Jump to content


DX10 vs. openGL


  • Please log in to reply
37 replies to this topic

#1 thepepper

thepepper

    Newbie

  • Members
  • 9 posts

Posted 10 February 2007 - 10:52 AM

Hey guys I've got a question that has probably come up before on these forums. It's just in regards to the whole DX10 and openGL thing. A friend of mine was talking to me about how when UT2007 is released - it will look worlds better on a PC equipt with DirectX10 than it will on a Mac running openGL. Now I know that in general PCs are better machines for games - especially for performance issues. But I want to know if a High-End Mac Pro tower with a top-end video card will really look that much worse than a similar PC just because of the whole DirectX10 thing.

Sorry if this question seems basic. Thanks guys!

#2 teflon

teflon

    Bastard of the Popeye Analogy

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9589 posts
  • Location:London, UK

Posted 10 February 2007 - 12:21 PM

DX10 is slightly ahead of OGL right now, but UT2007 is specifically designed to run on Windows XP and DX9, along with being coded specially to take advantage of the PS3, which uses OGL.

In answer to your question, though, it wont look worse on a MP. It may miss a few small effects, but UE3 is still really DX9 tech.

OGL is generally a bit slower at graphic effects being integrated into it because it is an open standard, unlike DX10 which is MS only, where they can pretty much push in the directions that they want.
Polytetrafluoroethylene to my friends.

Macbook Pro - C2D 2.4Ghz / 4GB RAM / Samsung 830 256GB SSD / Geforce 8600M GT 256Mb / 15.4"
Cube - G4 1.7Ghz 7448 / 1.5GB RAM / Samsung Spinpoint 250GB / Geforce 6200 256Mb
Self-built PC - C2Q Q8300 2.5Ghz / 4GB RAM / Samsung 830 256GB SSD / Radeon 7850 OC 1GB / W7 x64
and a beautiful HP LP2475w 24" H-IPS monitor

#3 Tesseract

Tesseract

    Unmanageable Megaweight

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3512 posts
  • Pro Member:Yes

Posted 11 February 2007 - 12:30 AM

View Postteflon, on February 11th 2007, 05:21 AM, said:

OGL is generally a bit slower at graphic effects being integrated into it because it is an open standard, unlike DX10 which is MS only, where they can pretty much push in the directions that they want.
That doesn't really matter in practice, as the hardware vendors can expose whatever functionality they like through OpenGL extensions. It takes a bit longer for official ARB-approved versions to appear, but the functionality is there as soon as the drivers expose it. Now getting up-to-date drivers on the Mac, that's a whole discussion in itself.

#4 thepepper

thepepper

    Newbie

  • Members
  • 9 posts

Posted 11 February 2007 - 10:14 AM

View Postteflon, on February 10th 2007, 11:21 AM, said:

DX10 is slightly ahead of OGL right now, but UT2007 is specifically designed to run on Windows XP and DX9, along with being coded specially to take advantage of the PS3, which uses OGL.

In answer to your question, though, it wont look worse on a MP. It may miss a few small effects, but UE3 is still really DX9 tech.

OGL is generally a bit slower at graphic effects being integrated into it because it is an open standard, unlike DX10 which is MS only, where they can pretty much push in the directions that they want.

Ok. A buddy of mine seems to think that OS X will never see a port of UT2007. How valid do you guys think this is? And if so - would a partition of the hard drive running Windows be able to play a fully functional game of UT2007 if in fact it does not get ported to OS X?

Thanks for the help guys!

#5 PeopleLikeFrank

PeopleLikeFrank

    Uberspewer

  • IMG Pro Users
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2690 posts
  • Location:The Republic of Soviet Canukistan
  • Pro Member:Yes

Posted 11 February 2007 - 11:07 AM

View Postthepepper, on February 11th 2007, 11:14 AM, said:

Ok. A buddy of mine seems to think that OS X will never see a port of UT2007. How valid do you guys think this is? And if so - would a partition of the hard drive running Windows be able to play a fully functional game of UT2007 if in fact it does not get ported to OS X?

