Slashdot Mirror
Is It Time For an OpenGL Gaming Revolution?
MrSeb writes "In a twist that reinforces Valve's distaste for Windows 8, it turns out that the Source engine — the 3D engine that powers Half Life 2, Left 4 Dead, and Dota 2 — runs faster on Ubuntu 12.04 and OpenGL (315 fps) than Windows 7 and DirectX/Direct3D (270.6 fps); almost a 20% speed-up. These figures are remarkable, considering Valve has been refining the Source engine's performance under Windows for almost 10 years, while the Valve Linux team has only been working on the Linux port of Source for a few months. Valve attributes the speed-up to the 'underlying efficiency of the [Linux] kernel and OpenGL.' But here's the best bit: Using these new OpenGL optimizations to the Source engine, the OpenGL version of L4D2 on Windows is now faster than the DirectX version (303.4 fps vs. 270.6 fps). If OpenGL is faster, and it has a comparable feature set, and hardware support is excellent... why is Direct3D still the de facto API? With Windows losing its gaming crown and smartphones (OpenGL ES!) gaining in popularity, is it time for an OpenGL revolution?"
Move on, nothing to see here!!!
Not necessarily better than OpenGL, but better than 270.6 fps.
Valve's blog post, near the bottom, indicates that they plan on fixing the hang-up with Direct3D, now that they know that the hardware can do better than 270 fps.
because it makes steam obsolete.
Who let this one through?
http://linux.slashdot.org/story/12/08/02/1236203/valve-shares-performance-numbers-on-port-of-left4dead
Since we've jumped from the performance revealed article this morning to the time to bury Direct X article this afternoon, I can only assume tonight's article will be about "doing away with the legacy OpenGL."
If L4D2 was using the latest DX11.1 implementation and the latest technique, I'm not so sure it would be faster on OpenGL.
I'm a bit skeptical about these numbers..
did you forget to take your meds?
Because MS makes Windows and bundle their API with it of course.
Besides that most, if not all, of my console games are OpenGL not DirectX.
I don't think anyone ever reasonably stated that Linux wasn't efficient, or that OpenGL wasn't adequate compared to Direct3D. Or maybe they did, but it wasn't factual. A properly configured Linux system has been faster than Windows for some time, at least for the past few years. The main problem with Linux has always been the lack of polish and presentation to the general public. The pieces have always been there, it's just been very fragile. Maybe now that someone is stepping up to the plate, Linux can receive what it's needed all along: better marketing and polishing. IMHO, it hasn't been large technical issues keeping Linux back. The technology is sound, and has been for quite some time.
I use OpenGL at work and as much as I prefer it over DirectX, the ARB (opengl board that decides on additions/updates/changes) sometimes takes a while to introduce new features that DirectX gets much earlier and they sometimes make questionable choices on how things are supported and the OpenGL docs are sort of terrible and vague.
-SaNo
If screen refresh rates are typically 60-85hz, you'd never see the benefit of 303.4 or 270.6 fps. The argument could be made that it makes a difference on graphically intense scenes but would that fps fall below the threshold that the eye can see which is 30fps? I think not. Not much use for a car that can do 500mph when the highways only allow you 60.
DirectX has the advantage of other features built in. OpenGL is just graphics. DirectX also does audio and manages controller input.
Low, there are several Open source API's that offer these other features, and some that bundle them with OpenGL, but it isn't as standardized.
I use LWJGL personally.
I am excited to see valve putting resources behind opengl and linux.
Hopefully the distro de jour can keep up with increased attention and excitement.
interesting
it (finally) is.
The only issue is that they are claiming that Open GL version runs better then the Direct X version is we really do not know if they are the same graphic detail. The reason I say this is look at the TF2 Mac port that uses Open GL, its not in any regards the same graphic quality as the Direct X windows version. I am beginning to wonder if the same thing is why the Windows version is rendering using less fps. We don't have any screenshots of the differences, just one paragraph on a blog that is quite lite in details.
I'd also suspect that WinRT and Win8 Metro apps won't support OpenGL... (Can anyone confirm/deny?)
The de facto standard for smartphones and tablets seems to be OpenGL ES 2.0. Why can this not be a de facto standard for desktop and console gaming as well? I'm sure there's something I am overlooking (3D stuff isn't really my forte), but what features are there which OpenGL ES 2.0 doesn't support that gamers really need?
