Jump to content


DX10 vs. openGL


  • Please log in to reply
37 replies to this topic

#21 teflon

teflon

    Bastard of the Popeye Analogy

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

Posted 13 February 2007 - 04:21 PM

well, Crysis is DX9 back compatible anyway... and still looks absolutely amazing under DX9 anyway. All screenshots and videos up to a few months ago at least were all DX9.

DX10 is a total rewrite of the graphics, BTW, and is meant to be harder to code, which means that porting companies are going to have to start their DX porting library reference tool thingies from scratch...

My philosophy is this. Why bother buying Vista for $300 (for a decent version), when you can get XP for around $50, and itll satisfy all your gaming needs for at least a year. Not to mention that no mac has a DX10 card in it, so we wont be able to take advantage of DX10 effects until Apple updates the range with those (after they come out, of course)... so theres no point in getting Vista for a while yet, at least a year, as far as im concerned.
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

#22 Huntn

Huntn

    Verbal Windbag

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

Posted 13 February 2007 - 04:51 PM

View Postteflon, on February 13th 2007, 10:37 AM, said:

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.
-------------
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.

For case one, I was thinking that when new versions of DX come out, if a game was designed for the new DX version, then you must have it installed, but in many cases the new version of DX is backward compatible with older DX version games. So I was making an example where somehow Direct X would be backwards compatible with previous DX9 versions, where it could be installed on WinXP machines with less than full DX10 functionality. ( I see you don't think that is the case.) I can imagine a DX installer that checks out your machine and based on the OS, installs the latest DX10 or DX9 version.

If not backwards compatible then the game makers will have to keep games compatible with both DX9 and DX10 or me thinks there will be a bloody loud PC communal scream.

View Postteflon, on February 13th 2007, 04:21 PM, said:

well, Crysis is DX9 back compatible anyway... and still looks absolutely amazing under DX9 anyway. All screenshots and videos up to a few months ago at least were all DX9.

DX10 is a total rewrite of the graphics, BTW, and is meant to be harder to code, which means that porting companies are going to have to start their DX porting library reference tool thingies from scratch...

My philosophy is this. Why bother buying Vista for $300 (for a decent version), when you can get XP for around $50, and itll satisfy all your gaming needs for at least a year. Not to mention that no mac has a DX10 card in it, so we wont be able to take advantage of DX10 effects until Apple updates the range with those (after they come out, of course)... so theres no point in getting Vista for a while yet, at least a year, as far as im concerned.

As someone who is eyeing a PB upgrade for the specific freedom to install Windows games (where no Mac version is available) this kind of talk concerns me greatly. In the near future I can imagine PC games coming out compatible only with DX10.

* Would this be a solid roadblock to Windows-on-Mac gaming (WoMG) if the Macs have other than DX10 capable cards?
* And would Apple even worry about getting DX10 compatible cards in their Powerbooks?

And worse you just bought a new PB without a DX10 card installed and your hosed. I don't see this as much problem with a Mac tower which has always had more flexibility for upgrading cards. But if Macs continue to rely on OpenGL while PCs migrate to exclusive DX10 I could imagine big problems for WoMG. Am I sweating for nothing?

What I don't want to see is WoMG to be a BIG illusion after emptying my wallet! :bleedingeyes:

#23 teflon

teflon

    Bastard of the Popeye Analogy

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

Posted 13 February 2007 - 05:42 PM

DX9 cards will still be able to run DX10 games, but itd be exactly the same as running say, Halo with a Geforce 2... you cant enable all the options because your card cant do them.

in other words, the X1600 will still work in Vista, and will still accelerate your DX10 games, but you wont get all the new graphical whizzbangery.

there is supposed back compatibility, but it is, apparently, quite glitchy (graphically)...

i get your point about DX versions now, but XP will run DX9, and Vista will run DX10. nothing is interchangeable.

for at least the next year, we will the almost all games coming out with DX9 programming, and then that being adapted to DX10 (thats how i understand it will work)... Even Halo 2 is going to be running DX9, but coded for DX10... So it will still be entirely possible to have almost all games running on DX9 up until the developers start to build specifically for the DX10 effects that have now been introduced. Though I wouldnt expect to see games like that for at least another year, if not a year and a half, because the user base off DX10 cards simply wont be there..

not to mention that all the big engines that are about to be released commercially (in games), ie UE3, are still DX9... and thats going to be a popular engine for the next 2-3 years (though it will get updated to do a number of DX10 effects)...

that was probably an incredibly disjointed post...
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

#24 Eric5h5

Eric5h5

    Minion Tormentor

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7160 posts

Posted 13 February 2007 - 05:45 PM

View PostSmoke_Tetsu, on February 13th 2007, 04:38 PM, said:

I don't know what physics engine Crysis uses but I would not be surprised if it was Havok.