Thanks for the help guys!

No, it's pretty much certain that there will be an OSX version, since we've gotten the previous games, and the've confirmed  that there are OSX versions of the editing tools. It might be the case that we don't get all of the features that the engine offers until drivers are updated to allow it (as was the case with UT2004).

Running under Windows would also work, though you would still need DX10 compatible hardware to get all of those features enabled.
The dork formerly known as nobody
---
MBP: C2D @ 2.66 Ghz | GeForce 9600M GT 256Mb | 8GB RAM | 120GB SSD + 500GB HD | 10.6.2 / W7 x64
PC: Q9550 | 6950 2GB | 8GB RAM | 80GB SSD + 750GB HD | W7 x64

#6 teflon

teflon

    Bastard of the Popeye Analogy

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9589 posts
  • Location:London, UK

Posted 11 February 2007 - 11:32 AM

as nobody said, we almost definitely will see a port, barring a small localised hurricane taking out Macsoft (theyll almost definitely get the port too, out of track record) or something... Ryan Gordon is already, and has been for a while now, working on getting the UE3 engine running on OSX, which is no doubt helped by the fact that there is already provision for OGL built into the engine so as to add PS3 and linux support.

as for the graphics effects missing from UT2004, they were pretty negligible. Some small effects which, as far as Ive really noticed, simply enabled realistic shadows, the screens on Morpheus3, and for you to have your name on the number plate of your vehicle (if it had one).
Polytetrafluoroethylene to my friends.

Macbook Pro - C2D 2.4Ghz / 4GB RAM / Samsung 830 256GB SSD / Geforce 8600M GT 256Mb / 15.4"
Cube - G4 1.7Ghz 7448 / 1.5GB RAM / Samsung Spinpoint 250GB / Geforce 6200 256Mb
Self-built PC - C2Q Q8300 2.5Ghz / 4GB RAM / Samsung 830 256GB SSD / Radeon 7850 OC 1GB / W7 x64
and a beautiful HP LP2475w 24" H-IPS monitor

#7 Smoke_Tetsu

Smoke_Tetsu

    Uberspewer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3318 posts
  • Steam Name:Tetsu Jutsu
  • Steam ID:smoke_tetsu
  • Location:Cyberspace

Posted 11 February 2007 - 02:27 PM

View Postthepepper, on February 11th 2007, 09:14 AM, said:

Ok. A buddy of mine seems to think that OS X will never see a port of UT2007. How valid do you guys think this is? And if so - would a partition of the hard drive running Windows be able to play a fully functional game of UT2007 if in fact it does not get ported to OS X?

Thanks for the help guys!

I would ask what made him think this? While I will feel better when there's an actual announcement there's no indication that it's not coming. I almost think that people who say things like this just don't want to see it come to OS X. There's a lot of Mac hate out there one reason why I like to come here to IMG.

IMG.. where playing games on a Mac doesn't bring you much hate.  :lol:
--Tetsuo

Alex Delarg, A Clockwork Orange said:

It's funny how the colors of the real world only seem really real when you viddy them on the screen.

the Battle Cat said:

Slower and faster? I'm sorry to hear such good news?

Late 2012 27 inch iMac, Core i7 Quad 3.4GHz, 16GB RAM, Nvidia GeForce GTX 680MX 2GB, 3TB HDD - Mavericks

Late 2009 27 inch iMac, Core i5 2.6GHz, 12GB RAM, ATI Radeon 4850HD 512MB, 1TB HDD - Mavericks

Mac Mini, PowerPC G4 1.4Ghz, 1GB RAM, Radeon 9200 32MB, 256GB HDD - Leopard

Dell Inspiron 1200 Notebook: 1.2GHz Celeron, 1.2GB RAM, Intel GMA915, 75GB HDD - Ubuntu

Generic Black Tower PC, Dual Core 64-bit 2.4GHz, 4GB RAM, GeForce 9600 GT 512MB - Windows 7


#8 Huntn

Huntn

    Verbal Windbag

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4074 posts
  • Pro Member:Yes

Posted 11 February 2007 - 02:37 PM

View Postnobody, on February 11th 2007, 11:07 AM, said:

No, it's pretty much certain that there will be an OSX version, since we've gotten the previous games, and the've confirmed  that there are OSX versions of the editing tools. It might be the case that we don't get all of the features that the engine offers until drivers are updated to allow it (as was the case with UT2004).