I think it might be a good idea to standardize on something for a few years, and stop indefinitely chasing the upgrade treadmill. Working within specific hardware limitations, and figuring out how to get the highest quality experience out of that limited hardware, often results in the best games. Nintendo seldom, if ever, had cutting-edge console hardware, but they have the best video game software library of any company ever.
...it's time for an editor revolution.
http://linux.slashdot.org/story/12/08/02/1236203/valve-shares-performance-numbers-on-port-of-left4dead
What do I know, I'm just an idiot, right?
If there is much doubt about Valve being able to spearhead a movement to OpenGL, remember that they were the ones who completely revolutionized digital distribution and are the closest thing we have to fair DRM. Just because an idea sounds to crazy to be plausible doesn't mean it is. If there would be a company to lead this charge, it would be Valve, along with the hundreds of Indie developers it does business with.
It was never about performance or features. The issue has always been about return on investment.
If I wrote an OpenGL engine in 2006, I could release my title on Mac, Windows and Linux. That sounds great, but how many additional sales do I get for Mac or Linux in 2006? Conversely, writing a DirectX engine in 2006 means I can release on Windows and XBox, where there is a massive return on investment.
Now that Mac has stormed to over 14% market share, and mobile development is huge, there is a return on investment in OpenGL. That is what matters. If wonder if it is too late for Sony to capitalize on this approach for their PS4? Surely they have development hardware in the hands of key developers. If the PS4 used a standard x86_64 processor and supported OpenGL, it would make game development that much easier. Maybe the really smart move is a low-power, quiet Nvidia ARM CPU paired with a beefy NVidia GPU.
http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge's_Law_of_Headlines (yes, I know it's been pointed-out before)
put the what in the where?
One of the BIG issues is this: D3D9 vs OpenGL v2.x. The architecture of D3D9 has that each draw call (i.e. each batch) is really freaking heavy call. It is heavy in GL implementation as well, but D3D9's is very, very heavy.
Now make a more honest comparison: D3D10 vs OpenGL 3.x and/or D3D11 vs OpenGL 4.x. Those numbers are for mare informative.
Additionally, a fair amount of D3D's implementation is actually Microsoft (think of what they provide as a framework to make a driver). On the other hand, when making a GL implementation, the implementer does it from scratch on their own. Open source drivers are usually based off of Mesa, which sucks which is one of the reasons why open source GL implementations suck compared to the closed source ones. My hunch is that an OpenGL implementation is more work than a D3D implementation.
Now lets talk GL bugs. For NVIDIA and AMD, the GL2.x feature set is very, very reliable. GL3.x feature set is mostly reliable. GL4 feature set is the wild wet: be prepared for bugs.
I remember from when I was doing GL3 work (before GL4 was out) and there was a bug in NVIDIA related to gl_ClipDistance. Essentially, gl_ClipDistance would not work in shaders (the GL program failed in glLinkProgram and/or the shaders failed to compile). The bug fixing was essentially NVIDIA just finding out... passing GL conformance tests I suspect leaves large gaping holes... and when combined with GL extensions, it is unholy.
Atleast desktop GL has come a long way now with AMD making good GL drivers (as years ago ATI GL drivers were basically just able to play IDSoftware games). But GL4 features is dicey, simply because the conformance tests are not that much and not a lot of code out there using it.. in comparison Microsoft's verification, although can leave holes too, does a much better job... D3D driver bugs are rarer than GL driver bugs usually.
But you boys on desktop have no idea how good you have it... GLES2 implementations are buggy all the time in weird horrifying ways. This is one reason why iOS is better game platform than Android: essentially only a handful hardware/driver combinations to find bugs and create work arounds.
I can't speak for the game developer community, but most of the senior projects people chose to do for their bachelors in Computer Science were basic 3d games. In their design reviews, a majority of the groups chose to use DirectX over OpenGL. They stated that the reasons for this were due to the way DirectX offered a standardized way of delivering sound and processing input devices (and possibly networking, although don't hold me to that). Since then, OpenAL has gained traction and it probably isn't that difficult to write a standardized library for input devices (if such libraries haven't already been released under a reasonable license). Perhaps some game devs who have used both technologies could shed some light on their advantages and disadvantages.
the big deal would be this: make a gaming framework on linux based on openGL and an input/audio/output abstraction layer developers can count on. Then port it to windows, so linux games will run on windows. Game installers could check if "openX" is installed, and if not, run the installer.
