Submit
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.

In response to what do you recommend?
6ad5f8c742f1e8ec61000e2b0900fc76
0
davepermen 101 Feb 19, 2003 at 15:59

there is no proof or even a slight rumor that the event of a cross-over agent for dx would ever come to any other os other than an ms one. why not you ask? gee, I could think of one api that’s already cross-platform…

for those who aren’t up to speed today, i’m talking about OpenGL.

another view, it would NOT serve in ms’ best interest to make a DirectX cross-over thingie because that’ll probably make it slower and less appealing, damaging directx’s reputation.

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.

the examples of GLUT AND GLAUX weren’t good. I admit that - they’re old and dying, if not already dead. but it doesn’t make DirectX any more glamourous. ok D3D supports 3dsmax meshes and it has all this bloated stuff on it - what good is it if you don’t use 3D studio? what good is it if you have your own mesh-library or your won texture-loader library? using your own “devices” with DirectX makes your executable fatter and bloated - sloppy. OpenGL is just a graphics API, nothing more – it’s what makes it precise and crisp. you want “fatty” features that only some people will use, then DirectX is your choice.

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.

insinuating

what the ****? cracy word:D

what i ment, is, gl is a great way to learn programming. even while you have no clue about programming, you can copy paste together stuff from nehe, and have some stuff on screen. step by step you learn faults and faults and evolve to what i am today:D (thats the way i learned programming:D)

In response to what do you recommend?
6ad5f8c742f1e8ec61000e2b0900fc76
0
davepermen 101 Feb 19, 2003 at 15:48

@donBerto

i think you have that backwards too. OpenGL mainly uses C language - you know, just function calls, nothing C++ about it. DirectX, however, uses pointers - a feature in C++ language. so it would be more correct to say that old-school programmers would have an easier time with OpenGL and “new generation” programmers would have an easier time with DirectX.

C++ has pointers? coooooooool:D (hint, guess what int* thing in c means:D)

opengl is c-style, only using constants, and functions. thus making it very easy to understand the syntax for newbies. dx has more stuff, pointers, objects, all the fun. makes it harder for newbies of the language. thats what i said.

then i said old school dudes, working with windows, programming for it since years. well, first. sure they need to know c++, else dx is rather messy (ever tried in c, its fun:D). but, most todays programmers only work in c++. they use mfc to generate their applications, they use c++ everywhere. mainly only c with classes, but so what. important is, they know how to program, they know pointers, they do automatically things like “when i create something here, i need to destroy it later, say ->Release() in dx case”, and much more.

you can use opengl at a time where you have even problems setting up a for-loop. you can’t do that with dx.

but anyone knowing c++, mainly knowing c with classes (no templates, inheritance, rtti, casting, overloading, etc needed to know), can use dx as well. and thats true for most programmers who get paied for their job:D (at least, i hope it:D)

In response to what do you recommend?
6ad5f8c742f1e8ec61000e2b0900fc76
0
davepermen 101 Feb 19, 2003 at 15:43

just to the opensource gl, and the dx from microsoft

both ati and nvidia, but as well matrox etc, had made big parts of dx. nvidia created, together with microsoft, the idea of vertexshaders, available on their gf3. pixelshader2 was together with ati, dispacementmapping with matrox. etc. vendors _DO_ work together with microsoft. they just don’t define the api interface. but the dx features, they define.

in opengl, every vendor is free to do what ever they want, resulting in the lovely extension mess. then there is the ARB, collecting those ideas and fitting them in a good way into opengl core.

it looks like its different, but in fact, its mainly the same. just compare the apis. they have the same feature sets. they just fit around hw.

but yes, microsoft defines the final look of dx.