It uses the Crytek physics engine.  (Yep, they did their own.)

--Eric

#25 Smoke_Tetsu

Smoke_Tetsu

    Uberspewer

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

Posted 13 February 2007 - 05:50 PM

View Postteflon, on February 13th 2007, 04:42 PM, said:

not to mention that all the big engines that are about to be released commercially (in games), ie UE3, are still DX9...

I think this is kind of an understatement... UE3 is HUGE. Everyone and their grandma is licensing this engine.. in fact.. even the next gen Mortal Kombat is going to use it and Square-Enix is going to use it. At this rate a majority of the games out there are going to be running on this engine. What would be cool is if this meant more Mac games since the engine is targeted at multiple platforms including the Mac.
--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


#26 the Battle Cat

the Battle Cat

    Carnage Served Raw

  • Admin
  • 17436 posts
  • Location:Citadel City, Lh'owon
  • Pro Member:Yes

Posted 13 February 2007 - 07:16 PM

View PostEric5h5, on February 13th 2007, 03:45 PM, said:

Crytek
GAH!  Don't get me started!!
Gary Simmons
the Battle Cat

#27 Eric5h5

Eric5h5

    Minion Tormentor

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7160 posts

Posted 13 February 2007 - 07:35 PM

View PostSmoke_Tetsu, on February 13th 2007, 06:50 PM, said:

What would be cool is if this meant more Mac games since the engine is targeted at multiple platforms including the Mac.

Macs certainly got lots (most?) of the various Quake engine games, and all of the Doom3 engine games so far (all 3 ;) ).  Having the engine ported is a big plus, no doubt about it.

View Postthe Battle Cat, on February 13th 2007, 08:16 PM, said:

GAH!  Don't get me started!!

Too late for that, it seems....

--Eric

#28 Huntn

Huntn

    Verbal Windbag

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

Posted 13 February 2007 - 10:14 PM

View Postteflon, on February 13th 2007, 05:42 PM, said:

that was probably an incredibly disjointed post...

But helpful, thanks!

Maybe I can limit myself to one more question. (unlikely)

Of all the PC games that currently run via Boot Camp/WinXP are they all OpenGL games? Or are there any DX games that will run on the Mac? (hopefully not too stupid of a question, just trying to clarify) I realize when they port to the Mac, all of the DX calls are translated, but what about when your playing native in WinXP- on the Mac does it matter if it is Open GL or DX? I assume when running WinXP you are using DX directly. You just need to have compatible hardware like a DX capable card (and the drivers) to run the game...

Thanks!

#29 PeopleLikeFrank

PeopleLikeFrank

    Uberspewer

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

Posted 13 February 2007 - 10:31 PM

View PostHuntn, on February 13th 2007, 11:14 PM, said:

But helpful, thanks!

Maybe I can limit myself to one more question. (unlikely)

Of all the PC games that currently run via Boot Camp/WinXP are they all OpenGL games? Or are there any DX games that will run on the Mac? (hopefully not too stupid of a question, just trying to clarify) I realize when they port to the Mac, all of the DX calls are translated, but what about when your playing native in WinXP- on the Mac does it matter if it is Open GL or DX? I assume when running WinXP you are using DX directly. You just need to have compatible hardware like a DX capable card (and the drivers) to run the game...

Thanks!

When running XP you're using whatever the game is written to use, so yes you could be using DX directly. The hardware is pretty agnostic - it doesn't care what's running on it as long as the drivers talk to it properly, so Windows is able to use DX because it and the proper drivers exist for Windows. The only place where it would matter which you use is when a game is optimized for one or the other (or perhaps only written to use one), such as with HL2 (written for DX), or Doom3 (written for OpenGL). You can sometimes still tell games manually which renderer to use, but not very often these days. That was mostly during the times when no clear standards had emerged for graphics APIs, and every hardware manufacturer would have their own, so games had to support multiple options.

There are no DX games that run in DX in Mac OS X, since the former doesn't exist in the latter - any game that might have used DX on the Windows side is rewritten in the porting process to use OpenGL.
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

#30 Smoke_Tetsu

Smoke_Tetsu

    Uberspewer

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

Posted 13 February 2007 - 11:04 PM

View Postnobody, on February 13th 2007, 09:31 PM, said:

There are no DX games that run in DX in Mac OS X, since the former doesn't exist in the latter - any game that might have used DX on the Windows side is rewritten in the porting process to use OpenGL.