Why not supply the game on a bootable Linux CD for optimal performance. Could run it on Apple machines as well.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
I question what the actual image quality looks like on both. DirectX has a lot of fancy features that improve the graphics that OpenGL does not. Did they turn off all of these features that improve the graphics for DirectX or add them with their OpenGL version? I highly doubt it.
Also when the frame rate is that high it typically isn't a good test. Create a map with enough detail that the frame rate gets dropped below 60 and compare them there for a real test.
While it would be cool if they could get OpenGL looking as good and working as efficiently as DirectX I wont' believe it until I see proof. This article sounds more like OpenGL propaganda than reality.
The Official Site of 1337 Pwnage
Stop using a big "kludge", like DirectX and starting to use an Open standard isn't a revolution. Is just a matter of "evolution".
The guy who wrote this article is pretty clueless about current state of 3D rendering. DirectX is much more advanced than OpenGL. Brute FPS don't means anything with current 3D technology. It's not just about pushing more polygons anymore.
As far as I know, OpenGL was available for Windows as well. There never was a reason for people to use the DX stack, save that the DX stack was available for the XBox and therefore if you wanted to sell to the platform market as well you were going to have to do a DX implementation no matter what.
Personally I've never coded a line of DX in my life. Why would I want to use a vendor-specific toolkit when the performance differences were never significant enough to justify making such a switch?
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
DirectX is more then just video openGL is just video.
But I think you can have OPENGL video + DirectX for other stuff.
In the IT/Biz world - the comparison is over, taking for example the comparison between Windows and Linux for example....
and a common application. In most (if not all) instances on apples-to-apples hardware, Linux wins......so, LINUX folks and Samsung (who just
bought $500 million of board seats on the Linux board), let's get this thing moving!!!!
It's about time
From what I have been lead to believe, and I could be wrong, if you get DirectX working for your game on Windows, it isn't that ridiculously difficult or expensive to get it functioning on the Xbox. Xbox360 is probably the leader in the console market at the moment (last I heard it had 47% marketshare in the world for consoles), and Windows has been the name for PC gaming for years... that is a lot of bases covered for choosing an, arguably, inferior SDK.
Vol~
With most LCD monitors only able to do 60hz what is the point of having 315 frames per second? Wouldn't most of those frames be dropped because the monitor just can't handle repainting the screen that fast?
Thanks
For games, UX is all that actually counts.
If you're concerned about the backplane and how that handles things, go into simulations.
I followed a few links and found my way here:
http://www.paranormal-entertainment.com/idr/blog/posts/2012-07-19T18%3A54%3A37Z-The_zombies_cometh/
It's a blog about an experience intel driver developers had working with the Valve Linux team. What I found interesting is that the Valve developers prefer working with open drivers for an obvious reason - It's hard to find out what went wrong when you're dealing with a black box. What I gathered from the discussion is that this openness was a huge boost to development of both the game and the driver. This gives me hope that there may be a bright future for open source graphics drivers and even gaming on Linux.
From the blog:
Haswell will have 40 execution units in it’s best bin. It’s 2,5 faster even if they not gonna change anything in shaders, which is unlikely. Plus 64 MB of on-package memory to deal with bandwidth problem.
With that performance and official open-source driver Intel will be the best choice for gaming in Linux next year, at least in notebooks.
A pretty good GPU + an open driver + an open kernel coupled with a working relations ship between the 3 groups should result in a super graphics and games on Linux. I'm not a gamer, but I'll buy their games just to support this. Typing this on a Sandy Bridge machine pulling from xorg-edgers.
Given that neither Sony nor Nintendo, for fairly obvious reasons, use DirectX on the console side, (and both, to the best of my understanding, use something that is mostly OpenGL-ish) there is already a pretty substantial base of games that have non-DirectX ports, even before you count the various iDevice and Android applications.
Because it is pretty standard(if somewhat unfortunate for quality) for big name titles to get a console port, or start out as a console game and get an (often shoddy) PC port, a lot of the game engine and middleware guys(Unreal, Gambryo, id Tech, etc, etc.) already support multi-platform porting. This doesn't do much to change games that are now fossilized/abandoned/in IP ownership purgatory; but it does suggest that current and upcoming games, in many cases, could be shoved out to an additional platform if there were a perceived market for it.
