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

21–30 of 111 posts

Re: Direct3D to OpenGL abstraction layer

#21

Post by maaaats »

gambiting wrote: post #12
maaaats wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> but in 2014 if you're still writing games in DirectX, you're most likely doing it wrong. No, you are not. There is no wrong and right, it's just a stupid statement. OpenGL is years behind D3D (not DirectX, it's not comparable!) in many areas, and writing using the whole DX stack can be much nicer than setting up a GL stack with a lot of different libraries.

>>OpenGL is years behind D3D (not DirectX, it's not comparable!) in many areas, Explain please?

Note that I said in many areas. Not all. A history lesson of why many actually prefer the Windows stack can be read here: http://programmers.stackexchange.com/a/88055/51669

Re: Direct3D to OpenGL abstraction layer

#23

Post by the_mitsuhiko »

kayoone wrote: post #13

Not sure here but don't all major engines already support OpenGL ootb ? Basically any engine thats runs on PS3/PS4 does like UnrealEngine, Cryengine, idTech, Unity and most indie/open source engines are OpenGL anyway. All engines that target Android/iOS are OpenGL too. Even for things like XNA which was Xbox/DirectX only there is MonoGame to port it to *nix platforms easily. So if you have rolled your own DirectX-onl…

> Basically any engine thats runs on PS3/PS4 does like UnrealEngine, Cryengine, idTech, Unity and most indie/open source engines are OpenGL anyway

That's completely wrong. PS3 never used OpenGL and PS4 doesn't do either.

Unreal while having somewhat working Mac port is usually ported via Cedega and not the Mac version which is largely unmaintained. The Linux port of Unreal was never merged back either. Presently there is no reasonable OpenGL renderer. CryEngine also does not use OpenGL.

Re: Direct3D to OpenGL abstraction layer

#25

Post by sharpneli »

gambiting wrote: post #12
maaaats wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> but in 2014 if you're still writing games in DirectX, you're most likely doing it wrong. No, you are not. There is no wrong and right, it's just a stupid statement. OpenGL is years behind D3D (not DirectX, it's not comparable!) in many areas, and writing using the whole DX stack can be much nicer than setting up a GL stack with a lot of different libraries.

>>OpenGL is years behind D3D (not DirectX, it's not comparable!) in many areas, Explain please?

Complete lack of multicore rendering.

You can practically issue render commands only from one thread. And there is no way to save bunch of commands anymore as display lists were deprecated. Also it's still very much state machine based. So you have to do a lot of individual calls to set everything up for actual draw call.

I personally love OpenGL and use it on my work. However this is one of the biggest drawbacks on OpenGL currently.

Re: Direct3D to OpenGL abstraction layer

#26

Post by paraboul »

ygra wrote: post #24
paraboul wrote: post #22

For the interested, google's Angle is the opposite : https://code.google.com/p/angleproject/

Only for WebGL, though. (Edit: OpenGL ES 2)

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

Re: Direct3D to OpenGL abstraction layer

#27

Post by ZenoArrow »

maaaats wrote: post #10
Morgawr wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wine is a bit different, I'm not 100% sure but it's more like a reimplementation of native calls than anything. But yeah, this is awesome. As a side note, developers who want to make games run on OSX and Linux should just stop targeting DirectX. This is good for already-existing games and port them over, but in 2014 if you're still writing games in DirectX, you're most likely doing it wrong.

>> but in 2014 if you're still writing games in DirectX, you're most likely doing it wrong. No, you are not. There is no wrong and right, it's just a stupid statement. OpenGL is years behind D3D (not DirectX, it's not comparable!) in many areas, and writing using the whole DX stack can be much nicer than setting up a GL stack with a lot of different libraries.

Behind in what sense?

I'm not a video games programmer, but judging by the benchmarks it seems the most efficient graphics stack is based around AMD's Mantle: http://hothardware.com/News/AMD-Mantle-vs-DirectX-Benchmarks...

John Carmack suggests the OpenGL extensions that NVidia have developed give comparable performance to Mantle: http://n4g.com/news/1376571/john-carmack-nvidias-opengl-exte...

Re: Direct3D to OpenGL abstraction layer

#28

Post by w0rm »

Morgawr wrote: post #7
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 is a bit different, I'm not 100% sure but it's more like a reimplementation of native calls than anything. But yeah, this is awesome. As a side note, developers who want to make games run on OSX and Linux should just stop targeting DirectX. This is good for already-existing games and port them over, but in 2014 if you're still writing games in DirectX, you're most likely doing it wrong.

Yeah but this does not help if you want to port older games.

Re: Direct3D to OpenGL abstraction layer

#30

Post by outworlder »

maaaats wrote: post #21
gambiting wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>>OpenGL is years behind D3D (not DirectX, it's not comparable!) in many areas, Explain please?

Note that I said in many areas. Not all. A history lesson of why many actually prefer the Windows stack can be read here: http://programmers.stackexchange.com/a/88055/51669

And you did not say which areas and why it is behind in them. I see multicore support in another comment, and maybe things related to geometry shaders. What else am I missing?
Post reply on HN