Submit
D12838c45a4840e6c05bf94d8bb5e135
0
Morgoth 101 Feb 21, 2003 at 06:57

@baldurk

one thing, UT2k3 has more than legacy support for OpenGL. It had a linux client out of the box, and that ran on opengl

I have just seen UT2003 & Unreal2 only on Windows platforms (2k & XP) and they don’t offer directly an option for OpenGL. As far as I know, they fall back to OpenGL rendering only if they fail to properly detect required DirectX features/version. Of course, for a Linux client there is no other option than OpenGL :-)

In response to what do you recommend?
D491261d0cdbea6f1f04129ba87f4d09
0
void 101 Feb 21, 2003 at 05:12

Id just like to point out to all the people who are praising DX for having all these ‘“helper” libs that load 3DMAX meshes and stuff. This is useless in most cases, hardly any games use the 3DMAX format, why? because it is a bloated format which has features no game will ever need in its model format. Sure, the artists use max for modelling, but then a script comverts the max format to a proprietary internal format for the game, such as MD2 or MD3 for quake games.
Also, it is wrong to say that bloatedness doesnt matter for any1 unless your making a 64kb demo. That is the same kind of attitude some programmers say when rferring to efficience, “who cares if i use bubble sort instead of quick sort, the processors nowadays are so fast and getting faster it doesnt matte”, oops, WRONG. Same with bloatedness, bloatedness eventually leads to more bugs, slower execution speeds, and general shitiness.
my 2c.

In response to what do you recommend?
C24eb7e6aaefba78b94c831ddc7b4d0b
0
donBerto 101 Feb 21, 2003 at 00:16

QUOTE (donBerto @ Feb 19 2003, 03:54 PM)
you’re right - OpenGL has no singular body of code. that doesn not mean the OpenGL API cannot be open source. uhm, yes, exactly thats what it means..

good! :yes: does that mean you agree?
@davepermen

is my toaster open source? i mean, there is no real sourcecode around, but i could write a pc implementation in c controlling my toaster, this is not forbidden. so its an open source toaster.

is your toaster open source? i don’t know. i don’t care. you can make your own toaster open source and release it and that will be cool. the good thing is, if you wanted to, you can sell it to me - instead of you just giving it to me for free.
@davepermen

actually, its simple. its exactly defined what the open of opengl means in the opengl specs. namely the specs are open, its exactly defined and available to anyone, how opengl looks like, how it behaves. and you’re free to add stuff to it, and propose it as future gl feature, etc. and its free to use opengl.

:yes: you agree again? cool.
@davepermen

its not free to implement opengl, as far as i know. mesa3d hoped that he get e special gift from sgi, means the official “this is an opengl implementation” on his project, for free. but he never got. but actually, he can call it mesa 3d, a free opengl implementation.. so they don’t really bother about it.

that’s not entirely true. [please don’t shoot the messenger]. it IS free to implement OpenGL. the initiative was started so that there was a standard on how graphics would be supported via hardware – and that it would be free, so all people will take to the standard, instead of shy away from it because there are strings attached [like certain API i know of].
@”from sgi

SGI funding and engineering advice to open source developers at Precision Insight, who integrated GLX with XFree86 and with the Mesa project (an open source software implementation of the OpenGL API) in 1998 and 1999.

Brian Paul implemented mesa3d free of charge - the only exception was that he couldn’t call it mesaGL. not because of the license, but because of a business aspect called “reputational liability”. mesaGL would confuse people who used MesaGL with openGL and since it wasn’t directly supported by SGI. anyway, it’s a business thing that i don’t know enough about.

6ad5f8c742f1e8ec61000e2b0900fc76
0
davepermen 101 Feb 20, 2003 at 20:29

yes, he first played with dx3, hated it, then he tested dx6, hated it, and dx7 was nothing new for him, but dx8 was a surprise for him..

In response to OGL links
0684f9d33f52fa189aad7ac9e8c87510
0
baldurk 101 Feb 20, 2003 at 18:15

davepermen, don’t start that again. I think it’s been agreed that although the initial post war was fun (:D) it pissed a lot of people off. Anyway, it’s OK to have a rivalry if you are mature enough to battle with USEFUL posts. If you don’t crap-post, then it gives people an incentive to post useful things.

On re-reading that, it comes over as very I-am-better-than-you, but I promise that’s not what I mean. Anyway, I’m not ;).

