[osg-users] OpenGL 3.1 at GDC
hannes_b at gmx.at
hannes_b at gmx.at
Fri Mar 27 18:21:57 PDT 2009
Robert Osfield wrote:
> Hi Hannes,
> On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 10:30 AM, hannes_b at gmx.at <hannes_b at gmx.at>
>> 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.
> I know where you are coming from bit I think it a bit off target, and
> falls into a common repeat line of reasoning. Direct3D is used under
> Windows and XBox by games developers. The games market is far bigger
> than just Windows and XBox. The Windows + XBox while being a big
> player, it is far from the biggest market in the games industry, but
> sometimes from online traffic it would seem that it's the only game
> in town, this is just PR or ignorance though. The biggest recent
> games platforms have been PlayStation 2 and the more recently the
> Wii, neither of which have D3D or OpenGL. I believe Wii has a OpenGL
> style graphis API.
it is not about absolute figures, it is about target audience. which one it is, is made by "decision makers". as you see it right it is a combination of pr and ignorance. they do not care if it runs in 2 years, better it do not because next year they can sell a new version. what should they sell in the future if the customer buy now their perfect game with no need for improvements. it is about the next quarter figures for the stock market. the lower the cost now, the bigger the win and the higher the stock market and the higher the income of the managers.
>> 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. ;)
> For the next generation of games I think we have shout. I think to
> successfully push the OSG to the games market one has to emphasis the
> portability and the wider market reach that it brings. Getting the
> message over about a wider market reach is easy to those who've
> already climbed out of the Windows centric box, but for those who
> just think Windows == 100% games market it's a harder sell. It's
> this perception that needs to be cracked first.
i think it is important to get the maximum out of the hardware, for example minimum 30 fps and all over 60fps goes into quality.
it is about a showcase what osg can do in a game and how does it compare to others.
>> 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
> Self selective survey's can be of use for particular interest groups,
> but rarely mean much outside the selective group. The above survey
> basically is 100% of who answer a suvery for a D3D centric
> game/company had support for some version of D3D...
it is not a self survey, the figures are from user data collected via steam. so it is accurate for all the counter strike, half life and so on gamers offered with steam to buy. i think these are the most exact figures about pc gamers and their hardware and os, public available. it shows a very interesting aspect of gaming, not all gamers have the newest hardware, a lot of people have slow one, be it old or mobile.
> Highlights of Autodesk Inventor OpenGL to DirectX Evolution from
> “Norbert” - Autodesk Inventor Graphics Team
> When we use OpenGL, we have found over the past many years (and still
> today) that we need to invest in a large, significant amount of QA…
> and use OpenGL almost on the level of 1997 graphics
> With Direct3D, our QA team can focus on testing our code and finding
> defects in our graphics code, instead of having to spend all their
> time just verifying that the graphics HW vendors have done their job
> correctly to produce an OpenGL graphics driver that actually works.
> Direct3D works identically on x64 as on x86
> In …all defects that we see with the use of Direct3D…the problem is
> in our Inventor graphics layer code and the way we are using Direct3D
> in Inventor, not in the graphics HW vendor’s Direct3D graphics
> when we use OpenGL, we never use the graphics HW for the rendering of
> any offscreen images…we are using the Direct3D graphics HW for all
> offscreen rendering.
> we have decided to focus on supporting Direct3D where we can focus
> the QA efforts on testing our own code and actually redirect some of
> the people currently spending all their time testing OpenGL graphics
> drivers to start testing our own graphics layer code
> we can add new graphics features and functionality because we know
> that we will have the QA resources available to test the new features
> … and we know that offscreen rendering will match onscreen rendering.
> where OpenGL graphics drivers actually disable some OpenGL
> functionality on consumer, game, laptop, and chipset HW so you are
> forced to purchase the more expensive workstation graphics HW, just
> so your OpenGL graphics works correctly. For example, if you are no
> longer required to spend $1000 to $2000 to simply have graphics HW
> that works, but can instead purchase a $100 to $350 game card … then
> you can take the $900 to $1650 you saved and spend it on other system
> aspects that might have a much more significant impact on your user
> experience with Inventor, such as having 8 GB of RAM instead of 4 GB
> (a real 64-bit system!)
> I think I can stop right there. He goes on to explain some of the
> differences and performance issues. But I’d like to get your take on
> it. Does it matter to you?
and such stuff does not sound good and such need to be solved and responded to.
don't get me wrong, i want to see some cool commercial games using osg and running on linux too. :)
More information about the osg-users