View Single Post
Old 04-20-03, 08:58 AM   #4
digitalwanderer
 
digitalwanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Highland, IN USA
Posts: 4,944
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by saturnotaku
DirectX is Microsoft's whiny answer to not getting what it wants out of OpenGL. DirectX is a more CPU intensive, slower overall API than OpenGL.

To illustrate the point - drawing a cubemap in DirectX takes about 15 lines of code whereas in OpenGL it only takes about 4. Any student of 3D programming will tell you that using OpenGL is vastly superior to DirectX.

Really, the only thing DX has in its favor is that its development has come along faster than OGL. I suppose that's what comes from Microsoft being autonomous for controlling DirectX. But if there ever is an option to use OpenGL in a game you can bet your bottom dollar that I'm going to use it.
Thanks, I always sort of felt that OpenGL was kinder to me system than D3D but didn't have anything but gut feelings to back that up.

I always try the openGL option if it's there too, but that doesn't always mean it's the best option. There's a lot of D3D games that have openGL options that flat-out BLOW!

It varies from game to game, system to system; play around with it on your set-up to see what works best for you. (Oh, and remember to send some big ups to the Carmack for single-handedly keeping openGL alive against M$ wishes. )
__________________
[SIZE=1][I]"It was very important to us that NVIDIA did not know exactly where to aim. As a result they seem to have over-engineered in some aspects creating a power-hungry monster which is going to be very expensive for them to manufacture. We have a beautifully balanced piece of hardware that beats them on pure performance, cost, scalability, future mobile relevance, etc. That's all because they didn't know what to aim at."
-R.Huddy[/I] [/SIZE]
digitalwanderer is offline   Reply With Quote