0684f9d33f52fa189aad7ac9e8c87510
0
baldurk 101 Feb 20, 2003 at 18:11

From memory, I think carmacks comments were on DirectX 3 :).

6ad5f8c742f1e8ec61000e2b0900fc76
0
davepermen 101 Feb 20, 2003 at 16:37

yes, carmack officially stated he likes dx8 and 9 very much, and thinks about using it as well in the next projects.

but gl is great for a start, yes. its what i started with as well.

In response to OGL links
6ad5f8c742f1e8ec61000e2b0900fc76
0
davepermen 101 Feb 20, 2003 at 16:36

and guess what? that whole gave me again 3 posts, and i’m equal with baldurk again now:D

In response to OGL links
6ad5f8c742f1e8ec61000e2b0900fc76
0
davepermen 101 Feb 20, 2003 at 16:35

no, sure.. i completely agree to darklight as well:D

In response to OGL links
6ad5f8c742f1e8ec61000e2b0900fc76
0
davepermen 101 Feb 20, 2003 at 16:34

@apex

I completely agree with you DarkLight. Our job is not to compete with posts but to help each other. That’s a good point you raised up.

you said that, but you don’t mean it (-ice age)

you’re just behind us, thats why you “completely agree” :D

In response to what do you recommend?
6ad5f8c742f1e8ec61000e2b0900fc76
0
davepermen 101 Feb 20, 2003 at 16:27

@donBerto

you’re right - OpenGL has no singular body of code. that doesn not mean the OpenGL API cannot be open source.

uhm, yes, exactly thats what it means..

is my toaster open source? i mean, there is no real sourcecode around, but i could write a pc implementation in c controlling my toaster, this is not forbidden. so its an open source toaster.

actually, its simple. its exactly defined what the open of opengl means in the opengl specs. namely the specs are open, its exactly defined and available to anyone, how opengl looks like, how it behaves. and you’re free to add stuff to it, and propose it as future gl feature, etc. and its free to use opengl.

its not free to implement opengl, as far as i know. mesa3d hoped that he get e special gift from sgi, means the official “this is an opengl implementation” on his project, for free. but he never got. but actually, he can call it mesa 3d, a free opengl implementation.. so they don’t really bother about it. :D

In response to what do you recommend?
6ad5f8c742f1e8ec61000e2b0900fc76
0
davepermen 101 Feb 20, 2003 at 16:21

@apex

I disagree to the fact that open source == free source. Take the engine “Torque” as an example. You get the full source, but not only after you pay. There are many people/companies who sell source code for a particular project, but that doesn’t make it free.

well, yes. anyways, gl is not open source. the main point..

and the opensource that would be interesting (not in gl, but in applications) is actually free source code, means open accessible to the world. but yes, there are things as well, wich you can buy with sourcecode. does that really get named open source as well? dunno.. i wouldn’t call it like that.. else every program would be open as well. still its illegal to get most programs for free.

open source as i learned it is free to read, but not always free to use. but free, namely open to read for everyone interested.

gl can’t be open source as gl is not an application. doesn’t have source.

In response to OGL links
Fdbdc4176840d77fe6a8deca457595ab
0
dk 158 Feb 19, 2003 at 22:08

@DarkLight

The job of the admin (and of the moderators too) is not to make as many posts as possible. And the forum should not become a competition who will make most posts. We are here to help each other.

I completely agree with you DarkLight. Our job is not to compete with posts but to help each other. That’s a good point you raised up.

Fdbdc4176840d77fe6a8deca457595ab
0
dk 158 Feb 19, 2003 at 22:03

Both APIs are fast & powerful. Just a side note: What makes one wonder is that OpenGL was developed almost 12 years ago, and yet it is very powerful and widely used. Whereas, DirectX came into power after DX 7.0/8.0. Caramack himself disproved DirectX (when version 6.0 was out), but now I’m sure he’ll change his opinion now that we have DX 8.0/9.0. The point is, OpenGL being as old and as powerful as it is (not that many changes since its initial release) makes it a prefered API for young developers. DirectX went drastic & dramatic changes which is a very disadvantgous thing about it (it shows that there was no initial design & planning). When I look at openGL I see that the guys were looking 10-15 years ahead when the API was developed. But now, one must admit that OpenGL is getting old (since Computer Graphics has evovled rapidly) and the extensions on it are causing problems. That’s why there is a need for OpenGL 2.0

Its just my humble opinion. :lol:

In response to what do you recommend?
Fdbdc4176840d77fe6a8deca457595ab
0
dk 158 Feb 19, 2003 at 21:51

@davepermen

open source == free source code. there is only a free spec (and a free sourcecode of an implementation)

I disagree to the fact that open source == free source. Take the engine “Torque” as an example. You get the full source, but not only after you pay. There are many people/companies who sell source code for a particular project, but that doesn’t make it free.

