[osg-users] OpenGL 3.1 at GDC

hannes_b at gmx.at hannes_b at gmx.at
Wed Mar 25 03:30:53 PDT 2009


Robert Osfield wrote:
> Hi Hannes,
> 
> On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 11:33 PM, hannes_b at gmx.at <hannes_b at gmx.at> wrote:
> 
>> opengl is 2 years behind direct3d and direct3d is better. and now there is
>> d3d10 and d3d11 will even be better and d3d9 already had instancing and
>> opengl is now only a copy of d3d10 and more robust drivers is only a lie and
>> they dont belive you because you are an opengl guy and dont know d3d...
> 
> 
> Yawn... nice MS spin you got there.
> 
> Go read the specs the OpenGL specs.  Direct3D doesn't anything like
> extension has had from it's inception, and nothing like deprecation
> mechanism that OpenGL 3.0 has.
> 
> With OpenGL you can migrate steadily from one rev to the next, an
> application written back in 1992 is still runable today, if you your
> application lives any period of time - like successful software does then
> longivity is good thing.  Also with long lived successful software people
> wanted it ported to new platforms as the industry evolves, and again OpenGL
> comes to support you again with it's unique feature of portability.
> 
> Please reflect on the fact that the OSG itself is a decade old, and it's
> migrated from OpenGL 1.1 to OpenGL 2.1 + latest extensions without any major
> rewrite.  Not only has it be pretty straight forward for us to roll in new
> support for new hardware features, but we've also been able to port any
> desktop/workstation out there.
> 
> Go try that trick with Direct3D.... Erhhh DirectX10 is only available under
> Vista.  Too hard to port to WinXP? No just MS playing games manipulating the
> marking.  Now Vista only has ablout 15% of the desktop market, shame that
> the rest of the 85% ain't and won't ever be server by DirectX10.  Um...
> which is backwards and years behind serving the needs of industry?  OpenGL
> which covers 100% of the availabe platforms, or Direct3D??
> 
> Time to stop sucking up the MS cool-aid there kid as it seems to have eroded
> your ability to think about the wider needs of the graphics industry.
> 
> Robert.

hi robert,

you just brought to me the insight why the game developers use d3d. because they do not care if it runs in some years, they make the money now. they see how much does the development of the game cost and how many boxes can i sell in short time. so they choose the most widespread platform, which is windows and use d3d which seems easy for development and looks good. result are games like crysis and so on. downside is as you said, the different d3d versions do not run on any windows but the newest opengl does. maybe an argument for game developers to bring the best graphics to any windows with opengl and maybe with osg. ;)

http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey
Steam Hardware Survey

24,75% dx10 system, dx10 gpu and vista
27,28% dx10 gpu on xp
27,60% dx9 sm 2b & 3.0
7,25 dx9 sm2 gpu
13,12 dx8 gpu and below


in industries like the movie industries it is different.
http://www.linuxmovies.org/
[quote]In the film industry, Linux has won. It's running on practically all servers and desktops used for feature animation and visual effects. LinuxMovies.org met monthly in Hollywood for years, but now rarely meets.

Linux is used to create practically every blockbuster movie in theaters today, movies produced by Disney/Pixar, DreamWorks Animation, Sony, ILM, and other studios.

Linux is the most popular operating system for big budget feature film animation and visual effects, with more than 95% of the servers and desktops at large animation and visual effects companies. People outside the film industry, and even inside the industry sometimes, don't realize that Linux is so big at large studios. Linux is the norm in Hollywood and considered the state-of-the-art. In this upside-down world where Windows and Mac are minority operating systems, Linux evangelists would be hard-pressed to find anyone left to convert. The free operating system built by the people for the people has been embraced foremost by film studios.

Hollywood prefers Linux because in the right hands it's better, faster and cheaper. At large companies that have thousands of servers and desktops, the economy and massive efficiency of Linux is felt most. At smaller production companies, Windows or Macs are often more popular because economy of scale doesn't apply. Despite that, some small shops run primarily Linux. Some production companies use a mixed environment. For example, South Park is produced using Mac desktops with Linux servers. Although king in the film industry, Linux is rarely seen in the television industry due to much more modest computer needs.[/quote]

best regards



More information about the osg-users mailing list