Running under Windows would also work, though you would still need DX10 compatible hardware to get all of those features enabled.

I also guess that a Mac version of UT3 will appear, but don't plan on Unreal Ed, the editor that has never made it to a mac application. I did manage to get Unreal Ed to run on Virtual PC (original UT version), but I could never get the cursor to be controllable and there was no way to use arrow keys to nudge the cursor so I gave up on it.

#9 the Battle Cat

the Battle Cat

    Carnage Served Raw

  • Admin
  • 17376 posts
  • Location:Citadel City, Lh'owon
  • Pro Member:Yes

Posted 11 February 2007 - 02:44 PM

View Postteflon, on February 11th 2007, 09:32 AM, said:

as nobody said, we almost definitely will see a port...
Remember thepepper, if anybody asks, nobody at IMG told you there will be a port.
Gary Simmons
the Battle Cat

#10 teflon

teflon

    Bastard of the Popeye Analogy

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9589 posts
  • Location:London, UK

Posted 11 February 2007 - 03:34 PM

View PostHuntn, on February 11th 2007, 08:37 PM, said:

I also guess that a Mac version of UT3 will appear, but don't plan on Unreal Ed, the editor that has never made it to a mac application. I did manage to get Unreal Ed to run on Virtual PC (original UT version), but I could never get the cursor to be controllable and there was no way to use arrow keys to nudge the cursor so I gave up on it.

*fake mafia voice... very poor*
hey! kid! cant you read?!? he says the edit tools run on OS X

the whole package is going to be OS X ified.
Polytetrafluoroethylene to my friends.

Macbook Pro - C2D 2.4Ghz / 4GB RAM / Samsung 830 256GB SSD / Geforce 8600M GT 256Mb / 15.4"
Cube - G4 1.7Ghz 7448 / 1.5GB RAM / Samsung Spinpoint 250GB / Geforce 6200 256Mb
Self-built PC - C2Q Q8300 2.5Ghz / 4GB RAM / Samsung 830 256GB SSD / Radeon 7850 OC 1GB / W7 x64
and a beautiful HP LP2475w 24" H-IPS monitor

#11 Smoke_Tetsu

Smoke_Tetsu

    Uberspewer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3318 posts
  • Steam Name:Tetsu Jutsu
  • Steam ID:smoke_tetsu
  • Location:Cyberspace

Posted 11 February 2007 - 03:34 PM

View PostHuntn, on February 11th 2007, 01:37 PM, said:

I also guess that a Mac version of UT3 will appear, but don't plan on Unreal Ed, the editor that has never made it to a mac application. I did manage to get Unreal Ed to run on Virtual PC (original UT version), but I could never get the cursor to be controllable and there was no way to use arrow keys to nudge the cursor so I gave up on it.

From what the developer said it seems this time it may be different when it comes to the editor I think I read they are using wxWidgets and are bringing it to Linux and Mac (and Windows of course).
--Tetsuo

Alex Delarg, A Clockwork Orange said:

It's funny how the colors of the real world only seem really real when you viddy them on the screen.

the Battle Cat said:

Slower and faster? I'm sorry to hear such good news?

