Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Direct3D to OpenGL abstraction layer

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 111 posts

Re: Direct3D to OpenGL abstraction layer

#101

Post by wolfgke »

pjmlp wrote: post #96
wolfgke wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> DR-DOS actually came with the first PC I bought and it was for all effects a MS-DOS clone, hence a DOS clone, like PC-DOS from IBM and a few others on those days. Under this argumentation GNU/Linux or even OS X is a UNIX clone and both should be abbreviated to UNIX (or UN*X to avoid trademark violations ;-) ). Indeed both originate from UNIX clones - but then new features were added that made them better than the o…

Did you failed to read I was a DR-DOS user? I use computers since the early 80's.

I was a DR-DOS user, too (Novell DOS 7).

Re: Direct3D to OpenGL abstraction layer

#103

Post by kaonashi »

pjmlp wrote: post #36
paraboul wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

WebGL is just an OpenGL ES 2 binding to JavaScript. OpenGL ES 2/3 is a subset of OpenGL 3/4. Angle translate GLSL shaders and OpenGL calls to DirectX

Sadly it is a bit more than "just", specially if one needs to write code across plain GL and GL ES.

What hurts the most? I would think the imperative drawing stuff would be missed least.

Re: Direct3D to OpenGL abstraction layer

#104

Post by TazeTSchnitzel »

deeviant wrote: post #102
dimillian wrote: post #6

This is huge, really huge for anyone who write DirectX games and want to make them run on OSX/Linux. This is basically what a part of Wine do, am I wrong?

Wine really only "works" for 2d apps.

Not true. Plenty of DirectX games work fine under Wine.

Re: Direct3D to OpenGL abstraction layer

#105

Post by TazeTSchnitzel »

Demiurge wrote: post #61
ygra wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Now that I'm reading that ... isn't every subset of a finite set itself finite (and thus limited)?

I'm not a native English speaker, but I think in colloquial terms, "limited" means "smaller than you might want" or something like that.

A limited subset would not be a complete implementation, yes.

Re: Direct3D to OpenGL abstraction layer

#106

Post by frozenport »

bhouston wrote: post #56
lucian1900 wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Almost nothing uses GLES, though. All engines have libgcm renderers.

> Almost nothing uses GLES, though. All engines have libgcm renderers. Very true. The performance impact of both Direct3D and OpenGL is actually huge, so it is best to avoid it when you can using lower level interfaces that speak directly to the GPU.

Wow, what are they, a cursory Google search turns up this result: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/6345538/is-there-a-lower-...

Re: Direct3D to OpenGL abstraction layer

#107

Post by archagon »

In a thread not too long ago, I asked why CS:GO might have such terrible performance in OSX, and olegoandreev hypothesized that it might have to do with poorly compiled shaders. Maybe with enough eyes on the code, this can finally be fixed? We already know that the OSX port of the Source engine can have close-to-Windows performance based on benchmarks done in Parallels, and yet it's still shamefully only half as performant.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7303753

Re: Direct3D to OpenGL abstraction layer

#108

Post by pjmlp »

kaonashi wrote: post #103
pjmlp wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sadly it is a bit more than "just", specially if one needs to write code across plain GL and GL ES.

What hurts the most? I would think the imperative drawing stuff would be missed least.

Which OpenGL flavor to support 2.x, 3.x or 4.x, followed by which GLSL level to support, and which GL ES flavor to support 1.x, 2.0 or 3.0 and their respective GLSL levels.

Not to mention vendor specific extensions and workarounds driver bugs.

So one ends with multiple code paths, if several versions are to be supported. Similar to how HTML or POSIX are portable, but then again not so much.

Re: Direct3D to OpenGL abstraction layer

#109

Post by 72deluxe »

wolfgke wrote: post #79
pjmlp wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You mean like Warp3D (Amiga) and QuickDraw3D (Apple) ?

But then add Glide (DOS), please. :-)

I remember playing Screamer 2 with that. I think my brother still has his 3dfx cards lying around (Voodoo Dragon, Banshee etc.)

Happy times. The music in Screamer 1 was better though, more noodly guitar music in the style of Satriani.

Re: Direct3D to OpenGL abstraction layer

#110

Post by sspiff »

pjmlp wrote: post #59
sspiff wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right, but we're talking about 3D hardware APIs, which didn't really exist in a large scale until the late 90's/early 2000's.

You mean like Warp3D (Amiga) and QuickDraw3D (Apple) ?

I said large scale, not very many people had the accelerators required to use these APIs. Glide is perhaps the first real example to hit a scale that mattered.
Post reply on HN