D3D vs OGL

[MikeV]

Is it just me, or does the OpenGL mode in A:M seem to perform substantially better than the DX8 mode? It also looks a lot clearer.

 

I can crank the patch detail level all the way up to the 4th/full detail level in OGL and it's perfectly smooth, and the splines are nice and clear. The only artifact I get from it is that if I draw a selection box or drag a guideline it causes a "blank spot" 'til I release the mouse button.

 

If I go into DX8 mode, it's smooth up to level 2, but as soon as I get to level 3 detail, and more so level 4, it chops up pretty bad. Also the grid lines become jagged and "broken up" looking. The one positive is that I don't get the "blank spots" during selections or moving guides.

 

It's not a complaint by any means. I'll gladly continue to use OpenGL. I just find it funny that on a 560ti Nvidia card, one I would *think* is optimized for DirectX, OpenGL is pretty much kicking its butt.

 

Funny how graphics tech works.

[Fuchur]

Is it just me, or does the OpenGL mode in A:M seem to perform substantially better than the DX8 mode? It also looks a lot clearer.

 

I think A:M is more optimised for OpenGL. (mainly because it is os-independent)

 

Which version of A:M do you use and which OS do you use? Windows 7 / Vista uses Aero, which can result in the selection-box-problems.

To solve that, v16 and up deactives Aero by default on startup for A:M. (it can be reactivated using the options).

 

See you

*Fuchur*

[robcat2075]

Why, when I was a boy we didn't have no graphics cards. We had to wait a year for a shaded render... and we liked it!

 

The card vendors seem to make sure that their OpenGL implementation is a good one now-a-days. In 64-bit A:M it's the only choice.

 

Which ever one works best, use it.

[MikeV]

Why, when I was a boy we didn't have no graphics cards. We had to wait a year for a shaded render... and we liked it!

 

The card vendors seem to make sure that their OpenGL implementation is a good one now-a-days. In 64-bit A:M it's the only choice.

 

Which ever one works best, use it.

 

I know!

 

All these kids and their newfangled pixel-shaders and dynamic tessellation! :-p

 

 

It's not a big deal. I'm using OGL since that's the one that works best for me. Was just one of those "huh, who'd-a-thunk it" type things for me. A DX card performing better with OGL than it does with DX.

[robcat2075]

When i first got A:M v4, at work in 1996, there was a graphics card for the mac that could could natively do splines and patches without needing to approximate them with subdivided polygons (what we have now). It was reasonably zippy and A:M supported it but for whatever reasons it didn't catch on in the industry and I don't think any card does splines now.

[MikeV]

When i first got A:M v4, at work in 1996, there was a graphics card for the mac that could could natively do splines and patches without needing to approximate them with subdivided polygons (what we have now). It was reasonably zippy and A:M supported it but for whatever reasons it didn't catch on in the industry and I don't think any card does splines now.

 

Yeah, that is unfortunate. It definitely has benefits over polygons, that's for sure. And I'm sure, had the technology gone the way of splines, versus polys, we'd have seen no less of the progress and power increase over time.

 

Well, voxels seemed to have a similar situation. Some companies tried to use those for real-time simulation (at least a couple games come to mind, like Outcast), but I think they were too blocky at the time. People are revisiting that tech now, though, for a so-called "infinite detail" graphics tech.

 

'course, you have pretty much infinite detail possible - or at least "infinite smoothness" - with hash patches as well, given how it subdivides continuously as you zoom in. I saw that thread here on the forums where someone's showing how that all happens "under the hood". Very cool stuff.

 

What I love about patches is just how elegant they are. So much detail can be attained with such little geometry. Also how smoothing - something that you're constantly fighting with in polygonal modeling - pretty much comes for free. I'm still a newbie, and there's way more I need to learn about the tech and how it all works, but the more I learn, the more fascinated I am with it.

[Wildsided]

That's funny, using Open GL completely screws up my A:M (both on my old Vista machine and my current Win7 machine) to the point that nothing displays correctly or even at all. But everything is fine in Direct3D. Go figure.

[robcat2075]

A quick perusal of articles on the Web suggests OpenGL was superior at first, overtaken by Direct3D in the 2000's, but now it is unclear which is more powerful.

 

It doesn't seem that OpenGL is in decline anymore. It's rare for a GPU to not support it.

[Fuchur]

A quick perusal of articles on the Web suggests OpenGL was superior at first, overtaken by Direct3D in the 2000's, but now it is unclear which is more powerful.

 

It doesn't seem that OpenGL is in decline anymore. It's rare for a GPU to not support it.

 

I think the most important thing about OpenGL being popular is, that it is available for any widely used OS. Windows, MacOS and Linux.

There is a distribution for all of these OSes. I am not sure if there is one for all of these today for DirectX too (MacOS and Linux... do they use it today?) but a few years back there was no way to use it on Linux or MacOS. Because of that, OpenGL has spread widely. You want your computergame to work on all Computer-systems? OpenGL is the way to go. If you can limit the market to Windows only (which is very likely close to 95% of the market of computer-based games (!= consoles) it was a good use directx too...

 

I THINK today it is different and Direct3d / DirectX is available for more than just for Windows, but I am not sure, and since OpenGL is very useable too, it is widely common.

 

See you

*Fuchur*

[robcat2075]

I think the most important thing about OpenGL being popular is, that it is available for any widely used OS. Windows, MacOS and Linux.

There is a distribution for all of these OSes. I am not sure if there is one for all of these today for DirectX too (MacOS and Linux... do they use it today?)

 

DirectX is still Windows-only according to the always-reliable Wikipedia.

[MikeV]

I think the most important thing about OpenGL being popular is, that it is available for any widely used OS. Windows, MacOS and Linux.

There is a distribution for all of these OSes. I am not sure if there is one for all of these today for DirectX too (MacOS and Linux... do they use it today?)

 

DirectX is still Windows-only according to the always-reliable Wikipedia.

 

Yeah, OGL predates DX and was Silicon Graphics's way of trying to provide a standardized graphics API across different 3D hardware, as their proprietary API was too "locked in" and incompatible with competing 3D hardware. So, they were losing market share as new hardware vendors entered the market.

 

DX came a few years later and was Microsoft's way of trying to attract game developers/programmers to the Windows platform, starting with Windows 95. Game developers preferred programming in DOS, since they could directly access the hardware. With Windows, they couldn't do that so easily. Of course, Microsoft wanted to move people away from using DOS, and wanted to showcase Windows 95 as being a "gaming capable OS" so they had to do something to make Windows more appealing.

 

So basically, both technologies were an attempt by their respective developers to bring people to their hardware/software, or keep them there in SGI's case.

 

At least that's my understanding of it. Some details may be off a little.

 

I remember when OGL first hit the scene and it was all "Ooh! Colored lights! Smooth textures! No more ugly pixelated graphics! High-Color visuals! No more limited 256 color palettes!". Suddenly, almost every new 3D tech demo released was drenched in over-saturated reds and blues and oranges. It was the "programmer art" way of showcasing that technology in newer (for the time) 3D engine technology.

 

Personally it gave me a headache.

 

It was nice when I finally saw a game that used it wisely, to enhance the visuals rather than define or override them. I think the game Unreal was the first time I personally saw a good, responsible use of colored lighting during that time.