In response to what do you recommend?
C24eb7e6aaefba78b94c831ddc7b4d0b
0
donBerto 101 Feb 19, 2003 at 20:59

with that last quote, is that why there aren’t many non-ms DirectX tutorials?

hmm :unsure:

In response to what do you recommend?
0684f9d33f52fa189aad7ac9e8c87510
0
baldurk 101 Feb 19, 2003 at 20:58

I needed to edit because the quote was messed up because of this board’s weird way of quoting.

0684f9d33f52fa189aad7ac9e8c87510
0
baldurk 101 Feb 19, 2003 at 20:56

one thing, UT2k3 has more than legacy support for OpenGL. It had a linux client out of the box, and that ran on opengl

In response to what do you recommend?
C24eb7e6aaefba78b94c831ddc7b4d0b
0
donBerto 101 Feb 19, 2003 at 20:54

@davepermen

and still, even a slower implementation of managed dx on linux would be good for dx, good for .NET, good for microsoft, even for linux. why?
dx apps can run everywhere (managed dx ones). but on microsoft platforms, they run best. good for microsoft, as its their own product. runs everywhere, but only on their optimal. that is optimal to expand target platforms.
good for dx, because it can get support on linux and other platforms, too
good for microsoft, because of the above, World Domination™
good for linux, as they can be part of the World Domination™, dominate as well. it would not make dx weak.

if .NET goes linux [or if MONO get’s going] - then yes, world domination is inevitable :D

“managed dx” would still be weak. not in terms of what it can/can’t do [cuz it can do a lot], but in terms of choices: the choice between using OpenGL or a “managed dx”, I think people are going to pick OpenGL over (managed)DX because it’s already there. it’s sort of like the question “why use C# when there’s already JAVA?” [oh boy, another flame war]
@davepermen

about your company, good luck. but you will have nearly no chance in gamedev with your mentology (while its a great one, and i actually do have the same one, guess why i’m _not_ in gamedev myself). i know enough that work in gamedev. and they all work the same: target platform: xbox/ps2/gc/pc. artists: 3dsmax. programmers mission: get renderware working (for consoles), get 3dsmax model converter/importer working, implement physics engine, havoc for example (unreal2), or other one. get a simple playSound(filename) working, some other stuff, done. and that in about 10% of the time you need to do it.

it is my fault - i failed to mention that I would share knowledge for free, not give my gamedev company away for free. if I work for gamedev, it would be for profit but I still wouldn’t whore myself to unethical, business models and practices.

as far as using existing tools, yes - that’s very economical and wise. but certain tools overlive its use, it’s effectiveness and a new tool must rise to take it’s place. if you can make that new tool instead of licensing its use from another company, i suggest you make it. same ideology goes for people who have no funds to purchase tools and thus must make their own. all at the price of time.

about open source: no open source is not free source. you can sell if you wanted to, as long as the source is included. now, i would agree with you that DX is as open sourced as OGL but for one small detail.
@DirectX 8.x SDK EULA - partial

SOFTWARE PRODUCT. You may install and use the enclosed SOFTWARE PRODUCT to design, develop, and test software application products for use with Microsoft operating system products including Windows 95 and Windows NT and subsequent releases thereto (“Application”). You may install and use copies of the SOFTWARE PRODUCT on up to ten (10) computers provided that you are the only individual using the SOFTWARE PRODUCT on each single computer. If you are an entity, Microsoft grants you the right to designate one individual within your organization to have the right to use the SOFTWARE PRODUCT in the manner provided above.

open source prohibits ‘discrimination against persons or groups’. I highlighted above the “discriminating” factor in the license, effectively making DirectX a closed-source SDK
@MSDN

PERSONAL AND NON-COMMERCIAL USE LIMITATION.
Unless otherwise specified, the Services are for your personal and non-commercial use. You may not modify, copy, distribute, transmit, display, perform, reproduce, publish, license, create derivative works from, transfer, or sell any information, software, products or services obtained from the Services.

this makes both the SDK AND the API closed-source.

you’re right - OpenGL has no singular body of code. that doesn not mean the OpenGL API cannot be open source.

that aside :D thanks for the C clarification. I’m enlightened. :yes:

In response to what do you recommend?
6ad5f8c742f1e8ec61000e2b0900fc76
0
davepermen 101 Feb 19, 2003 at 20:51

@baldurk

@davepermen

then again, who cares about bloaty? if you want 64kb demo, yes, else, nobody.

me.

you needed to edit for a .. 2char word? :D great:D

well, you’re a modem user, i understand you.

btw, if you would ask, i would send you my stuff pre mail, burned on a cd. if it would be too bloaty..

