Thanks for the detailed answer Crono.
My response to what u said is, does anyone own the rights to OpenGl ("open" implies something) and what would it take to get it up to par with DX10. I know this skews on topic. No one has to answer.
As for futuristic level design. Maybe you could combine old fashion large stone pillars and domes (like a old church) and add high tech elements to that. Like monitors or glass pillars. I don't know how you would do that in Source though.
Re: Futuristic Level Design
Posted by RedWood on Sun Oct 7th at 7:59pm 2007
Posted by RedWood on Sun Oct 7th at 7:59pm 2007
Reality has become a commodity.
Re: Futuristic Level Design
Posted by Crono on Mon Oct 8th at 12:12am 2007
Posted by Crono on Mon Oct 8th at 12:12am 2007
Open GL is under the GPL (I think) and it's perfectly free to use, but there is a community, and more importantly, a board of members behind it.
What do you mean by "up to par with DX10"? First, I know you mean D3D10, so that isn't what I'm talking about.
Regardless of the graphics API you use, you still have the utmost control over what is going on. As for what the APIs are really used for (drawing coordinates with the GPU, or more generally, updating the GPU), they both do the same thing.
I think what you're thinking of is more like shader effects, in which case, you have to write those on your own anyway (I'm sure DX10 offers so pre-built ones though)
In any case, the real "power" comes from shader programs and not the 3D API. Both 3D APIs do the same thing (one a little more elegantly than the other). The DirectX API has a few things going for it, but much more going against it ... for developers.
I think they implemented some sort of managed batching cue, which is good (though developers should be able to do this on their own). But, again, the API is only supported on two platforms and one OS.
OGL3.0 standard is suppose to be coming out sometime here with hardware and software support. The other thing DX doesn't have going for it is backwards compatibility. The reason why OGL standards take so long is to ensure backwards compatibility with newer implementations.
But as for implying one is better than the other, that just doesn't make much sense. That's like saying an Audi is better than a VW, when they're the same damn thing, they just have a different icings on the cake depending on what you want. (The key note in the analogy is that at a car-performance level, they're the same)
What do you mean by "up to par with DX10"? First, I know you mean D3D10, so that isn't what I'm talking about.
Regardless of the graphics API you use, you still have the utmost control over what is going on. As for what the APIs are really used for (drawing coordinates with the GPU, or more generally, updating the GPU), they both do the same thing.
I think what you're thinking of is more like shader effects, in which case, you have to write those on your own anyway (I'm sure DX10 offers so pre-built ones though)
In any case, the real "power" comes from shader programs and not the 3D API. Both 3D APIs do the same thing (one a little more elegantly than the other). The DirectX API has a few things going for it, but much more going against it ... for developers.
I think they implemented some sort of managed batching cue, which is good (though developers should be able to do this on their own). But, again, the API is only supported on two platforms and one OS.
OGL3.0 standard is suppose to be coming out sometime here with hardware and software support. The other thing DX doesn't have going for it is backwards compatibility. The reason why OGL standards take so long is to ensure backwards compatibility with newer implementations.
But as for implying one is better than the other, that just doesn't make much sense. That's like saying an Audi is better than a VW, when they're the same damn thing, they just have a different icings on the cake depending on what you want. (The key note in the analogy is that at a car-performance level, they're the same)
Blame it on Microsoft, God does.
Re: Futuristic Level Design
Posted by reaper47 on Mon Oct 8th at 4:17pm 2007
Posted by reaper47 on Mon Oct 8th at 4:17pm 2007
So what's the reason for less and less OpenGL support from game developers? Is it only because of Microsoft's DX10 marketing?
Re: Futuristic Level Design
Posted by Crono on Mon Oct 8th at 9:12pm 2007
Posted by Crono on Mon Oct 8th at 9:12pm 2007
There isn't really any less support than there used to be.
This is a really complicated question to answer because it has nothing to do with technology and everything to do with tech-politics.
This is a really complicated question to answer because it has nothing to do with technology and everything to do with tech-politics.
Blame it on Microsoft, God does.
Re: Futuristic Level Design
Posted by Le Chief on Mon Oct 8th at 11:05pm 2007
Posted by Le Chief on Mon Oct 8th at 11:05pm 2007
Because open gl sucks ass and you cant get all the sweet effects?
Re: Futuristic Level Design
Posted by Crono on Tue Oct 9th at 2:06am 2007
Posted by Crono on Tue Oct 9th at 2:06am 2007
All you ever display is endless amounts of fanboyism and it's really starting to piss me off.
If you had any idea what any of this stuff did and you were actually able to develop some sort of opinion that wasn't based on marketing strategy there'd be something for you to go on, but that isn't the case and you're just acting like a complete ass.