It's an "I'm not in this for your revolution, I expect to be well paid." thing. Since multi-console and console/PC releases are extremely common, and even some OSX stuff shows up now and again, the middleware guys haven't had the option to go DirectX only for some time now. On the other hand, since we have the middleware guys, who justify their existence by insulating(at least to the degree possible) the game developers from the underlying platforms, it may actually be less likely that OpenGL games show up on Windows, since the middleware makes it less burdensome to have a DirectX and OpenGL release version...)
You can't compare Frames Per Second like that. You need to compare frame time to get the actual speed up. So what is it like 0.5% faster?
Is It Time For an OpenGL Gaming Revolution?
No.
As far as reason for not liking Win8 goes, making your entire business model at best second fiddle to the MS store and at worst obsolete is a pretty good reason.
These comments are my personal opinions and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the other voices in my head.
Forgive me if I'm wrong, but isn't the Windows app store optional? It sure is in the consumer preview. I didn't see Valve decrying Apple for making the Mac App Store. Steam works just fine on the Mac, and it will continue to work just fine in Windows.
If you can't convince them, convict them.
People seem very excited about the 20% "increase" in fps, but it is misleading. To get the actual increase in speed, you need to use the frametime instead:
270.6 fps = 3,695 ms per frame
315 fps = 3,175 ms per frame
So the actual difference is a measly 520 microseconds. A change this small might not even be something that is related to the OS or graphics api used. It may even be because the windows OS they used is 64-bit, and the linux OS is 32-bit.
Forget Betteridge's Law for a moment ;-)
Any move away from a monoply is a good move.
Any improvement that benefits the users (and doesn't hurt the developers) is good.
Have fun!
I like my spaghetti with source.
because it makes steam obsolete.
Bwa ha ha ha!!! Yeah, that's a good one...
Python: 'And then suddenly you have a language which says "we're all stuck with whatever the whiniest coder wants".'
I've played a few Linux ports - America's Army Online, Diablo 2 (with Cedega), etc.
And they've all palyed faster under Linux, than windows on my own PC.
Also crashed a lot less, when played in Linux.
So I'm not surprised, and think they are reasonable numbers
..........FULL STOP.
http://www.linuxgamenews.com/post/19204693689/speculation-valves-new-game-console-to-be-based-on-linux
OP read the article wrong. 303.4 FPS IS NOT THE FINAL LINUX FPS. It's the final WINDOWS fps after driver optimizations. RTFA
Just when everyone had given up hope!
If OpenGL is faster, and it has a comparable feature set, and hardware support is excellent... why is Direct3D still the de facto API?
Because Valve is using DX9, not DX11. Even the Gallium3D developers have stated DX11 is much cleaner, easier, and feature rich than OpenGL. There are many things DX11 can do 2x-3s faster than DX9 but breaks engine compatibility with DX9, which makes me wonder how a proper DX11 optimized engine would compare to OpenGL.
Rule of thumb is if a graphics engine works with DX9/OpenGL, then it is not making full use of DX11 because the optimal flow of data is different and would require an entirely differently designed engine.
First of all, no it doesn't. Steam offers more than just a store. Aside from the obvious fact that everyone who owns games on it already will stick with it, it offers cloud support, chat and gaming with friends, etc. MS tried the same with GFWL: I know of not one single person, not even on the Internet, who liked it. Oh I'm sure there is someone out there, but it was nearly universally despised by gamers. I have little doubt the Windows 8 store will suffer the same fate, probably by actually using GFWL for the games part (MS for some reason refuses to let it die).
And second, of course, there are anti-trust issues. Massive ones. Much much much bigger than the ones that came with IE, since very very serious money is on the line with digital stores. And it isn't just Valve, either: EA (Origin), Gamestop (Impulse), and CD Projekt Red (Good Old Games) et alia will all be after Microsoft's head if they try to use their first-party advantage to undercut them.
"None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
DirectX is the defacto standard because Microsoft keeps paying game developers to use it.
I'd also suspect that WinRT and Win8 Metro apps won't support OpenGL... (Can anyone confirm/deny?)
I'd also expect WinRT won't support graphics, mathematical functions or English. (Can anyone confirm/deny?)
I don't know, but it works for me.
On the referenced blog, I asked whether they'd repeated the test for a 64-bit Linux distro to directly compare to the 64-bit Windows installation they used. Unfortunately, my comment there got deleted. Does anyone have any insight as to what effect switching to a 64-bit distro might have? On one hand, x86-64 has a reputation for being more compiler-friendly than x86-32, what with more explicitly-named registers and all the other goodness. On the other hand, it'd have to sling around longer pointers (and possibly waste more space on 8-byte-aligned data structures? Is that true?). What would the net result likely be?
