. Even if they release 2.0, will that just whither away into the same vendor specific extensions game 1.x is in today? I have to think it very well could, and if so I'd prefer Microsoft's "propriatary" library, which I can always count on for relative ease in programming for multiple pieces of hardware with less code for all the latest bells and whistles, then any supposed "free" (which it's really not) standard that looks great at first but withers away into obscurity due to no real upkeep except an entire rennovation every decade or so.

 

[Cole]

Well Microsoft is still going further in Direct X. I believe there next version is Direct X Next. Im not positive on what features this will have, but if its as good as it should be (Meaning microsoft finally decided to spend a good amount of time developing it) then even more developers may switch to it. I support Direct X very much. I also support open gl. Although I support DX more than Open gl. To me Once Dx 9.0 popped out Open gl has been killed and raped to death.

Thats my opinion.

 

[Mountain Man]

Generally speaking each OS has its strengths and its weaknesses and shortcomings

The "shortcomings" are entirely developer related. There aren't many commercial games for Linux simply because developers aren't creating them, not because Linux is incapable of playing games.

generally speaking I can come to the reason it was not designed for games because it lacks any true full-fledged API for handling both graphics and video as well as audio and other multimedia.

You really don't know what you're talking about, do you? OpenGL and OpenAL provide the very service you seem to think is lacking, and in fact, both those API's work extremely well with Linux. Unreal Tournament 2004 plays smooth as silk on my Linux box, and it looks great, too.

Microsoft did this with DirectX to support making games on windows, I've yet to see apple nor *nix make any serious efforts. Of course with *nix that's not even really possible due to its very nature.

That "serious effort" you're looking for already exists. Have I mentioned that OpenGL is fully supported on various flavors of *nix like Linux and OS X?

Like I said, kids, cross platform support is a good thing!

 

[Fallout2man]

The "shortcomings" are entirely developer related. There aren't many commercial games for Linux simply because developers aren't creating them, not because Linux is incapable of playing games.

*nix was not designed with the prospective idea of playing games, it was based off of the idea of creating a free and open Unix, which was an operating system used primarily by engineers for servers and other mission critical computers. It has so few games because to properly piece a game together you have to use many scattered libraries to do the various parts, ensure they're installed on the various machines, and all sorts of things. That's not to say it makes it incapable of playing games, however it places a considerable hurdle between it.

I'd rather people just try and not make it out to be something it's not. Linux is a free and open Unix, which is an operating system for engineers, not the average everyday joe, I doubt it ever will be, because to do that it wouldn't really be linux anymore.

You really don't know what you're talking about, do you? OpenGL and OpenAL provide the very service you seem to think is lacking, and in fact, both those API's work extremely well with Linux. Unreal Tournament 2004 plays smooth as silk on my Linux box, and it looks great, too.

Both are different libraries each of which serve one purpose, it fits into my statement above. Yes you can make games on other operating systems but you have to use a scattered handful of various different unconnected libraries to make it happen. It can be done but it's going to be a royal pain. If a system wants to play games well it needs a good, easy, INTEGRATED solution for ALL aspects of a game to attract developer attention. Even then it takes time, look at how slow people were to adopt DirectX, early versions were buggy and practically unusable compared to the current version. Like my earlier comments about using graphics capabilities in OpenGL, it's not that it can't do it, it's that it's so much harder and requires more work to do it that way.

That "serious effort" you're looking for already exists. Have I mentioned that OpenGL is fully supported on various flavors of *nix like Linux and OS X?

Like I said, kids, cross platform support is a good thing!

OpenGL is a graphics solution, they don't even make the implimentations, they just endlessly debate the specifacation, and when they agree they spit it out and tell anyone who wants to make it in code to pay them a nice licensing fee. OpenAL encompasses audio, but those are only two parts of a game.

DirectX is more then Direct 3D, it has Direct Sound, Direct Input, Direct Play (internet/network solution), Direct Music, and Direct Show. This is a comprehensive integrated solution for everything you'd need in game programming. Let's see someone fit similar solutions that have all the latest bells and whistles into a mac and *nix library, then there'll be room to talk on this aspect.

As far as I'm certain, the closest to this is the SDL, which while it does cover many aspects, lacks all the bells and whistles DX has. From the standpoint of a programmer, I can tell you DirectX looks infinitely more appealing then any other I've seen so far.

Cross platform support is insignifigant unless you have a real market you'll be able to make a profit off of on that platform.

 

[crabcakes66]

Cross platform support is insignifigant unless you have a real market you'll be able to make a profit off of on that platform.

yeah..Thanks for explaining it in more detail. This is basically what i was thinking and getting at.

 

[TriXed]

Going back to the orginal post, I heard once a few months back about the possiblity of Open GL2, did anyone else hear anything about this?

 

[Fallout2man]

Going back to the orginal post, I heard once a few months back about the possiblity of Open GL2, did anyone else hear anything about this?

The OpenGL 2 specifacation has been talked about for as long as I can remember hearing about Doom III and pixel/vertex shaders. They've been making beta drivers for testing purposes (pretty much only Carmack uses them, maybe a few others but not many). I don't know when they'll ever finish the spec, but even if they did, they'd have to get implimentations out for each OS, which would take a while.

HL2's allready over three fourths done, so I seriously doubt they'd use the OpenGL 2 spec even if it were to be released tomorrow. Doom III may use it, since carmack's been getting beta drivers for it since whenever they started first releasing them to "special people." Aside from that though, I don't think they'll be used at all for a while, just look at how long it took to get games to switch from DX8 to DX9.

 

[Fallout2man]

yeah..Thanks for explaining it in more detail. This is basically what i was thinking and getting at.

It's all about perspective really, I'm talking from the perspective of a programmer/developer, not an end user. Cross-platform support's almost always good for the user (the bad cases come about when the developers cut corners and optimize only for one platform, Deus Ex 2 anyone?), but for the practical programmer/developer it's a whole different ballgame.