Late 2012 27 inch iMac, Core i7 Quad 3.4GHz, 16GB RAM, Nvidia GeForce GTX 680MX 2GB, 3TB HDD - Mavericks

Late 2009 27 inch iMac, Core i5 2.6GHz, 12GB RAM, ATI Radeon 4850HD 512MB, 1TB HDD - Mavericks

Mac Mini, PowerPC G4 1.4Ghz, 1GB RAM, Radeon 9200 32MB, 256GB HDD - Leopard

Dell Inspiron 1200 Notebook: 1.2GHz Celeron, 1.2GB RAM, Intel GMA915, 75GB HDD - Ubuntu

Generic Black Tower PC, Dual Core 64-bit 2.4GHz, 4GB RAM, GeForce 9600 GT 512MB - Windows 7


#12 Xavier

Xavier

    Notorious

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 182 posts

Posted 11 February 2007 - 05:32 PM

I heard that too. Dont know where though.
Moof!

#13 Huntn

Huntn

    Verbal Windbag

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4074 posts
  • Pro Member:Yes

Posted 12 February 2007 - 07:42 AM

View Postteflon, on February 11th 2007, 03:34 PM, said:

*fake mafia voice... very poor*
hey! kid! cant you read?!? he says the edit tools run on OS X

the whole package is going to be OS X ified.

No I can't read plus I glossed over that comment. That would be outstanding. However as of UT2k3 (or 4) a 3D editor such as Maya is required to turn out top notch maps. At least that is my understanding.

View PostSmoke_Tetsu, on February 11th 2007, 03:34 PM, said:

From what the developer said it seems this time it may be different when it comes to the editor I think I read they are using wxWidgets and are bringing it to Linux and Mac (and Windows of course).

Maybe I'll have to give it another go! At one time there was a free version of Maya for download but I don't remember if it had watermarks all over it or not. There was something that limited its use.

#14 teflon

teflon

    Bastard of the Popeye Analogy

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9589 posts
  • Location:London, UK

Posted 12 February 2007 - 08:08 AM

View PostHuntn, on February 12th 2007, 01:42 PM, said:

No I can't read plus I glossed over that comment. That would be outstanding. However as of UT2k3 (or 4) a 3D editor such as Maya is required to turn out top notch maps. At least that is my understanding.

more fool you.
I shouldve interspersed the words with pictures of full fat foods...

I dont know about needing maya to make maps, but my guess is that you only need it to make custom static meshes and other in game objects..... If youre just using in game stuff (which there is going to be plenty this time around), then you should be ok...
of course, the really serious mappers are all on PCs already...
Polytetrafluoroethylene to my friends.

Macbook Pro - C2D 2.4Ghz / 4GB RAM / Samsung 830 256GB SSD / Geforce 8600M GT 256Mb / 15.4"
Cube - G4 1.7Ghz 7448 / 1.5GB RAM / Samsung Spinpoint 250GB / Geforce 6200 256Mb
Self-built PC - C2Q Q8300 2.5Ghz / 4GB RAM / Samsung 830 256GB SSD / Radeon 7850 OC 1GB / W7 x64
and a beautiful HP LP2475w 24" H-IPS monitor

#15 Smoke_Tetsu

Smoke_Tetsu

    Uberspewer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3318 posts
  • Steam Name:Tetsu Jutsu
  • Steam ID:smoke_tetsu
  • Location:Cyberspace

Posted 12 February 2007 - 02:14 PM

There are some free\shareware and open sourced 3D modeling packages out there that are suitable for Modding. Most are on the PC but there are some like Blender that are multiplatform you might want to give those a go... they can export to a lot of popular games. Probably not UT3 right now obviously since it hasn't been released but other games.

But yeah if you are just using in game assets or someone else is making the art for you then just using the game editor would work.
--Tetsuo

Alex Delarg, A Clockwork Orange said:

It's funny how the colors of the real world only seem really real when you viddy them on the screen.

the Battle Cat said:

Slower and faster? I'm sorry to hear such good news?