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.

but its not open source. there was a huge discussion about this, _WITH_ hw vendors, _WITH_ arb members, etc. there is not much difference between gl and dx actually.

and, the autor of mesa states that, he would have to pay to call its thing really opengl. prooves its not really open source, say free. you’re not free to implement something called opengl. what he did is implementing something following the (open) gl specs. and when you rename his files to opengl32.dll, yes, then it works perfectly.

so, in short:

  • both in gl and in dx, vendors have more or less the same to say. difference: in gl they are free to implement vendor specific extensions
  • gl is not open source, but an open standard. gl is not a program, every vendor has an own source in the drivers. open source does not make sence, its that simple

on to the rest:D

In response to what do you recommend?
C24eb7e6aaefba78b94c831ddc7b4d0b
0
donBerto 101 Feb 19, 2003 at 15:26

“baby won’t you light my fire!” :lol:

alright here we go -
@davepermen

QUOTE
First of all, unlike DirectX, OpenGL if free, open-source development no, dx and gl are the same, except dx is mostly designed by microsoft, with suggestions from (gaming-)hw vendors, while gl is designed by the ARB, a group built by mostly the same (gaming-)hw vendors, and, too, others, like from workstations and all.
you don’t have opengl on sourceforge, gl is not free, its not opensource, not anything. if you want to code an own opengl implementation, you have to pay to call it opengl. thats why mesa is still named mesa.

you have it “backwards” my friend. DirectX IS MAINLY AND EXCLUSIVELY developed my Microsoft. did you know that MS is a member of the ARB [don’t know if they still are, most likely]? so OpenGL get’s some of it’s suggestion from Microsoft… or lack of suggestions from microsoft thereof.

Mesa3D. is open-source but it doesn’t exists because OpenGL isn’t*. Brian Paul [the creator of Mesa3D] made it because he wanted voodoo cards to have at least software-level support OpenGL implementation and over time the project became bigger than he thought. mesa3D is still only software-deep, but it conforms to OpenGL standards. In fact, you can switch from OpenGL to Mesa WITHOUT having to rewrite any of your GL code. still, it was just his personal project that he shared with the world - it’s not there to combat OpenGL’s open-source-ness.

ahh yes, here’s my favorite part. just because oss software isn’t hosted on sourceforge, it doesn’t make it any less open-source!

…and I quote from SGI’s [the creator of OpenGL] OpenGL page:@SGI

The result of this work was the OpenGL API, which was largely based on earlier work on the SGI® IRIS GLTM library. The OpenGL API began as a specification, then SGI produced a sample implementation that hardware vendors could use to develop OpenGL drivers for their hardware. The sample implementation has been released under an open source license.

you were saying?

let me clear any confusion that people may have at this point - just because software is licensed open-source, it doesn’t necessarily mean it’s free - it just means that when you buy the software, you buy the source code with it.

moving on…
@davepermen

QUOTE
Second: it is easier to learn (at least because of the less functions) depends from where you come. for starters, programming newbies, yes. for people who developed for some time yet windows applications, say 30 year old dudes starting 3dprogramming as hobby, dx is more easy to get into.
in the end, both are easy today, both are very similar today, its mostly design difference (function against member function). but if you know c++, you should not have problems with one or the other.

i think you have that backwards too. OpenGL mainly uses C language - you know, just function calls, nothing C++ about it. DirectX, however, uses pointers - a feature in C++ language. so it would be more correct to say that old-school programmers would have an easier time with OpenGL and “new generation” programmers would have an easier time with DirectX.
@davepermen

QUOTE
Third: The best games use OpenGL i currently play unreal2 and love it. but i think you ment it as a joke anyways. because you know, the api doesn’t make a game.

I’ve always admired the unreal series and for the life of me I couldn’t understand why unreal2 was implemented only in DirectX. hence, I never got to play it :no:

anyway, for once, I agree with you - some of the best games I’ve played weren’t implemented in OpenGL either because OpenGL didn’t exist or there was no need for it [because SVGA programming was somewhat a ‘standard’]. games like: Quest For Glory series [the 5th one uses OpenGL!], Mission Force: CyberStorm [svga? directx 3?] Dark Reigh [dx, i know that much]. those were among my favorites while I had a ms box.
@davepermen

QUOTE
Forth: Linux becomes more and more popular, but DirectX is only for Windows yes. still, dx could possibly come over as managed dx in mono, one day.. we’ll see.. and main target for gamedev is and remains windows for the next years. does not mean you should not try to develop for linux if you have the chance. but its not where the money is (currently) => its not where you will develop in the industry.

