In response to what do you recommend?
0
101 Feb 17, 2003 at 18:12

Well, you could have D3D in the same window, both in different sections.

Now THAT would be interesting :)

In response to Delays, and wait times...
0
101 Feb 17, 2003 at 17:40

Sleep(milliseconds) ? :D

then again, your demo will not be touchable during this time. no problem really for a fullscreen app (except you want to quit during that sleep:D), but so what?..:)

In response to what do you recommend?
0
101 Feb 17, 2003 at 17:39

yes, each component lets itself get initialised individually.

so its

OpenGL or Direct3D
OpenAL or DirectSound
OpenNL or DirectPlay

etc.. sure, there are even more libraries for nongraphics stuff.. for sound for example the bass.dll or others, too.. for network you can use {your operating system here} base network libs. (winsock in my case). etc..

you can even have opengl and direct3d. just not in the same window:D

In response to what do you recommend?
0
101 Feb 16, 2003 at 21:57

You can use DirectX and OpenGL together, just not Direct3d and OpenGL together. :D

In response to GLExcess
0
101 Feb 15, 2003 at 23:00

No no.
http://theproduct.de/
64kb demo’s rule all.

In response to Delays, and wait times...
0
101 Feb 15, 2003 at 16:19

unless you do that in another thread

In response to what do you recommend?
0
101 Feb 15, 2003 at 15:50

I don’t think so.

In response to Delays, and wait times...
0
101 Feb 15, 2003 at 15:49

oops, i only showed one example - my bad. yeah, the code i showed above would pause THE ENTIRE program, AMITHRAN’s code would be asychronous.

:yes:

In response to what do you recommend?
0
101 Feb 15, 2003 at 15:40

@baldurk

void: To be fair, DirectX doesn’t force you to use DX for everything. I quite happily wrote an OpenGL demo which used DirectSound.

i don’t think he meant that it forces someone to use DirectX for everything, but speaking with efficiency in mind, if you use DirectX for your graphics API, you might as well use it for input and sound because it’s all in the library, instead of using another API, increasing the size of the executable.

i’m not sure if there are ways to ‘cut the fat out’ – if you can just use DirectSound without Directi3D or what have you.

can you? enlighten me! :yes:

0
101 Feb 15, 2003 at 12:20

dx is optimized for games. that means it only has features useful for games. it can’t be faster, because all it does is telling hw to do something, the same gl does as well.

but using dx in code is optimal for developing games. code is short, clean and simple, and provides exactly the functions and objects useable for gamedev. we can argue about that, but its at least what microsoft tries, and they get rather good in it, imho.

gl is a “painting” api. well, it was. but (game-)hw vendors built more and more extensions into it, not for painting, but specifically for game-effects. they don’t follow the actual gl design structure at all, and invent stuff gl was never designed to have it. makes gl essencially a gamedev api as well.

0
101 Feb 15, 2003 at 12:12

i think pc. and i personally think windows as os.. why? dunno, it has tons of stuff you can use for demos directly, programs for art, libraries to do tasks faster (sound playing and all that). linux for sure has a lot of them as well..

then again, you possibly get more users watching your demo on windows.. espencially if it uses hardcore graphics (linux drivers get good, but anyways.. windows is always first in hw acceleration currently)

In response to what do you recommend?
0
101 Feb 15, 2003 at 12:09

hm.. dx8 to dx9 is no problem to convert really.. mainly adds features, only some stuff changed. but dx8 was a full redesign of the dx api, because microsoft realised dx is messy, not structured, and old style done. dx8 is a great construct, but logically, a full redesign forces to recode old apps if you want to convert to the new versions. the same is currently in plans with opengl with gl2.0, and every extension forces you to recode paths. espencially vendorspecific extensions. take gl code from me, one year old. not runable anymore because i used an nvidia ext. thats why i only use arb exts from now on..

and gl is bloated as well btw.. its just hw vendors “forget” to implement quite a bit of it, because its not doable in (gamers) hw. but gl is big.. ever looked at the specs? :D (okay, nvidia extension specs are bigger than the gl specs.. hehe :D )

anyways. i don’t vote. i know both, and i can suggest both. i prefer personally opengl, espencially in small scale stuff. but both are great currently, both have great features, and are easy to use. if you code in windows, you can choose from both.

actually, dx is much more structured than gl.. code gets quite a bunch cleaner. on the other side, gl code is more “simple” most the time. shorter, and more easy to follow. depends on what you look at..

and currently the ARB is working on a general cleanup of gl.. hehe

0
101 Feb 15, 2003 at 09:05

If you’re talking about platforms, PC includes linux, windows, BSD, etc.
If you’re talking about Operating Systems, PC shouldn’t be there, and Amiga should really be AmigaOS.

In response to Delays, and wait times...
0
101 Feb 15, 2003 at 09:02

that’s the code I’d use, clean and simple, and doesn’t pause the whole demo.

In response to what do you recommend?
0
101 Feb 15, 2003 at 09:01

void: To be fair, DirectX doesn’t force you to use DX for everything. I quite happily wrote an OpenGL demo which used DirectSound.

apex: Although porting DirectX 7 games to DirectX 9 is a headache, you’ll still be able to run the DirectX 7 game in DirectX 9. Even if you have DirectX 9, you can run games written in DirectX 3

That’s how MS works, they break backwards compatibility, but include the entire old release with the current. That’s why DirectX is so bloated. OpenGL doesn’t, because as they keep backwards compatibility OpenGL 1.4 is OpenGL 1.3 with a bit more, and 1.3 is 1.2 with a bit more, etc.