Late 2012 27 inch iMac, Core i7 Quad 3.4GHz, 16GB RAM, Nvidia GeForce GTX 680MX 2GB, 3TB HDD - Mavericks

Late 2009 27 inch iMac, Core i5 2.6GHz, 12GB RAM, ATI Radeon 4850HD 512MB, 1TB HDD - Mavericks

Mac Mini, PowerPC G4 1.4Ghz, 1GB RAM, Radeon 9200 32MB, 256GB HDD - Leopard

Dell Inspiron 1200 Notebook: 1.2GHz Celeron, 1.2GB RAM, Intel GMA915, 75GB HDD - Ubuntu

Generic Black Tower PC, Dual Core 64-bit 2.4GHz, 4GB RAM, GeForce 9600 GT 512MB - Windows 7


#16 teflon

teflon

    Bastard of the Popeye Analogy

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9589 posts
  • Location:London, UK

Posted 12 February 2007 - 06:41 PM

just thought id highlight something about DX10
Macworld (sorry i lost the link) are reporting that quite a few early adopters are complaining about how DX10 completely breaks, or graphically glitches their games... In other words, its DX9 layer is broke, and its going to be an update of pretty big proportions or a few years before this gets resolved or forgotten respectively...

silly Microsoft...
Polytetrafluoroethylene to my friends.

Macbook Pro - C2D 2.4Ghz / 4GB RAM / Samsung 830 256GB SSD / Geforce 8600M GT 256Mb / 15.4"
Cube - G4 1.7Ghz 7448 / 1.5GB RAM / Samsung Spinpoint 250GB / Geforce 6200 256Mb
Self-built PC - C2Q Q8300 2.5Ghz / 4GB RAM / Samsung 830 256GB SSD / Radeon 7850 OC 1GB / W7 x64
and a beautiful HP LP2475w 24" H-IPS monitor

#17 Huntn

Huntn

    Verbal Windbag

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4074 posts
  • Pro Member:Yes

Posted 13 February 2007 - 08:34 AM

View Postteflon, on February 12th 2007, 08:08 AM, said:

more fool you.
I shouldve interspersed the words with pictures of full fat foods...

That would have done it!

View Postteflon, on February 12th 2007, 08:08 AM, said:

I dont know about needing maya to make maps, but my guess is that you only need it to make custom static meshes and other in game objects..... If youre just using in game stuff (which there is going to be plenty this time around), then you should be ok...
of course, the really serious mappers are all on PCs already...

Keep in mind I said top-notch maps. The last time I looked at Unrealed it was not a full fledged 3D object editor if your looking to have a really spiffy map.

View Postteflon, on February 12th 2007, 06:41 PM, said:

just thought id highlight something about DX10
Macworld (sorry i lost the link) are reporting that quite a few early adopters are complaining about how DX10 completely breaks, or graphically glitches their games... In other words, its DX9 layer is broke, and its going to be an update of pretty big proportions or a few years before this gets resolved or forgotten respectively...

silly Microsoft...

I'm not clear at all on DX9 vs 10. OK so if Vista is required to use DX10 and you have WinXP, that means DX10 has to be backwards compatible (for WinXP which I don't think it will) or new games also have to be DX9 compatible or *all* new games will not run on WinXP.

If some how the latter is the case, then it will be a full blown disaster for MS and PC gamers. And it would be a despicable means of trying to force computer users to upgraded their OSs. But I would not be surprised as we are talking about MS.

#18 jackdawsson

jackdawsson

    Legendary

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 616 posts
  • Location:UK, The 51st State.

Posted 13 February 2007 - 09:06 AM

View Postteflon, on February 13th 2007, 12:41 AM, said:

just thought id highlight something about DX10
Macworld (sorry i lost the link) are reporting that quite a few early adopters are complaining about how DX10 completely breaks, or graphically glitches their games... In other words, its DX9 layer is broke, and its going to be an update of pretty big proportions or a few years before this gets resolved or forgotten respectively...

silly Microsoft...

That link: Vista not playing nice with gamers.

However, I think Peter Cohen makes a valid point in one of the comments about how some Mac games also had the very same problems running in OS X using advanced OpenGL.  

From a gamers perspective, DirectX 10, with MS's firm support of the gaming market, should provide us with some stunning games by 2008.  It's really only a question of time.

