What graphics api should I use?

swbf_lase · Post by **swbf_lase** » Fri Apr 28, 2006 7:40 pm

I need to make a descion on which I should use. Etheir OpenGl Or DirectX.

Which one do U favor?

yankeefan05 · Post by **yankeefan05** » Sat Apr 29, 2006 8:10 am

I think u need DirectX. It comes with some games these days.

-=Sithicalohiny=- · Post by **-=Sithicalohiny=-** » Sat Apr 29, 2006 8:12 am

Direct X. I'd stay with the more popular stuff, direct x works with everything.

RDST · Post by **RDST** » Sat Apr 29, 2006 9:29 am

Go with Direct X. OpenGL is good, but Direct X is used by almost every major game developer. Not a hard choice.

-RDST

swbf_lase · Post by **swbf_lase** » Sat Apr 29, 2006 10:01 am

Thank you

Leviathan · Post by **Leviathan** » Sat Apr 29, 2006 11:21 am

swbf_lase, I would equally prefer the use of Microsoft DirectX, especially if you've planned on ordering Microsoft Windows Vista once it will have been fully achieved, since this Application Programming Interface has been fully optimized so as to be executed on this Operating System, contrary to OpenGL, which presents major "Visual Issues", even on a Platform composed of an nVidia Quadro FX Graphics Processing Unit, amongst other recent components and devices...

Post by **ShadowHawk** » Sun Apr 30, 2006 5:02 am

Oouch, headache.

I Agree, Directx is the way to go. almost all gfx cards are optimized for it (the exceptions are the really old ones) and most programs make full use of it. Just out of curiousity, what are you using the api for?

Post by **[RDH]Zerted** » Sun Apr 30, 2006 5:50 am

DirectX doesn't work with everything. That statement was completely wrong. OpenGL works with much more than DirectX.

Heres a quick overview:
OpenGL is a cross-platform industry standard, taught at universities and used extensively in science software.
DirectX is a proprietary Microsoft technology for (non-Doom engine) games.

If your application/game is going to be full screen, OpenGL will work fine with Vista. Its rendering will be handled by the graphics card and not Vista.
Look up more info on DirectX vs OpenGL http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct3D_vs._OpenGL

Research it more before you decide. What type of application are you making?

Leviathan · Post by **Leviathan** » Sun Apr 30, 2006 11:37 am

Off-topic : Zerted', be sure I have proceeded to a complete checking of all my "Knowledge Bases" before having posted my above "Statement", which can be safely trusted...
Indeed, Microsoft Windows Vista can not handle properly a few "Specialized" Programs based on OpenGL - Such as Celestia© - even though the displaying is administrated by the local Graphics Processing Unit, no matter whether you attemp to exploit "Alternative Ways" intended to make this Application Programming Interface managing the concerned Software...

Post by **[RDH]Zerted** » Sun Apr 30, 2006 7:40 pm

off-topic: I'm not trying to start a flame war or anything, but there isn't any official Quadro drivers for Vista and Celestia doesn't even say it supports Vista.

on-topic: As you can see I favor OpenGL. I will always favor an industry standard over a company's proprietary 'standard'.

Leviathan · Post by **Leviathan** » Mon May 01, 2006 10:46 am

Off-topic : As far as Microsoft Windows Vista progresses everyday, be sure that Celestia© or any other "Specialized" Software - No matter whether this Product has been conceived around OpenGL - won't have to "support" this Operating System in order to have a few chances to be executed on it, thanks to the "Environments Emulators" which will be included with the "Ultimate", "Business" and "Enterprise" Declensions of Windows Vista...
Moreover, regarding nVidia Quadro FX Products, they can safely use the standard Drivers intended to any nVidia GeForce ones, since they are as much "Polyvalent" as those last Video Chipsets...

Post by **ShadowHawk** » Mon May 01, 2006 5:45 pm

Wikipedia wrote: Microsoft had marketed Direct3D as faster based on in-house performance comparisons of these two software libraries. The performance deficit was blamed on the rigorous specification and conformance required of OpenGL. This perception was changed at the 1996 SIGGRAPH (Special Interest Group on Computer Graphics) conference. At that time, SGI challenged Microsoft with their own optimized Windows software implementation of OpenGL called CosmoGL which in various demos matched or exceeded the performance of Direct3D. For SGI, this was a critical milestone as it showed that OpenGL's poor software rendering performance was due to Microsoft's inferior implementation, and not to design flaws in OpenGL itself.

With the mainstream adoption of graphics acceleration hardware, the use of one API or another no longer implies the use of a specific optimized software renderer. Instead, the low-level rendering logic is implemented in the graphics hardware and its drivers, and thus is largely the same whether OpenGL or Direct3D is used. This trend has revealed that neither API possesses an inherent speed advantage over the other. The performance of an application depends instead on the programmer's skill, the quality of the drivers, and the performance of the graphics hardware.

Wikipedia wrote:The advantage of OpenGL's inclusive, extensible approach is limited in practice, however, by the market dominance Direct3D has achieved. In recent years, games have rarely implemented features until Direct3D has supported them, and graphics cards vendors have been reluctant to implement features that current or upcoming versions of Direct3D will not support.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct3D_vs._OpenGL

Again, almost all gfx cards are optimized for DirectX and most programs make full use of it.

But it does really depends on platform, hence why I asked what he will be using them for.

RDST · Post by **RDST** » Tue May 02, 2006 6:09 pm

Hawk has some good points. Infact as I was messing with ATI tray tools, I noticed that many of the "effects" could only be used with OpenGl.

What graphics api should I use?

What graphics api should I use?

RE: What graphics api should I use?