Put another way, I wish they'd eliminated that rather large test environment variable before publishing their numbers.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
That's good to hear and all, but it's a bit ironic given my recent experience with getting Dota 2 to work in Wine. First, it took about 2-3 hours getting Steam to run, because of a missing library. Then 3 more hours trying to get Dota to run in Wine or a VM, with no success so far. I'm considering to burn that Windows 8 ISO and play some games this weekend. (It's just a bit curious, it's great that they're working on it)
Gabe&crew want to counter that, in the end, this MS vs Valve battle might only benefit us all, lower OS price, more choices, kernel improvements etc.
Yeah, all those embedded chipsets with DirectX-ES are just waiting for Windows 8 to come along.
Oh wait, Windows 8 is touch optimized and the embedded chipsets on touch devices only support and accelerate OpenGL ES?
Interesting.
That's great.
The problem is going to be getting nVidia and AMD onboard for this.
nVidia's OGL support is really no better than it has to be.
The NICEST thing that can be said about AMD's OGL support is that it sucks harder than a fifty megawatt Hoover vacuum.
They're both deeply in bed with Microsoft and most of their driver work goes towards optimizing their DirectX rendering pipeline.
Getting them to shift gears is going to take some doing. And probably a couple truckfulls of money.
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
The Year of Linux On the Desktop... I'm getting so tired of writing that. IT WILL NEVER BE THE YEAR OF LINUX ON THE DESKTOP because Linux is too tough for mental midgets who use Windows/DOS or Apple Macintosh OS-X (the irony is juicy!) because they're not capable of learning something new, or figuring out anything harder than tying their shoe laces.
As an OS basically cloned from Unix, Linux has a similarly user-unfriendly, arcane-seeming reputation. There is no one, big, monolithic company standing behind it, like there is with M$ and Apple, to provide a hand, (or unintelligible tech support from someone with an curry-flavored English accent,) and I'm not counting Red Hat, they are mainly concerned with businesses, etc.
If there were a single source for Linux, one company that put it out, and that was the OFFICIAL version, people would probably flock to Linux. Also Linux would have to be... not free. People figure if you're giving something away for free, there must be a catch, or must be something wrong with it, or it's addictive, and only the first one's free. If there's no catch, and it's not addictive, they're clearly giving it away because they can't sell it, (people will think...)
Seems to me the only way in for Linux to become THE OS, is to come in through the side door. It would have to become popular without anyone realizing, or at least caring that it's Linux. I think that's what's happening with Android.
I welcome this news, and the move, then, to start releasing Steam-y Linux titles... but until they start releasing for Windows last, or not at all, better yet, Linux simply gets a promotion without a raise. Great, glad to hear about it.
Then how come several other major game companies have come out against Windows 8. For instance, Notch of Mojang, the creator of Minecraft, hates Windows 8, and at the same time also dislikes steam and refuses to sell Minecraft via Steam. Also, how does it make Steam obsolete? When EA came out with the Origin appstore, Steam was still able to thrive. Apple came out with the Mac App Store, and then Game Center, both of which compete with Steam (Game Center directly so), but it hasn't hurt Valve any. Desura, a game platform similar to Steam beat Valve to the punch on Linux support, but really that has only helped boost Valve. Plus there are others like direct2drive, Impulse, etc. Despite all the competition, Steam isn't even slowing down, and there are several reason why. 1: Many companies have not liked the terms Microsoft has for publishing via their marketplaces (such as paying to certify every release and patches, which can cost $40K a pop). 2: Most of the competition, and will also include the Windows store, are not multiplatform, and when they do support other OS's, their support sucks. People like buying a game once, and then being able to play it on both Windows and Mac (and later Linux). If you buy an app on the Windows store, you can only use it on Windows. Have a mac in the house, or a Linux box that you also play on? Sorry, gotta buy the game again elsewhere. 3: Many companies have been grumbling for a while that MS is crippling those who don't want to use Direct X. Any time a commercial game gets sold, the devs have to pay for Direct X licensing if they want to use Direct X. Problem is, Microsoft only supports OpenGL v1.1 in Windows 7. OGL1.1 came out in '97. The latest spec is version 4.2, and has huge improvements (as can be expected with 15 years of technology advances). Also, not all versions of Windows 8 will support Direct X (Specifically, the ARM version). OpenGL is well liked because it is cross platform. You make a game using OpenGL, and you can make it work on PS3, all the current Nintendo systems, Android, iOS, Mac OS, Windows, etc. Direct X is limited to Windows, Windows Mobile, and Xbox. Windows may rule the desktop, but not everyone games on the desktop, so Windows centric options aren't the best choice.
