Slashdot Mirror
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."
This is the same false thinking that leads people to buy faster computers because "3x faster means 3x as productive!". It's a lie. People are slow. Computers are fast. Software needs to be fast enough, and no faster. This applies to desktop applications just as much as server applications.
For all the increases in computing power and speed, is the NT fileserver with 1Gbps fibre any more productive than the Netware server with 10Mbps ethernet? It should be clear that the increases in speed have not led to productivity increases nor cost reductions. The real cost reductions would have been achieved if the Novell server had been replaced with Linux + Samba in the first place. That would have broken the hapless administrator out of the proprietary lock-in that both Novell and Microsoft are trying to achieve. The minor decrease in functionality/quality at the time would have been long-term offset by the huge increase in freedom. That's a freedom that the administrator would have forever.
The same argument applies here for Direct3D vs OpenGL. The short-term benefit of increased speed with Direct3D in low-importance applications(ie, games only) is long-term offset by the huge increase in freedom for developers and users with OpenGL. On the list of "features to compare" the feature of freedom should be given a high weighting value. In the long-term the cost of freedom is greater than any minor increase in speed.
It isn't. Cost, quality, reliability and fitness for task are all important decisions when purchasing hardware and/or software. The cost of freedom is not equal to the cost of money.
I'm sure you don't either, but I do buy some software. When there is a decision to be made then sometimes the proprietary software wins out. In the case of Direct3D vs OpenGL the cost of freedom greatly outweighs the minor advantages of 5% greater speed for a video game (the only 3D field where Direct3D has any true relevance).
It is what it is. 3x faster isn't always 3x times more productive, or 3x whatever. While people are slow giving computers tasks, sometimes those tasks can be enourmously complex and take the computer a while to accomplish. Hybrid radiosity solutions and volumetric redering come to mind. In fact, my brain can figure out what it should look like in seconds, it might take me a week to tell the computer how to do it, and it might take day for the computer to actually accomplish the task I set before it. My record is 48 hrs to render a single frame. Do I do it profesionally? No, I can't texture or light a scene to save my life. But, for whatever reason, I enjoy it. However, I do not find it enjoyable to wait 2 days, for a frame. In this case, processing power directly, and linearly affects my "productivity". But that's one of a billion instances.
While there is a certain charm to the marxist simplicity you seem determined to frame the problem in, yet if it were accurate the market really would reflect this. It's not just doomed dot coms that had the gig ethernet. If a P90 with 16 MB ram, a 528 MB hd, and a 10 Mb card really did the same job as an array of xeon web servers, no one would ever use anything else.
The people have voted, they've decided not every problem looks like a nail. They've decided they need a wide variety of unix varients. They've decided they need some things that are free, and some things that require spot inspections from microsoft, and help desk contracts from sun. They decided against one kind of shoe, no matter how efficently produced, for all the people.
But it doesn't apply to games anymore than it applies to shoes, or any other good. Games are important, many billions of dollars important. They cut into TV ad revenues, they cut into school for some (I used to know a guy who had to take a quarter off school because of Quake I), they entertain, and sometimes train. If they truly were superfluous, they would be treated as such. They're not.
You may not think much of them. But that is your individual subjective experience. While that is representative of some segment of the population, you cannot say it is a feature that is true for a large fraction, let alone a majority of the population. More over, I mostly encounter the choice when I putter around in trueSpace 5 since I have the choice of OpenGL or D3D enviroments. When I first got trueSpace 4, OpenGL was a better choice, now, in trueSpace 5, D3D seems more responsive. And contrary to what you find, I happen to prefer a responsive user interface. But in my defence there was a time when I considered lynx to be the best web browser, and emacs the best text editor and with bbdb the best contact management software anyone would need. Obviously I was an idiot. But, it certainly was responsive.
What's important is the only opinions that count are the one people are willing to spend resources on. Since you're not the only person spending resources, your's is not the only opinion of worth. In the end, the cost of everything is measured in dollars, or whatever the local currency might be. In fact, the only thing one cannot really buy is time. We've only got about a billion heart beats each, if you choose to spend some waiting, I choose to spend some making accurate 3d models that look butt ugly, and someone else chooses to spend some fraggin people he doesn't know in 1920x1600 photo real glory, to each their own. That's really what freedom is after all.
--Jimmy has fancy plans; and pants to match.