If you had any idea what any of this stuff did and you were actually able to develop some sort of opinion that wasn't based on marketing strategy there'd be something for you to go on, but that isn't the case and you're just acting like a complete ass.
Blame it on Microsoft, God does.
Re: Futuristic Level Design
Posted by RedWood on Tue Oct 9th at 8:09am 2007
Posted by RedWood on Tue Oct 9th at 8:09am 2007
LOL, I think he said it to get a rise out of you. Or he's a gluten for punishment. Ether way it's entertaining.
Reality has become a commodity.
Re: Futuristic Level Design
Posted by Crono on Tue Oct 9th at 8:51am 2007
Posted by Crono on Tue Oct 9th at 8:51am 2007
No doubt, but that doesn't excuse the douchebagery.
Blame it on Microsoft, God does.
Re: Futuristic Level Design
Posted by wil5on on Tue Oct 9th at 9:29am 2007
wil5on
member
1733 posts
323 snarkmarks
Registered: Dec 12th 2003
Location: Adelaide
Occupation: Mapper
Posted by wil5on on Tue Oct 9th at 9:29am 2007
? quoting RedWood
LOL, I think he said it to get a rise out of you. Or he's a gluten for punishment.
In that case, Crono has coeliac disease.
wil5on
member
1733 posts
323 snarkmarks
Registered: Dec 12th 2003
Location: Adelaide
Occupation: Mapper
"If you talk at all during this lesson, you have detention. Do you understand?"
- My yr11 Economics teacher
- My yr11 Economics teacher
Re: Futuristic Level Design
Posted by Pvt.Scythe on Tue Oct 9th at 1:52pm 2007
Pvt.Scythe
member
730 posts
113 snarkmarks
Registered: Sep 19th 2004
Location: Finland
Occupation: student
Posted by Pvt.Scythe on Tue Oct 9th at 1:52pm 2007
Actually the Open in OpenGL has nothing to do with GPL(licensing wise). OGL Lisencing stuff
I'm under impression that OpenGL is the largest(perhaps the only?) cross platform graphics API out there(I know there's even a version for some mobile phones with Symbian OS and there was something about PS3 supporting some modified OpenGL lib as well, need to check this though).
aaron, just FYI the native Linux version of Doom 3 uses OpenGL and it looks just the same as the native Windows version(it's actually a bit lighter, but I guess that's just because of better memory and process handling in Linux).
And iD Softwares new idTech5-engine will most likely support OpenGL as well as it is meant to be cross platform( source: http://www.1up.com/do/newsStory?cId=3161743 ).
I'm under impression that OpenGL is the largest(perhaps the only?) cross platform graphics API out there(I know there's even a version for some mobile phones with Symbian OS and there was something about PS3 supporting some modified OpenGL lib as well, need to check this though).
aaron, just FYI the native Linux version of Doom 3 uses OpenGL and it looks just the same as the native Windows version(it's actually a bit lighter, but I guess that's just because of better memory and process handling in Linux).
And iD Softwares new idTech5-engine will most likely support OpenGL as well as it is meant to be cross platform( source: http://www.1up.com/do/newsStory?cId=3161743 ).
Pvt.Scythe
member
730 posts
113 snarkmarks
Registered: Sep 19th 2004
Location: Finland
Occupation: student
''Everyone wades in s**t until they're competent enough to walk on it. Jesus style.''
Dystopia - Empires
Dystopia - Empires
Re: Futuristic Level Design
Posted by Crono on Tue Oct 9th at 5:30pm 2007
Posted by Crono on Tue Oct 9th at 5:30pm 2007
Yeah, but as far as I know, all those distributions over platforms have seperate licenses (if any). The base "OpenGL Library" that it's all based on ... I don't think that has a license any longer.
OGL is rather underrated and if you ever want to program 3D environments, it's pretty much the easiest one (or use it's extension, GLUT, which is even easier).
Don't all the id engines use OGL for their 3D API?
OGL is rather underrated and if you ever want to program 3D environments, it's pretty much the easiest one (or use it's extension, GLUT, which is even easier).
Don't all the id engines use OGL for their 3D API?
Blame it on Microsoft, God does.
Re: Futuristic Level Design
Posted by reaper47 on Tue Oct 9th at 5:31pm 2007
I'm quite interested in tech-politics.![<img src=]()
" SRC="images/smiles/icon_smile.gif">
I mean, I have an idea about what's going on but when you post it it's a much more complete summary than I could ever come up with.
Posted by reaper47 on Tue Oct 9th at 5:31pm 2007
? quote:
This is a really complicated question to answer because it has nothing to do with technology and everything to do with tech-politics.
