Direct3D vs. OpenGL: From a Developer's Perspective

richcoder writes: "GameDev.net has posted an informed article discussing the benefits and drawbacks to using either Direct3D or OpenGL in a game. I've already made the decision to go with OpenGL for my next project, but it looks like Direct3D is gaining ground. Especially in the area of making it simpler to code support for new video card features."

Comments

Some minor points

[inah]

OpenGL 2.0 is years away from exposing the hardware to the level DirectX has. The ARB is slow, but hopeful in getting the extensions mess cleaned up.

Microsoft Research has some heavy hitting names in graphics who are paid to do PURE research. This is a pretty formidable resource for Microsoft to leverage into making D3D indispensable to developers. Not every garage game hacker can whip out mesh skinning algorithms.

On the Mac OpenGL side... The Mac OpenGL games have a few titles out now with full screen anti aliasing. One is the Spiderman 1.0.1 Patch just this month for ATI cards.

The challenge with Mac/OpenGL support is developing a good relationship with ATI/Nvidia. Try getting into the community more. Not everyone has the connections Carmack has. The Mac Games Dev list (mac-games-dev@lists.apple.com) is very active.

One major issue that he skirts...

[wrinkledshirt]

Mindshare.

If I want to start developing games, I'm going to be looking around to see what I need to learn. DirectX reference material creeps up more often than not. Games that use DirectX are more numerous. Teams need to be built around a common skillset.

It's a chicken-and-egg problem, but it's there nonetheless.

Contradicts himself

[gorillasoft]

At one point, the major weakness of D3D is that it has no future largely because it is not cross-platform capable, but when he gets to OpenGL, he states that OpenGL's cross-platform capabilities are irrelevant anyway. So which is it?

The price of freedom

[Kibo]

I use GCC despite it being a slower compiler. I use XFree86 despite it being a slower windowing system. I use Mozilla despite it being a slower browser. Freedom is more important than speed.


In this case, instead of paying with your pocket book, you pay with your pocket watch. While your "freedom" might be the only quality you care for, that hardly makes it the only one that matters, as you don't buy all the software. I, and many others, are as uncomfortable with your trade-offs as, you must be with ours.