In response to what do you recommend?
0
158 Feb 15, 2003 at 07:46

One thing I dislike about directx is the fact that it changes drastically from release to release, making it practically difficult to update a game using an older version of DirectX. That is, if you have made a program/game in DirectX 7.0 and then you would like to use DirectX 9.0, it would be headache and a nightmare to convert. In other words, you’re code for DirectX is in reality is only compatible for a couple of years only. Your code becomes quickly outdated and cannot compile anymore without the old libraries. OpenGL on the other hand is consistent and has used the same API since it was developed in 1991, which answers the question on why you can find lots of references, tutorials and young developers loving it. Even OpenGL 2.0 (whenever it will be released) will be compatible with older versions of OpenGL.

However, if one woud have to speak in terms of power and performance, yes DirectX (especially now) is powerful and there is no difference in performance between OpenGL & DirectX. Nowadays, performance doesn’t depend API anymore, but depends on hardware and drivers.

In industry, you MUST know both to be considered as standard. Knowing one and not the other is not that attractive to potential employers.

In response to Game Theory
0
101 Feb 15, 2003 at 07:44

to dabeav:

using your implementation i had some time to test and i’m still testing. so far, here’s the lock. THE MISTAKE COULD BE IN MY END:

individual rotation works great. so far, the only case i have is when i rotate 90 degrees about the y axis and then rotating about the x axis – instead of looking up and down, it looks “roll-left” to “roll-right” – z rotation.

but like i said, the error could be on my part I have a forward vector [using your vector struct] and then i cross with a global up to get the side axis. I then cross forward with side to get the relative up axis. i place the 3 vectors in a matrix and glMultMatrix.

let’s beat the hell out of this problem so that no one will ever have to go through with it :yes:

0
101 Feb 15, 2003 at 06:26

I was invited by (d)Apex via the #gametutorials channel.

In response to what do you recommend?
0
101 Feb 15, 2003 at 05:29

saying that DX is better because more games use it is stupid. For example, the following TOP games all use OpenGL:

1. All of the ID games: GLQuake, Quake2, Quake3, and soon to be Doom3 + all Games based on the ID Engines (a shitload of them)
2. Bioware games such as Baldurs Gate2, Icewind Dale2, and Neverwinter Nights all use OpenGL.
3. Warcraft 3 uses OpenGL (it is done through an abstraction layer, WC3 was written for BOTh DX and OGL).
4. Diablo2 uses OpenGL.
5. All Unreal Games and games based on those engines use OpenGL (same as WC3 an abstraction layer was written, the render code was written for i think 3 APIs.

There are many many other games, but those above are TOP games which i could think of. Also, consider just how many games there are based on the Quake engines and on the Unrel engine.

It is true that OpenGL wasnt designed for games, it was deisgned for encellent graphics, and it doesn this very well. Also, it gives you the flexibility to use any other library for other things such as sound and netweorking, whereas DX basically foces you to use DX exclusively.

In response to Delays, and wait times...
0
101 Feb 14, 2003 at 23:27
    if( true ) { // some sort of expression to decide if you want to use slowdown
static int lastUpdate;
static int speed = 120; // static speed, that way you can change it progmaticly
if( lastUpdate + speed < GetTickCount() )
{
P_Update(); // if enough time has passed do updating
lastUpdate = GetTickCount(); // and set last update time
}
}
Render(); // I put render method out of this expression that way you always have smooth rendering.
// none of your updating should actually be done in render any ways. This method allows you to have say
// a player that moves once every 1 second, but still have more then 1 frame per second. Also allows for animations

In response to what do you recommend?
0
101 Feb 14, 2003 at 18:35

@abcd_z

One thing which proves that DirectX is better is that ALL professional and commercial games (95% to be more accurate) use DirectX to make their games. They never use OpenGL.

that is a false assertion. many of the industry uses DirectX because most of the population uses windows. and believe me, games that only use directx aren’t as popular. i haven’t come across a game that used only directx. I have, however, came across games that only had opengl, mainly because it’s cross-platform. take quake3arena for example.

In response to Delays, and wait times...
0
101 Feb 14, 2003 at 18:33

maybe getTickCount()?

In response to what do you recommend?
0
101 Feb 14, 2003 at 18:32

I don’t think that proves directx is better anymore than the 90% windows users proves windows is better or the number of AOL subscribers proves that they are superior ;). I guess that the reason for the games using directx is simply compatibility. Most people use windows, and most have good directx drivers.

0
101 Feb 14, 2003 at 18:29

I don’t agree either - I said this in another thread, i’ll say it here:

DirectX is not optimized for games, although it is for Microsoft OSes.

on a more serious note, why would you think it was? could you provide examples as to why you think so?

cheers.

0
101 Feb 14, 2003 at 18:19

I don’t agree with that. Although OpenGL is used more for SGI workstations etc. I wouldn’t say that it is less optimal for games than DirectX. It all depends on the code. Look at half-life.

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

indie × 4
ios × 3
android × 2
mobile × 1
macos × 1
native × 1
music × 1
sound × 1
multiplayer × 1
networking × 1
testing × 1
3d-engine × 1