there is no proof or even a slight rumor that the event of a cross-over agent for dx would ever come to any other os other than an ms one. why not you ask? gee, I could think of one api that’s already cross-platform…

for those who aren’t up to speed today, i’m talking about OpenGL.

another view, it would NOT serve in ms’ best interest to make a DirectX cross-over thingie because that’ll probably make it slower and less appealing, damaging directx’s reputation.
@davepermen

QUOTE
Fifth: There are many OpenGL related libraries like GLUT and GLAUX for examle bether say, there is glut. glaux is buggy, and dead. (even nehe now tries to get rid of it in his tuts:D). and sdl lets you use gl.
on the other hand, dx provides d3dx, wich lets you even load converted 3dsmax meshes, lets you optimize meshes, have lod on the meshes, tesselate them, etc. it has a full math library, it provides additional texture loading features, etc. in short: both have good tools, as both are often used (often used stuff always gets good tools, because we are lazzy:D)

the examples of GLUT AND GLAUX weren’t good. I admit that - they’re old and dying, if not already dead. but it doesn’t make DirectX any more glamourous. ok D3D supports 3dsmax meshes and it has all this bloated stuff on it - what good is it if you don’t use 3D studio? what good is it if you have your own mesh-library or your won texture-loader library? using your own “devices” with DirectX makes your executable fatter and bloated - sloppy. OpenGL is just a graphics API, nothing more – it’s what makes it precise and crisp. you want “fatty” features that only some people will use, then DirectX is your choice.
@davepermen

QUOTE
Sixth: There are many Open-source OpenGL applications (including games) yes, and? well, to learn its great. if you ment that, i agree.

are you insinuating that DirectX is not great to learn?

man… I’m exhausted! this is pretty lengthy! :yes:

6918a68d53df45967550c706fa7609ea
0
PixelDuck 101 Feb 19, 2003 at 15:15

Morgoth: I thought of that before I said that about some people’s proficiency in math, but I still said it since it wasn’t originaly mine, the opinnion I mean ;)

Anyways, I share the thought that integration is important. And for efficiencys sake, using one API compared to many is very much better. OpenGL 2.0… yeah, that’s what we’re all waiting for, aren’t we :) And I too have high expectations and reading the papers, for some part atleast, I think that it will be pretty good to say the least. Though, we’ve seen this before, or are seeing it right now, namely the GeForceFX case. They promissed it to be a superb card and what did it bring to us? A poorly designed heat-sinking system (apparently, atleast compared to ATI) that sounds like an airplane! Well that’s a bit axeggaratation (or what ever :). But one thing can’t be avoided, it just barely surpasses ATI’s r300 in speed :\ And with very few additions in form of capabillities it doesn’t sound like beeing worth the money. Oops, a bit of topic :D

My point beeing that who knows. Maby OpenGL 2.0 will turn out just like GFFX seems to become… I surely hope not, but we never know :\ Atleast it sounds promissing, as I mentioned before, and I sure have high hopes of it and hopefully it will be the “saviour of OpenGL” :)

Though surely OpenGL will retain a great portion on the non-game side of graphics if DX takes over, but that remains to be seen :)

Cheers!

Edit: Oh and forgot to say that one reason for prefering DirectX might be that you can actually download it as a SDK. This was a thing that created confusion in me, since I was accustomed to the downloading of a SDK and I didn’t notice, at first, that OpenGL comes with the OS (or was it the IDE, atleast VC++) :D Anyways, 124 MB was understandable for a SDK download, but the about 200 MB of DX9 is a bit bad :eek:

