The Tale of OpenGL vs. Direct3D
programmers.stackexchange.com
The Tale of OpenGL vs. Direct3D
1–10 of 38 posts
Re: The Tale of OpenGL vs. Direct3D
#2This is probably the most accurate view of the history of OpenGL vs. Direct3D I've seen on the internet. It goes into the actual implementation details of why OpenGL or D3D have been more or less popular for games\graphics programming over the years. Also follows my personal adoption of the APIs for projects pretty closely. Most other comparisons are too political or anti-MS, and are often written by people that have limited (if any) experience with Direct3D.
Re: The Tale of OpenGL vs. Direct3D
#3This is probably the most accurate view of the history of OpenGL vs. Direct3D I've seen on the internet. It goes into the actual implementation details of why OpenGL or D3D have been more or less popular for games\graphics programming over the years. Also follows my personal adoption of the APIs for projects pretty closely. Most other comparisons are too political or anti-MS, and are often written by people that have…
I don't know. If a historical account gives the details it knows correctly but leaves a bunch of details out is it still accurate?
There's actually a great book written about the creation of Direct3D called Renegades of the Empire (http://tinyurl.com/3n4jnru).
Having read that book I can tell you this account, while accurate in its technical details, misses a lot of other issues that were going on. For Instance...
1. The team pursuing OpenGL was part of the Windows NT group (back when NT and '95 were two different products). The Direct3D team was part of the consumer Windows group. So Microsoft's support (or lack thereof) for OpenGL games was largely based on an internal issue. With Microsoft dragging its feet on implementation in consumer Windows it forced a lot of developers to move.
2. On that note Microsoft's Consumer Windows group was all about moving developers to Windows and making Windows the defacto game standard (and as a result killing off other platforms like Mac, OS/2, etc...). Both the Mac and OS/2 supported OpenGL while they couldn't support Direct3D
3. Direct3D benefited from other parts of the DirectX API. DirectSound, for example, made it very easy for developers to support Aureal's 3d sound technology while still being backwards compatible. DirectInput made it easy to support things like ForceFeedback joysticks. And so on...
4. Microsoft bribed Developers (They did, read the book)
So while the technical analysis is correct here OpenGL's fall was due more to a powerful company doing everything it could to kill the technology off.
Re: The Tale of OpenGL vs. Direct3D
#4The moderate experience I have with OpenGL confirms this explanation. However, it sort of misses the point. The author may be a bit too close to OpenGL to judge the relative significance of the all the historical details he knows.
Take a step back:
A) There's no way in hell Microsoft would allow OpenGL to take the lead from Direct3D on Windows and Xbox. They would wield the carrots and the sticks to prop up Direct3D (and perhaps even disadvantage OpenGL) if it ever came down to it.
B) OpenGL is a success by any objective measure. Nearly every platform except Windows and Xbox uses it exclusively. E.g. mobiles. Game consoles may have dedicated APIs but I'm sure there's a better OpenGL compat layer than a Direct3D.
Recently I've developed some code on Linux for OpenGL 3.3 with GLSL and it is awesome.
Re: The Tale of OpenGL vs. Direct3D
#5This is probably the most accurate view of the history of OpenGL vs. Direct3D I've seen on the internet. It goes into the actual implementation details of why OpenGL or D3D have been more or less popular for games\graphics programming over the years. Also follows my personal adoption of the APIs for projects pretty closely. Most other comparisons are too political or anti-MS, and are often written by people that have…
I don't know. If a historical account gives the details it knows correctly but leaves a bunch of details out is it still accurate? There's actually a great book written about the creation of Direct3D called Renegades of the Empire ( http://tinyurl.com/3n4jnru ). Having read that book I can tell you this account, while accurate in its technical details, misses a lot of other issues that were going on. For Instance...…
Surprised no one's mentioned the Fahrenheit project. Microsoft's aborted alliance with Silicon Graphics.
http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/press/1997/dec97/fahrpr.m...
Re: 1. The NT-OpenGL connection made sense for things like CAD "workstations". Win95 and the DirectX stuff was designed for games. It really was completely separate back then, the kernel driver models were completely different.
Re: The Tale of OpenGL vs. Direct3D
#6Wikipedia also has an extensive page on this topic http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_OpenGL_and_Direct...
Re: The Tale of OpenGL vs. Direct3D
#7The moderate experience I have with OpenGL confirms this explanation. However, it sort of misses the point. The author may be a bit too close to OpenGL to judge the relative significance of the all the historical details he knows. Take a step back: A) There's no way in hell Microsoft would allow OpenGL to take the lead from Direct3D on Windows and Xbox. They would wield the carrots and the sticks to prop up Direct3D…
OpenGL is a success by any objective measure
OpenGL is a success. D3D is a success. Two competing products/APIs/services can both be successes. The game is about providing solutions. Both D3D and OpenGL did that for a large customer base. It's not about winning/losing, but does it help solve your problem.
Re: The Tale of OpenGL vs. Direct3D
#8As if Glide never existed
In all seriousness, I did 1 graphics programming course back in the day, and it was pretty insane. This was all in OpenGL. The amount of code required to draw the simplest scene was massive. I seem to remember there's a built-in teapot primitive, and I ended up just using that to construct everything (yes, there are simpler built-in primitives, but none nearly as cool as a teapot). I didn't do very well in that course.
Re: The Tale of OpenGL vs. Direct3D
#9I feel a lot less ignorant of all that was going on behind the scenes whilst I was rocket-jumping, exploring black mesa, destroying diablo's soulstone, driving around liberty city etc
Re: The Tale of OpenGL vs. Direct3D
#10This is probably the most accurate view of the history of OpenGL vs. Direct3D I've seen on the internet. It goes into the actual implementation details of why OpenGL or D3D have been more or less popular for games\graphics programming over the years. Also follows my personal adoption of the APIs for projects pretty closely. Most other comparisons are too political or anti-MS, and are often written by people that have…
I don't know. If a historical account gives the details it knows correctly but leaves a bunch of details out is it still accurate? There's actually a great book written about the creation of Direct3D called Renegades of the Empire ( http://tinyurl.com/3n4jnru ). Having read that book I can tell you this account, while accurate in its technical details, misses a lot of other issues that were going on. For Instance...…
Oh I don't doubt that Microsoft politics and their "own the API" policy helped hurt adoption of OpenGL on Windows, but blaming the state of OpenGL on non-Windows platforms on Microsoft is giving them a little too much credit. The ARB was just as much at fault. Apple has had a lot invested in OpenGL, both on the desktop and OpenGL ES and in theory has just as much pull (if not more) as MS, and hasn't done much to improve the state of OpenGL either. Things have been better post ARB, Khronos does a pretty good job, especially with OpenGL ES (which still has its faults... http://aras-p.info/blog/2011/03/04/mobile-graphics-api-wishl...).
In an alternate reality where Windows is still the #1 desktop PC gaming platform, and MS adopted OpenGL instead of developing Direct3D, we'd end up with Microsoft specific extensions and vendor specific extensions to keep OpenGL up to speed with current hardware.