#19 teflon

teflon

    Bastard of the Popeye Analogy

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9589 posts
  • Location:London, UK

Posted 13 February 2007 - 10:37 AM

View PostHuntn, on February 13th 2007, 02:34 PM, said:

Keep in mind I said top-notch maps. The last time I looked at Unrealed it was not a full fledged 3D object editor if your looking to have a really spiffy map.

no.. you only need to create your own objects if youre trying to make a spiffy map that looks different. If you want something that plays really well, then you can use the stock stuff and itll look slightly samey, perhaps... of course, UT3 is going to have a heck of a lot of resources for you to use out of the box..

Quote

I'm not clear at all on DX9 vs 10. OK so if Vista is required to use DX10 and you have WinXP, that means DX10 has to be backwards compatible (for WinXP which I don't think it will) or new games also have to be DX9 compatible or *all* new games will not run on WinXP.

either case two or case three make sense. With case two to be the de riguer for a while at least.
i dont have a clue with what you were trying to say for case one... but i think the correct answer is that DX10 is Vista only.

as for there being a similar problem from OS9 to OSX, a lot of games still used RAVE drivers etc. etc. So it wasnt quite the same promise. Not to mention that gaming wasnt anywhere near as important to the over all strategy...

and the DX9 generation is pretty darn big. Theres several must play titles, such as Half Life 2, FEAR etc. etc. which apparently arent working too nicely, and understandably, quite a few people are going to get annoyed with this.
Polytetrafluoroethylene to my friends.

Macbook Pro - C2D 2.4Ghz / 4GB RAM / Samsung 830 256GB SSD / Geforce 8600M GT 256Mb / 15.4"
Cube - G4 1.7Ghz 7448 / 1.5GB RAM / Samsung Spinpoint 250GB / Geforce 6200 256Mb
Self-built PC - C2Q Q8300 2.5Ghz / 4GB RAM / Samsung 830 256GB SSD / Radeon 7850 OC 1GB / W7 x64
and a beautiful HP LP2475w 24" H-IPS monitor

#20 Smoke_Tetsu

Smoke_Tetsu

    Uberspewer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3318 posts
  • Steam Name:Tetsu Jutsu
  • Steam ID:smoke_tetsu
  • Location:Cyberspace

Posted 13 February 2007 - 03:38 PM

At this point I would have to say that since backward compatibility seems to be not totally stellar with DX9 titles I would hold off upgrading to Vista until they iron that out since most games so far are DX9 and below. I'm hoping by the time Alan Wake (Remedy  :wub:) and Crysis (and other cool DX10 games) come out they will have it straightened out though. I'm also hoping there is going to be a way to convert DX10 games to OpenGL and retain their features but.. so far most of the games I know of that are being made DX10 would not come out for the Mac anyway. Crytech has yet to make a Mac game and Alan Wake is a Havok title as well as DX10. I don't know what physics engine Crysis uses but I would not be surprised if it was Havok. At any rate DX10 may end up not being the big stumbling block that we potentially can see it as.
--Tetsuo

Alex Delarg, A Clockwork Orange said:

It's funny how the colors of the real world only seem really real when you viddy them on the screen.

the Battle Cat said:

Slower and faster? I'm sorry to hear such good news?

Late 2012 27 inch iMac, Core i7 Quad 3.4GHz, 16GB RAM, Nvidia GeForce GTX 680MX 2GB, 3TB HDD - Mavericks

Late 2009 27 inch iMac, Core i5 2.6GHz, 12GB RAM, ATI Radeon 4850HD 512MB, 1TB HDD - Mavericks

Mac Mini, PowerPC G4 1.4Ghz, 1GB RAM, Radeon 9200 32MB, 256GB HDD - Leopard

Dell Inspiron 1200 Notebook: 1.2GHz Celeron, 1.2GB RAM, Intel GMA915, 75GB HDD - Ubuntu

Generic Black Tower PC, Dual Core 64-bit 2.4GHz, 4GB RAM, GeForce 9600 GT 512MB - Windows 7