D12838c45a4840e6c05bf94d8bb5e135
0
Morgoth 101 Feb 19, 2003 at 14:29

To begin with, I must say that I’m not that into vertex/pixel shaders so I can’t comment on this issue.
The integration issue seems to be of some importance since the proposals on OpenGL 2.0 include some discussion on integration with an OpenML (media library). Besides, games that use GL for graphics also rely on DirectX for sound and input… Talking about Carmack, in some older .plan he had stated that after GLQuake (1) he tried to port the code to DirectX (then 3 or 5, not sure) but dropped the whole thing because “he had better things to do with his time”. Bad API back then but great improvement over time. By the way, Unreal dropped “real” OpenGL support, but keeps some -potentially buggy- legacy support. UT2003 and Unreal2 don’t even offer the option! The initial design of OpenGL has proved its longevity (OpenGL 1.x lived for at least 5-6 incarnations of DirectX at the PC’s) and is even older - i think - in SGI platforms) but some changes are required. My personal opinion is that the fate of OpenGL relies heavily on the success (or failure) of the OpenGL 2.0 project. It HAS to be good, at extension management definitely need a fresh look, and of course integrated programmability is highly wanted!
As for the fact that many people aren’t that proficient on maths, if you are referring to DirectX extension lib, remember that GLutility library has been a standard since the beginning.

590e8bdac8129bd87b188df15e62d0e5
0
CyraX 101 Feb 19, 2003 at 13:43

I say the main reason many of the ppl use DirectX is because of the fact that DX has EVERYTHING integrated. DirectSound, Direct Play etc;
The Vertex/Pixel Shaders are also better off in DX, but soon DX would lose that lead, guess because Cg is gonna rock soon. Cg is not all that upto mark as of now, but soon it would be. Remember its nVidia whoz working on it.
Other than that, OGL and DX are not far apart. If that were to be the case, QII would have been written in DX and not in OGl. Remeber how slow OGl during those days was.
When its Mr. Carmack , John we are talking of, I would say he would not mind rewriting hte whole of Quake II IF it were to add an extra 5 fps in DX. Remember he ALREADY wrote his own Graphix Library for scroll games. I should say that soon many games would shift over to DX.
To ADD: Unreal also uses DX and or OGL

In response to what do you recommend?
6ad5f8c742f1e8ec61000e2b0900fc76
0
davepermen 101 Feb 19, 2003 at 13:38

First of all, unlike DirectX, OpenGL if free, open-source development

no, dx and gl are the same, except dx is mostly designed by microsoft, with suggestions from (gaming-)hw vendors, while gl is designed by the ARB, a group built by mostly the same (gaming-)hw vendors, and, too, others, like from workstations and all.
you don’t have opengl on sourceforge, gl is not free, its not opensource, not anything. if you want to code an own opengl implementation, you have to pay to call it opengl. thats why mesa is still named mesa.

Second: it is easier to learn (at least because of the less functions)

depends from where you come. for starters, programming newbies, yes. for people who developed for some time yet windows applications, say 30 year old dudes starting 3dprogramming as hobby, dx is more easy to get into.
in the end, both are easy today, both are very similar today, its mostly design difference (function against member function). but if you know c++, you should not have problems with one or the other.

Third: The best games use OpenGL

i currently play unreal2 and love it. but i think you ment it as a joke anyways. because you know, the api doesn’t make a game.

Forth: Linux becomes more and more popular, but DirectX is only for Windows

yes. still, dx could possibly come over as managed dx in mono, one day.. we’ll see.. and main target for gamedev is and remains windows for the next years. does not mean you should not try to develop for linux if you have the chance. but its not where the money is (currently) => its not where you will develop in the industry.

Fifth: There are many OpenGL related libraries like GLUT and GLAUX for examle

bether say, there is glut. glaux is buggy, and dead. (even nehe now tries to get rid of it in his tuts:D). and sdl lets you use gl.
on the other hand, dx provides d3dx, wich lets you even load converted 3dsmax meshes, lets you optimize meshes, have lod on the meshes, tesselate them, etc. it has a full math library, it provides additional texture loading features, etc. in short: both have good tools, as both are often used (often used stuff always gets good tools, because we are lazzy:D)

Sixth: There are many Open-source OpenGL applications (including games)

yes, and? well, to learn its great. if you ment that, i agree.