I'm quite interested in tech-politics.
I mean, I have an idea about what's going on but when you post it it's a much more complete summary than I could ever come up with.
Re: Futuristic Level Design
Posted by Crono on Tue Oct 9th at 7:54pm 2007
Posted by Crono on Tue Oct 9th at 7:54pm 2007
I'm not sure if I can even explain it, to be honest. I think the best I can do is give a related example of a similar situation.
I've known several people who had internships at Intel this last year and I had a very interesting conversation with one of them (we we're in the same development group for the software engineering capstone, for the CS degree).
Basically, his boss, whom was a technically-minded person claimed that everything must be Microsoft. The company, Intel, has several tools that all these people have to use ... they're Unix based. So, this guy has everyone running Windows with Cygwin instead of just Unix or any flavor of Linux, this further complicates things, because many, many, many things go wrong in these types of set ups.
At one point of discussing switching the OS with his boss, his boss says, "Well, if you can show me that OSX can run all these applications, then we'll switch to that" (It can, by the way). When my friend inquired, "Why not just use Linux, the platform these tools were made for", his boss responds, "Because, Linux is not an Enterprise Platform". (Which isn't true)
I s**t you not.
The upshot of the story is, bosses tell underlings what to use. Underlings, generally, have a better idea of how everything works, bosses get big comfy meetings and shown fancy ads and that's how they make their decision.
There's many other instances of sillyness like this and it is, actually, very rarely a MS vs The World type deal. A really common one is to have higher ups tell engineers HOW to implement something, because they heard about it somewhere.
An example of this is from a graphics company (whom makes graphics software, akin to CAD). Basically, there are two types of computer graphics rendering, segments and polygons. Segments are lines, polygons are shapes. Polygons are easier to use ... in most applications. However, something 2D ... does not need polygons, since no depth information is needed.
Some higher up guys go, "Hey, we're using segments to do our CAD program, we really should use the new, thus better, technology of polygons. Underlings, use polygons". The underlings say, "Are you f**king crazy?". The underlings have to implement it, since the higher ups are thick headed.
So, they implemented it with Polygons ... polygons with 1 side with a start point and end point.
I hope these real world examples give you an idea of where the answer lies. I can only imagine that bosses are wooed by flashy signs and bright colors and big long words like Hydrogenated Per Pixel Population Pipeline x 30. You can even make it catchier H4Px30 ... hmm Hapxeo, sounds like a product line to me.
I've known several people who had internships at Intel this last year and I had a very interesting conversation with one of them (we we're in the same development group for the software engineering capstone, for the CS degree).
Basically, his boss, whom was a technically-minded person claimed that everything must be Microsoft. The company, Intel, has several tools that all these people have to use ... they're Unix based. So, this guy has everyone running Windows with Cygwin instead of just Unix or any flavor of Linux, this further complicates things, because many, many, many things go wrong in these types of set ups.
At one point of discussing switching the OS with his boss, his boss says, "Well, if you can show me that OSX can run all these applications, then we'll switch to that" (It can, by the way). When my friend inquired, "Why not just use Linux, the platform these tools were made for", his boss responds, "Because, Linux is not an Enterprise Platform". (Which isn't true)
I s**t you not.
The upshot of the story is, bosses tell underlings what to use. Underlings, generally, have a better idea of how everything works, bosses get big comfy meetings and shown fancy ads and that's how they make their decision.
There's many other instances of sillyness like this and it is, actually, very rarely a MS vs The World type deal. A really common one is to have higher ups tell engineers HOW to implement something, because they heard about it somewhere.
An example of this is from a graphics company (whom makes graphics software, akin to CAD). Basically, there are two types of computer graphics rendering, segments and polygons. Segments are lines, polygons are shapes. Polygons are easier to use ... in most applications. However, something 2D ... does not need polygons, since no depth information is needed.
Some higher up guys go, "Hey, we're using segments to do our CAD program, we really should use the new, thus better, technology of polygons. Underlings, use polygons". The underlings say, "Are you f**king crazy?". The underlings have to implement it, since the higher ups are thick headed.
So, they implemented it with Polygons ... polygons with 1 side with a start point and end point.
I hope these real world examples give you an idea of where the answer lies. I can only imagine that bosses are wooed by flashy signs and bright colors and big long words like Hydrogenated Per Pixel Population Pipeline x 30. You can even make it catchier H4Px30 ... hmm Hapxeo, sounds like a product line to me.
Blame it on Microsoft, God does.
© Snarkpit.net 2001 - 2023, about us, donate, contact
Snarkpit v6.1.0 created this page in 0.0096 seconds.
Snarkpit v6.1.0 created this page in 0.0096 seconds.