Either that or they used some kind of wrapper which I have seen some indication from some developers that they have at least for that particular API.
--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


#31 teflon

teflon

    Bastard of the Popeye Analogy

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

Posted 14 February 2007 - 02:03 AM

thats the truth right there...
some bits have to be hardcoded (i believe), but a lot is just put through a conversion layer and then adjusted to perform...

as nobody said, there are a few games on windows where you can choose between OGL and DX... UT2004 is one of them, but DX runs a bit quicker, I believe... The only engines which are designed for OGL from the ground up are Id engines, because Carmack didnt like DX when it first came out.
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

#32 Huntn

Huntn

    Verbal Windbag

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

Posted 14 February 2007 - 07:07 AM

View Postnobody, on February 13th 2007, 10:31 PM, said:

When running XP you're using whatever the game is written to use, so yes you could be using DX directly. The hardware is pretty agnostic - it doesn't care what's running on it as long as the drivers talk to it properly, so Windows is able to use DX because it and the proper drivers exist for Windows. The only place where it would matter which you use is when a game is optimized for one or the other (or perhaps only written to use one), such as with HL2 (written for DX), or Doom3 (written for OpenGL).

In a continual process you see games that support new graphic features and DX being rewritten to support those features (or vice a versa). And although your older card might not support a feature it still supported the latest version of DX. I have  an ATI 9800 Pro which is a good example- latest eye candy not supported, but still compatible with the latest DX9 version. And I'll add, games look pretty nice on it. Maybe I don't realize what I'm missing. ;) But there seems to be something different about DX10 as it is physically tied to Vista. Is that association based on software (drivers plus the OS) and/or hardware on the card?

I can see it's in the game developers best interests to keep their games compatible with the large pool of machines that will still be running WinXP. Where I get fuzzy is where most new games demand that you have the latest version of DX installed. In an effort to support Vista and WinXP, for backwards compatibility that could no longer be the case. The question becomes how long will they do that?

The two dangers I see from a Mac gaming perspective is that 1) developers stop supporting DX9 and 2) Apple takes its sweet time installing DX10 compatible graphic cards in its hardware.

Holy smokes, I stumbled across this link A Cost Analysis of Windows Vista Content Protection. There is some eye-opening stuff in that article.

#33 teflon

teflon

    Bastard of the Popeye Analogy

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

Posted 14 February 2007 - 09:14 AM

DX10 is artificially tied to Vista. They could have made an XP version, but wouldnt have seen any real benefit from doing so.

For compatibility, games will demand to have the latest version of either DX9 or DX10 installed, as opposed to just one. But you will still only need DX9 to play it if its XP compatible. Sooner or later, just as OS9 had support dropped, XP games will stop coming out, and you will need Vista to play the games... but that happened with the 98/2000 to XP transition anyway.

developers stopping support for DX9 wouldnt affect us in any way other than that the porting houses will have to get used to porting DX10 as opposed to DX9

point 2 is the most real danger that I see, and really it depends on the GPU manufacturers, and how hot their DX10 cards run...

nice link. i might read it later...
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

#34 Huntn

Huntn

    Verbal Windbag

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

Posted 14 February 2007 - 02:36 PM

View Postteflon, on February 14th 2007, 09:14 AM, said:

DX10 is artificially tied to Vista. They could have made an XP version, but wouldnt have seen any real benefit from doing so.

Especially if they are money grubbing so-and-sos... :)
Thanks for the advice!

#35 nagromme

nagromme

    Master Blaster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1954 posts

Posted 15 February 2007 - 02:46 PM

View Postteflon, on February 12th 2007, 09:08 AM, said:

of course, the really serious mappers are all on PCs already...

Chicken and egg? :)

I think there's a LOT of creativity in the Mac world, and that creativity is very pent-up in terms of game modding. I think when Mac tools come out, the resulting awesome Mac-made maps will benefit all platforms!

And here's one link about UT3's editor being Mac-compatible:

http://beyondunreal....ost.php?id=6277

#36 Huntn

Huntn

    Verbal Windbag

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

Posted 15 February 2007 - 03:22 PM

View Postnagromme, on February 15th 2007, 02:46 PM, said:

And here's one link about UT3's editor being Mac-compatible:

http://beyondunreal....ost.php?id=6277

Very encouraging. I may have to break out my pen and paper for some old Marathon map conversions. :)

#37 teflon

teflon

    Bastard of the Popeye Analogy

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

Posted 15 February 2007 - 04:59 PM

well... seeing as youve got a PC, why not help get marathon ported to UT99?
yep, marathon resurrection is still going (google it, im lazy).
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

#38 the Battle Cat

the Battle Cat

    Carnage Served Raw

  • Admin
  • 17436 posts
  • Location:Citadel City, Lh'owon
  • Pro Member:Yes

Posted 15 February 2007 - 08:30 PM

Marathon: Resurrection  There is also a section of Fileball devoted to it called the Liandri Depot.
Gary Simmons
the Battle Cat