Ok, I don't want to go through the arguments that we've had on this issue over and over again, but the problem GL has had in the past is mostly that D3D got the jump on it in terms of new feature support from vendors. But this isn't really the worst offence against games developers to come from the GL community. The fact is that the tool-chain support for DirectX is superior. This is the number 1 concern of code shops. If nothing else, Microsoft work hard to support developers wanting to use D3D.
Now in terms of Linux being 20% faster, I find this very hard to believe! I think more detail on the kinds of tests they're doing is needed here.
Anyway it does encourage me as I'm currently working on an OpenGL project, having vacillated for quite a while over whether to choose D3D or GL, finally coming down on the GL side to avoid the lock-in. Besides, GL skills are totally cross-platform: Apple/iPhone, Windows, Linux, Android - you can run GL on all of them. The skills and knowledge are more transferrable than D3D (Windows/XBOX). Vendors went cold on GL for a while, but now they're taking it seriously again because of mobile adoption.
MS's competing stacks successfully stole wind from OpenGL's sails over the years, and the video card vendors have at times only grudgingly fixed problems with their OpenGL implementation in the Windows drivers. Hopefully, a sea change will reverse that tide.
"Ahh! I see you're in that indeterminate Schrodinger state where - oh, uh
Here is a complete list of Win32 APIs that are supported for Metro apps. If you look under "Graphics", you'll notice that it has Direct2D and Direct3D, but not OpenGL.
Yes, and Microsoft can use their cash mountain to "encourage" developers to use the app store, even running it at a loss for a while in order to destroy Valve's business. It's not as if they've never done this before!
Not even Microsoft is really supporting gaming on Windows anymore, they have to keep the best stuff Xbox-exclusive (thus no Forza or Halo co-op on PC).
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
OpenGL runs in a surface (I believe that is the terminology used for a driver independent window) on Windows since Vista, so it should work in Windowed mode, but will have a performance hit. WinRT supports C++, so I don't see any reason software-wise for not being able to create OpenGL inside Metro apps, but expect a performance hit up to about 20% for context switching and compositing with DirectX based windows (as it is today).
for the guys here running around saying why doesn't opengl get more traction because it's obviously just as capable, you guys most probably know, but if you don't need to realise something: it's about more than just the graphics.
with directx, it's cohesive, well built and well tooled, it's not just about the API, not just about the programming code, it's about what a company can do with as few resources as possible.
when you build something with linux, you've got a dozen api's, all with their own way of working, it's not cohesive, it's buggy as on some hardware X works, but Y doesn't and visa-versa. I'm sure this happens with directx as well, but microsoft have been working hard to make sure their system is cohesive and falls back comfortably.
what adobe said about the linux sound system is right on the money, which api do you target? which api is installed? what can I execute? do I need one code path or X code paths per api you want to support just in case one api is installed, but not the other.
so directx is just better, linux suffers because of choice, in this situation, nobody wants choice, we want that it works, choice means I have to work more, spend more and ultimately spend more hours shouting at the computer because nothing works in the way that it should.
The Source engine is a evolution of the Quake engine, that was a OpenGL engine. So this is like "undoing" a port to OpenGL.
Actually disregard that.
Here we have just a few lines of text in a blog. Is just anecdotal evidente. Good news, but lets wait for more people to have similar experiences to consider if this can be anything else than a artifact/pure luck.
-Woof woof woof!
It's going to be evolution, not a revolution, because if OpenGL is faster by 20% and this matters to the users, then it will win.
are you just mad because your lord has tried to take sole ownership of the term "revolution" for his sermons? you should know, not all revolutions are solely political.
The mobile markets are predominanty OpenGL based, while hw acceleration is not at the PC level yet, it won't take that long for a GPU to become a commonplace part in a smartphone. Add to that the fact that Steam will do positive things for OpenGL on Linux (and even on Windows) and we might get to see a turning point in game programming, at the very least a fighting chance for OpenGL. Go team OpenGL!
You honestly expect us to read that? Have you ever heard of paragraphs? Even a broken enter key is not an excuse - slashdot lets you use <br /> tags.