In response to Physics question...
6ad5f8c742f1e8ec61000e2b0900fc76
0
davepermen 101 Feb 19, 2003 at 11:55

i’m playing in doing a physics engine completely build of particles and connections between them. i hope i don’t have to mess around with the rigid body stuff, because, no mather how often i tried yet, i never got to understand it

49921baa7439fb1e91e02caf0a925cfe
0
DarkLight 101 Feb 19, 2003 at 10:04

Well, both of OpenGL and DirectX have advantages and disadvantages. I’ll say only, that
Quake (Quake 2 and 3 too), Doom (and Doom 3 wll) and many other popular games uses OpenGL

In response to OGL links
49921baa7439fb1e91e02caf0a925cfe
0
DarkLight 101 Feb 19, 2003 at 10:01

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 know one forum, where was such informality competition and moderators make some interdictions: if some one post the same two times, his post becoms 0… and other like this

In response to what do you recommend?
D491261d0cdbea6f1f04129ba87f4d09
0
void 101 Feb 19, 2003 at 05:48

DarkLight, a common misconception with openGL is that it is open source, it isnt, it is however OPEN STANDARD, there is a big difference. If you want OpenSource OpenGL, have a look at the Mesa3D library, its an opengl clone (all the functionality of OGL and the same syntax) and at the same time it is open source.

In response to OGL links
C24eb7e6aaefba78b94c831ddc7b4d0b
0
donBerto 101 Feb 19, 2003 at 04:54

no need to cheat - admin != most post :yes:

In response to OGL links
Fdbdc4176840d77fe6a8deca457595ab
0
dk 158 Feb 19, 2003 at 03:49

ha ha ha.That really doesn’t look good on an admin. Having a cheating admin will lose the trust and respect from members.
Let’s see if you can beat baldurk :lol:

In response to OGL links
B1a6d82c42d3a198cad15a3079a02306
0
WiseElben 101 Feb 19, 2003 at 02:40

You can cheat ya know? Just change your posts to like 800. ;7

In response to OGL links
Fdbdc4176840d77fe6a8deca457595ab
0
dk 158 Feb 19, 2003 at 02:32

Yes wiseman i see what you mean :blush: . The forum is pretty recent, so we’ll see in the near future.

But i see your point.

In response to OGL links
B1a6d82c42d3a198cad15a3079a02306
0
WiseElben 101 Feb 19, 2003 at 02:29

Yea! :lol:
Apex, look at TheTutor at GT, he has like 2100 while the next highest is like 1500 (EvilSmile) ;)
Anyone know what were talking about? :lol:

C24eb7e6aaefba78b94c831ddc7b4d0b
0
donBerto 101 Feb 19, 2003 at 01:26

first, did somebody answer your question? second, can you be more specific and give us more details as to what you’re doing?

In response to what do you recommend?
0684f9d33f52fa189aad7ac9e8c87510
0
baldurk 101 Feb 18, 2003 at 21:17

RE your second point, that’s a matter of opinion
RE your third point, that’s not quite accurate. A lot of good games DO use GL, but some use both, and some like Unreal 2 only DX.
I agree with your other points though

In response to what do you recommend?
49921baa7439fb1e91e02caf0a925cfe
0
DarkLight 101 Feb 18, 2003 at 20:56

First of all, unlike DirectX, OpenGL if free, open-source development
Second: it is easier to learn (at least because of the less functions)
Third: The best games use OpenGL
Forth: Linux becomes more and more popular, but DirectX is only for Windows
Fifth: There are many OpenGL related libraries like GLUT and GLAUX for examle
Sixth: There are many Open-source OpenGL applications (including games)

In response to Physics question...
49921baa7439fb1e91e02caf0a925cfe
0
DarkLight 101 Feb 18, 2003 at 20:49

I think it more fizic than math… If you use the law of the conservation of energy and impuls, using a variables for the mass of the objects and theit speed and directions, you can do really nive effect. But I’ve not solve this type of problems (and fizic problems at all) so for now I can’t give you the exact code

In response to OGL links
0684f9d33f52fa189aad7ac9e8c87510
0
baldurk 101 Feb 18, 2003 at 18:45

well, I guess he means that as you’re admin, you would normally have the most posts, like me ;).

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