In response to what do you recommend?
0684f9d33f52fa189aad7ac9e8c87510
0
baldurk 101 Feb 19, 2003 at 20:05

@davepermen

then again, who cares about bloaty? if you want 64kb demo, yes, else, nobody.

me.

In response to what do you recommend?
6ad5f8c742f1e8ec61000e2b0900fc76
0
davepermen 101 Feb 19, 2003 at 17:06

is there rumor about .NET plotting to take over the world? of course :D would it be beneficial for DirectX to get a “cross-platform controller”, no. it would make DirectX weak. it’s strongest on MS OSes. it’ll be extremely weak anywhere else. that was the point of my earlier post.
if .NET wants to be crossplatform, “Managed DX” (NOT DX!!), has to get crossplatform, too, as it is part of .NET.. one day or the other.

and still, even a slower implementation of managed dx on linux would be good for dx, good for .NET, good for microsoft, even for linux. why?
dx apps can run everywhere (managed dx ones). but on microsoft platforms, they run best. good for microsoft, as its their own product. runs everywhere, but only on their optimal. that is optimal to expand target platforms.
good for dx, because it can get support on linux and other platforms, too
good for microsoft, because of the above, World Domination™
good for linux, as they can be part of the World Domination™, dominate as well.

it would not make dx weak.

about your company, good luck. but you will have nearly no chance in gamedev with your mentology (while its a great one, and i actually do have the same one, guess why i’m _not_ in gamedev myself). i know enough that work in gamedev. and they all work the same: target platform: xbox/ps2/gc/pc. artists: 3dsmax. programmers mission: get renderware working (for consoles), get 3dsmax model converter/importer working, implement physics engine, havoc for example (unreal2), or other one. get a simple playSound(filename) working, some other stuff, done. and that in about 10% of the time you need to do it.

gamedev biz is hard, dirty, and only about making most money of least amount of work. that means using tools when they are there. and dx provides a complete set there, making it great. and you get great support by microsoft, you get direct integrations to 3dsmax and similar, etc. what carmack does, can only carmack do. no other company could let a simple small programmer do that stuff for a graphics engine. you eighter do it for free, or not at all.

thats why i do my stuff for free as well. i have all the time i want, i can do what i want, and have no stress.

and yes, it is a converter, a program. dx is not bloated.

and for real games, we’re not talking about 8mb or so. we’re talking about 1 or 2 cd’s, or more. then, 500kb don’t bother you.

btw, the dx interface is the one i use in my whole engine. best to organize and split your code into pieces (modularize).

and yes, c has pointers. they where actually _the_ feature of c:D

In response to what do you recommend?
6ad5f8c742f1e8ec61000e2b0900fc76
0
davepermen 101 Feb 19, 2003 at 16:57

@donBerto

@davepermen

and opengl is not free. read your own quote again. they have an “OPEN SOURCE SAMPLE IMPLEMENTATION”. thats all, what is open source. a useless, old sample implementation. but opengl is an api, not a program. as such it can’t be open source, but only have open documented specs, it can be an open standard. and that is it.

yeah - read my quote again – I said that open-source DOES NOT mean it’s free.

OpenGL is an open API. Application Programming Interface. that means that there is an implementation. that means that there’s code [in one way or another] there. and guess what, it’s open-source. not free, but open-source. open source != free.

open source == free source code. there is only a free spec (and a free sourcecode of an implementation)

and dx is as “open source” if you wanna call it that way. its fully documented, it has an api, and its documented what each function has to do.

