DirectX vs OpenGL vs Glide question for HiTech

[streakeagle]

I saw in another post a side battle over which API is better, rather than bury this topic in someone else's, I thought it might deserve its own thread.

I don't program graphics at all, but I can certainly observe the differences in programs that offer more than one api. In any game in which I can choose an alternative to DirectX, I get significantly better frame rates and image quality with the alternative. Some games/demos I have found this to be true: Jane's F-15, Operation Flashpoint, and IL-2. Also, OpenGL and Glide do not give me the shimmering terrain problems that are so common when I use DirectX (including AH).

My questions are: Why does it always appear that OpenGL and Glide at 1024x768x16 consistenly looks as good or better as DirectX at 1024x768x32 with the higher frame rates? And, assuming the answer to the first question is not bad coding, why did you choose DirectX fo Aces High?

Of course at this point, WindowsXP is eliminating OpenGL with only a DirectX wrapper to maintain compatibility. So, I guess my question is moot. By choosing whatever Microsoft is pushing, the only people that lose are the end-users.

[AKSWulfe]

GLIDE only works with 3Dfx chipsets.

That effectively takes over 70% of AH's current players out of the game.

OpenGL only works good with 40% of the current cards. It works well with the latest from NVidia (GeForce and TNT2 series), the Radeon, and Voodoo3 through Voodoo5.

Anything else, and you'll get wierd graphic anomalies and it will actually run slower than D3D.

As to why they chose D3D, I imagine wide variety of support that comes slightly easier.

Requires less chipset/card specific programming to run Direct3D over OpenGL.
-SW

[highflyer]

OpenGL only works good with 40% of the current cards. It works well with the latest from NVidia (GeForce and TNT2 series), the Radeon, and Voodoo3 through Voodoo5.

LOL this is really funny. Wulfy your astonishing.  

Its funny how OpenGl has been around Long BEFORE DirectX.

OpenGL is an open standard that has been a Higher quality Graphics standard prior to Microsoft deciding to hop on the SGI bandwagon.

Direct X is a nice stretch away from software mode (unaccelerated) lol thats about as much as it has defined apart from that however.

The only reason Aces High and others for the most part are using DirectX is because its multiple functionality  sounds etc as well as it being a part of the Microsoft Cash cow that everyone and thier mother will know, look to support and advertise.

Streak YOU are correct on seeing a Difference, noticing Higher Frame rates, and overall smoothness of play when useing the openGl mode.

ITS a better format. Its been around before directX, and will continue to be the HiEnd standard in Graphics.

Streak its just another form of the monopoly that Microsoft has on the computer industry.

Its kinda like Buying a gateway Piece of Junk computer, (everyone will because they are known, they have an established name), but the real quaility behind the product just isnt there.

[Lephturn]

Streakeagle, I don't think you have any real evidence there, you are not making any valid comparisons.  It really depends on the game as to whether you "notice" 16 bit vs. 32 bit.  I don't notice much difference in Q3 between the two, but I do notice a huge difference in AH.  That's got nothing to do with the API that is used, just the fact that things like the sky gradients really highlight the color depth in AH.

Also... what games are these where you can choose between DirectX and OpenGL?  Do these games come with two separate graphics engines optimized to both APIs?  Of course not... they are written and optimized for one API and then some port or wrapper is used to support the other one.  That means that only one of those APIs is going to work fast.. the other will just work... mostly.  You see this in games written for OpenGL when they realize they can't support enough cards strictly with OpenGL.  Marketing then says "make it work on more cards" and they hack something to make it work in DirectX, although usually with a performance penalty and likely a quality penalty as well.

Simply put, you can't make a valid comparison using shooters and comparing them to a completely different style of 3D engine with different needs, constraints, and optimizations.  Currently in 3D APIs, you just can't say X is faster than Y as a blanket statement, it's NEVER that simple.  It will totally depend on the application, drivers, code optimisations, etc.

This is all pretty much irrelevent anyway.  Choosing DirectX is a no-brainer these days due to installed base, driver support, and OS support.  Crap, I have a hell of a time getting folks at work going on Q3 or Wolf MP Test because they never have the right nVidia drivers with working OpenGL drivers.

BTW, when I think about HT's programming skills I look at the download.  Hell the last DEMO I downloaded was 65 megs... HT fits a whole game into what... 22 Megs?  He's got to be one of the most efficient guys around at this kind of code.  I work at a software company, and the guys I've shown AH to are just blown away by what HT manages to do with a very small download.

Lephturn

[Lephturn]

highflyer... stop raving and let me see some numbers.  Show me some evidence to support your claims.  I don't know how you can given the situation... but it's better than raving away with no evidence.

Even guys like Carmack will acknowledge the strengths of Direct X.  The DX API's are coming along nicely, and winning more developers... not less.  OpenGL has issues stemming from no single point of control and too much extensibility that MS can solve with DirectX since they control it.  Open extensible standards are not always a good thing, because they soon cease to be "standard" at all.  Take a look at this great discussion if you want to get a really nice look at graphics APIs from the developer's point of view.
 http://www.voodooextreme.com/games/interviews/directxdev/1.html

It's old, but still interesting.  I believe NV20 = GeForce 3 chipset also, just for reference.

Lephturn

[streakeagle]

The difference I see in image quality and frame rates doesn't even need to be measured. It is obvious to my mother who is oblivious to computer technology as a whole.

Of course the differences can be due to coding. But I have yet to see DirectX eliminate "shimmering" which I don't even see in OpenGL.

I am not questioning HT's programming skills, just wanted to know his design strategy. Was it is purely a business decision (i.e. compatibility with operating systems and hardware) or were there programming advantages to DirectX that make it more attractive (despite what are obvious disadvantages in its rendering speed and quality based on the programs I have seen).

At some point I intend to learn graphics APIs. I would prefer to use the most efficient one since my own programs don't need to be profitable or compatible with other hardware. From what I have seen on the bulletin boards all over the internet confirms my own impression, but unlike HiTech, most of the people posting do not have the experience or knowledge to make a statement any more accurate than my own. So I would like the informed opinion of an experienced professional who I trust based on his outstanding work in a very competitive environment.

[ 10-10-2001: Message edited by: streakeagle ]

[hitech]

This is all pretty much irrelevent anyway. Choosing DirectX is a no-brainer these days due to installed base, driver support, and OS support. Crap, I have a hell of a time getting folks at work going on Q3 or Wolf MP Test because they never have the right nVidia drivers with working OpenGL drivers.
 

This pretty much sums up why we choose DirectX.

DirectX has come a long way from it's start, I still hate it's driver stablity problems, but as of DX8 it has become a very clean API to work with.

My first use of a 3D api was glide.

My 2nd use was OpenGL, ported warbirds completely to OpenGL then had to report to DirectX just because there were no completed OpenGL sets that work.

As far as the "BEST" API, that question is realy irellevent in the market place. Take a look at all PC games sold what % work with OpenGL.

DirectX simply is the standard for PC games.

As far as the performance side there are so many posiblities of how one can run better than another, it's just not posible to take just the API into account with out how the appliction is written to use it. Same thing when hardware T&L, the resones it can run slower is do to code optimzations you can do. Take a look at AH terrain, the terrain does not need to be lit every frame, it only needs to be relit when the sun moves. If you were using hardware T&L you would have to light it every frame. This is one of the types of optimizations that can be done in software, but when using hardware to do T&L you are using the brute force method.

As speeds of GPU's change the balance of how to do things can shift,but once again you can't say which is faster or better looking with out taking the application , and it's methods into account.

And as far as First Person shooters go, they have one huge advanatage in performance and 1 disadvantage. The Advanatage they have is that they typicly render far fewer triangles. This is do to the flights sims need to render terrain.

There disadvantge is that thy have to do many more lighting effects.

The other emense difference is scale. In AH the world is 512x512 miles. But the grapich eng has to display items from 20 miles out down to items the size of a cockpit needle.

This forces the use of double precision floating point at some points in the graphic pipline.

First person games do not suffer from this problem.

HiTech

[AKSWulfe]

Deez, what's funnier is that the past 5 times I have argued why Direct3D is used over OpenGL- I have been right.

This time I was right as well. Not every player has a V5 or a GeForce based card.

Not every player has updated drivers, or even stable OpenGL drivers that guarantee what you see on one card is what you see on another card.

I have once again shown you, you simply do not understand what you are talking about.

Just because it's been around longer does not mean it is better.
-SW

[highflyer]

BTW, when I think about HT's programming skills I look at the download. Hell the last DEMO I downloaded was 65 megs... HT fits a whole game into what... 22 Megs?

No one is mocking HTC's talents, But for you to even make this statment is dumb.
First off, Aces High lacks HUGE AMOUNTS graphics wise, It's no wonder it is so small.
WBIII has better graphics than Aces High, but even IT is Behind the Curve in what Graphical Advances we have seen. Where does that leave Aces Graphically?

Id be sure to bet that HALF of what we see on the screen cockpit wise are textures created via the Vid card through dx.

The Geometry in aces is very VERY basic.
Take a Look at ANY Cockpit in aces and you will find that you are looking at single surfaced polygons, as well as stand alone
bitmap/targa/.. or whatever format that the program is using.

Aces High Aircraft seem to have only ONE model, compared to other programs of which, create external as well as Internal Models for Levels Of Detail. (this adds to the size of objet files for each aircraft. Hence Size Goes up.

Is it Efficient?  YES it is... But is it Detailed... NO it is not.

You want to talk about Efficientcy??? I have somehting that almost has

the Graphical Qualities Of 3Dmark 2000/2001 with an amazingly small size.

I Have a 3Ddemo that is ONLY 64K ... 64 Kilobytes of data, that has

Higher Graphical Detail than ACES HIGH that Runs For approximatly 3 Minutes! with an ENTIRE MUSIC SCORE.

AND oh yes.. I would be more than HAPPY to SHOW anyone here.. Hitech Interested???