In response to what do you recommend?
C24eb7e6aaefba78b94c831ddc7b4d0b
0
donBerto 101 Feb 19, 2003 at 16:43

@davepermen

well, ther is quite some rumor that m$ wants that .NET runs everywhere, even where there is no m$ platform yet. sort of an m$ platform on other stuff. and, well, managed dx _could_ get ported then, and would be cool. but dx itself will not move, no.

is there rumor about .NET plotting to take over the world? of course :D

would it be beneficial for DirectX to get a “cross-platform controller”, no. it would make DirectX weak. it’s strongest on MS OSes. it’ll be extremely weak anywhere else. that was the point of my earlier post.
@daverpermen

well, if you would be a gamedev, and you would do it for money, and you would have short time, and high pressure, and all, you would know that about everyone in business just uses together fitting complete tools, because its the cheapest way to do. thats why all gamedev use eighter maya, or 3dsmax, or possibly something else. most at least do so.
gamedev, is like any other business, about money. for homedev, yes, you don’t need 3dsmax, but for gamedev, you need. you need artists and don’t want to train them months in a buggy mini program you code yourself. instead you pay artists wich know yet how to work with 3dsmax, and they can start stright from the first day on.

and dx does not get bloated because of that. its all in d3dx and can get manually linked. and i told its a converter, a program, to create .x meshes, wich converts from .3ds meshes. does not bloat your exe as well. its part of the dev process only.

then again, who cares about bloaty? if you want 64kb demo, yes, else, nobody.

in the first part of this quote, I respect it but I don’t agree. there are people [including me] that want to make things for the sole benefit of knowledge. no strings [or money] attached. and if I were to share something I thought everybody should have free access to, I’m not going to bloat it up and make it look sloppy. the last thing I want to do is cast a bad example on the rest of the world.

[edit]
I have plans to start my own gamedev company later in life and I’ll tell you what - whether in my own company or working for somebody else, I’d rather get fired asking to postpone a release date than release anything I thought was incomplete, simply because I’m running out of time. there’s nothing I hate more than playing a game that is incomplete and then bombared you with “patch releases”.

using [commercial] already-built tools saves a whole lot of time but it sure does waste money [IP royalties, rights, “taxes”]. writing/building your own tools doesn’t have to be buggy. in fact, I think people are better off writing their own tools because you can guarantee that there’s no bugs. of course, you’ll have to know what you’re doing and do it right.
[/edit]

about the 3ds meshes: if you meant that the converter is a separate tool outside of DirectX, then I stand corrected. and if that is the case, then no - it wouldn’t bloat the executable.

about size: if I can get a 10MB demo to be 9.5MB by cutting out “fat”, I would. I suggest everybody does - it’s just clean and ethical to do so. you wouldn’t buy a car with an extra door that serves no purpose would you?

about the c/c++ thing: int* c is a pointer. yes. but does the original C let you have pointers? [asking, not being a jerk]. do tell me. I do know that OOP and inheritance are a C++ feature and Objective/Procedural programming is C legacy [that’s why i referred to OpenGL as a “C” language-pro]. most compilers today blur the line of C/C++ - letting you do both in the same compilation… granted, C serves as a “base class” for C++… but i’m getting off topic. but please do tell me about the pointer thing.

anyway, about the insinuation [“suggestion”] that OpenGL is great to learn, it is. guess what, DirectX is great to learn, too! :o i’m sure you [[b]davepermen[/b]] agrees. It’s powerful and it’s [currently] a step above all other APIs. I just don’t like the interface :lol:

In response to what do you recommend?
C24eb7e6aaefba78b94c831ddc7b4d0b
0
donBerto 101 Feb 19, 2003 at 16:04

@davepermen

and opengl is not free. read your own quote again. they have an “OPEN SOURCE SAMPLE IMPLEMENTATION”. thats all, what is open source. a useless, old sample implementation. but opengl is an api, not a program. as such it can’t be open source, but only have open documented specs, it can be an open standard. and that is it.

yeah - read my quote again – I said that open-source DOES NOT mean it’s free.

OpenGL is an open API. Application Programming Interface. that means that there is an implementation. that means that there’s code [in one way or another] there. and guess what, it’s open-source. not free, but open-source. open source != free.

Welcome to DevMaster, a community-driven game development website of posts and resources!

Recent Tags

indie × 5
game-development × 5
ios × 3
android × 3
algorithm × 1
effects × 1
physics × 1
iphone × 1
c# × 1
mobile × 1
physics-engines × 1
native × 1
macos × 1
sound × 1
music × 1
networking × 1
testing × 1
multiplayer × 1
design-patterns × 1
game-programming × 1
3d-engine × 1
shaders × 1
cross-platform × 1
gaming × 1
game-industry × 1