I think IF you want to talk about small downloads, effiencient use of textures, and overall Completness of a package.. LETS start talking in tens of K instead of MEGS....

What I find very VERY strange is for a Beta DEMO like IL2 of which is not even optimized Graphically, or game engine wise, has Levels of Detail that go Farbeyond what I have ever seen from aces, yet have the same frame rates.

 

And as far as First Person shooters go, they have one huge advanatage in performance and 1 disadvantage. The Advanatage they have is that they typicly render far fewer triangles. This is do to the flights sims need to render terrain

Hitech have you ever seen Flanker 2.5?
Can You implement the Graphical quality of Flanker and yet maintain the Hi FPS that that program has has shown to offer with Aces high 3D world Engine?


Wulf, You lack the mind to understand what I am obviously talking about  

You obvivously do not see that I myself have said TIME and time again that, If DX is used, it is most likey because IT IS what is Accepted or "Known"...

Let me guess YOU MUST purchase Nike Shoes because they are... well Nike right?

You are the example of close minded character, untill you find that The way to understand things is to "think out of the box" you will forever be left inside.

You have proven your Ignorance time and time again by not having any sort of willingness to learn, accept or try new things.

Stick with what the Microsoft Cash Cow is milking you, and you will be fine.

[AKSWulfe]

You are a fool Deez. Plain and simple.

I have used OpenGL games, and prefer it over D3D-- IF IT'S DONE PROPERLY.

You think that people who go against you are close minded. You want close minded? You yourself do not understand OpenGL, GLIDE nor Direct3D and yet you insist on making remarks about it like what you think actually matters!

Your only "facts" you have posted are subjective opinions, you don't even understand what's going on inside of the code let alone how to code to it- and you still comment on it!

You want ignorance? It's called "DeeZCamp"!
-SW

[Sky Viper]

highflyer = DeezCamp?

Please alow me to cry: DEAD HORSE, DEAD HORSE!

Deez, you are beating the sucker and it AIN'T movin!!!

Man, you need to put your whip back in the bag and think about a few things.

Eye candy:  If you think AH is low in this market, then you are nuts.  While HTC may not have the graphice of Il2, they also do not have the huge system strain that I get with Il2.  What they do have, is a graphics system that more than satisfies my sense of realism.  And, as we all can see by the quantity of War Birds, Air Warrior, Fighter Ace, etc. veterans among our humble ranks, AH is the top of the heap!

Even the New WB has a down fall in that it's new design and graphics make it usable only on the "Top end" systems.
That leaves out a HUGE majority of AH pilots.

Viper

[streakeagle]

Thank you HiTech. That is exactly the answer I was looking for.

I have no real feelings toward either DirectX or OpenGL (unlike so many people I have seen on these boards  ). I simply want to use the best tool and don't see the need to waste time learning both.

Personally, I hate how Microsoft has eliminated competition across the board. I am certain in most industries, including this one, competition results in the best possible product at the lowest possible price.

Long distance phone service is an excellent example. On the surface, I would have believed it better to have a single company provide phone service. I stand corrected. Look how cheap it is to call all over the world now and all the extra services that are available.

However, as a programmer and an electrical engineer, I more than recognize the value of standarization. Why should graphics card companies and software companies have to double or even triple their interface efforts? I guess I will outfit my MS VC++ 6.0 with the DirectX SDKs when I get the chance.

[Lephturn]

highflyer,

Interesting that you took one little comment at the end of my post rebutted that.  What about the rest?

StreakEagle,

This has provoked some interesting discussion, save for 'flyer's ramblings.    I would like to note that you are on the right track about standards.  Folks blame Microsoft for market forces, giving them way too much credit.  They are not the dominant force in the market because they ruthlessly crushed their competition (not saying the didn't try), but because they saw the power of standardization and used it to full advantage.  The market demands standardization, plain and simple.  Up to this point, using a single company which understands this has been the best way to acheive standardization from a customer and business point of view.  Now it could be that some open standards, tightly controlled yet free, would be a better system.  The problem is, we don't have the open standards and when we do they are not controlled.  I'd like to see that as much as the next guy, but I'm still waiting.

[highflyer]

They didnt come with YOUR version Streak?

strange....

[streakeagle]

Microsoft's business practices extend far beyond a single thread, or even a single book. But they have demonstrably eliminated competition in any field they choose to flex their muscles. They can afford to dump more man-hours and money into any one area they choose until the competition goes under. Of course they use the fact that they own and determine the operating system characteristics to give their software advantages over the competition.

Somehow TV and CD standards were set without having only one company dictate the price and quality of the products. I agree on standardization. I do not agree with monopolization. When a single company has enough power to override the U.S. legal system, something is very wrong. But the news media is more worried about shark attacks at the beach than the corruption of our legal system. Of course, this is the same legal system that declared OJ Simpson innocent of murder, but liable for damages. Maybe everything is working the way it is supposed to and I am the one with the warped viewpoint for wanting things to be fair and logical.