If DirectX has 47% marketshare on consoles, that means OpenGL has 53% marketshare on consoles. And since OpenGL works on Windows, Mac, and linux, you can target 100% of the marketshare on desktop computers.
The only reason to use DirectX is if Microsoft pays you.
Dungeon Tactics : Free Open Source SRPG
...can get excellent performance out of the hardware and software. I'm actually an OpenGL partisan, but Direct3D is only part of DirectX. Input, sound, graphics, networking, all in one API - that really is a powerful argument for DirectX. OpenGL + SDL + OpenAL is far from a bad API set to develop for, but you gotta admit it could use some polish. Hopefully, greater attention to Linux gaming will catalyze that polish. Which should mean that not-so-major game companies who don't have the hardware vendors on speed dial can get some benefits from this, too.
PHEM - party like it's 1997-2003!
It's because of badly written shaders. The article describes a contrived test case where everything is carefully and correctly written, unlike most code out there.
Specifically, when translating a shader from GL to DirectX to run GL on Windows through the compatibility layer, if the shader can't be demonstrated in a short time to be able to run in bounded time, it gets discarded.
Chrome does this same thing on Windows for WebGL code. Google hired a company to write the code, liked the result, and bought the company afterwards to acquire the talent.
When you send the GL pipeline directly to the hardware, as in Linux and Mac OS X, a badly written shader means you crash the OS at worst, crash the DirectX 10 capable video card at next best (DirectX 10 made it a requirement that the card be capable of being reset via software, which wasn't common until it was required), or it just takes unbounded time to run, which means it looks exactly the same as a hang.
I've suggested several times now that the DirectX check in Chrome be run on Lnon-Windows platforms as well, and that the shaders be discarded before being sent to the Linx/Mac OS X hardware if they can't be translated to run under the DirectX model. This would preemptively protect the hardware from bad GL code being pulled down from the net and/or from trying to run at all.
Until either the shader model changes in OpenGL, or there is universally applied software filtering to protect the hardware from the bad code that it should be capable of protecting itself from, OpenGL is not going to revolutionize gaming.
Have they been refining DX? They haven't made any major changes to the engine in years. As far as I know the source engine never had a OGL mode, which means its brand spanking new and they built it from the ground up to tie into the Source engine.
I think this isn't a 'OGL is better then DX', but rather a '8 year old engine is outdated' thing.
DirectX is is not an API it is a collection of APIs:
directplay, directinput, directsound, direct3d and others.
All are needed for convenient game development, OpenGL replaces only one.
It doesn't mean that at all. Not many Playstation games use OpenGL. You really need to be closer to the metal using Playstation's native libraries in order to get the best out of the console.
Here is a complete list of Win32 APIs that are supported for Metro apps. If you look under "Graphics", you'll notice that it has Direct2D and Direct3D, but not OpenGL.
OpenGL isn't part of the Win32 API.
In this context, "Win32 API" means "API normally provided by the OS to a Win32 application" - so, yes, that includes OpenGL.
This is just horseshit. Look the valve backlash has begun. Windows gaming is just fine. Suddenly Valve is linux happy because Windows 8 is apparently going to put the squeeze on services like steam, because MS's xbox live services will be better integrated into win8 than steam currently is in windows period.
Valve is lazy and they wont want to integrate steam into metro. Thats the problem. Their solution? They cry like babies and run to linux.
Windows isnt losing its gaming crown. In fact, Windows gaming is better than ever as we seeing that consoles are really just wanna-be windows pcs anyways, with gimped corporate toaster mentality.
You seem to be confusing The Wii with the XBox 360. The Wii has ~40-50% market share globally and XBox and ps3 split what is left over. Now in the US my understanding is the XBox 360 is the clear leader.
If I install a closed source game... am I giving carte-blanche to my system, including and Bitcoins, documents and cached browser passwords? Of course it depends on permissions but I think most linux users aren't set up for this.
A blog I run for the wealth
In this context, "Win32 API" means "API normally provided by the OS to a Win32 application" - so, yes, that includes OpenGL.
If you're referring to APIs provided by the OS then what specifically are you referring to when you say 'OpenGL'?
I'd also suspect that WinRT and Win8 Metro apps won't support OpenGL... (Can anyone confirm/deny?)
I'd also expect WinRT won't support graphics, mathematical functions or English. (Can anyone confirm/deny?)
Yes.
Is it time: Yes
Will it happen: No
We're long passed time to get onto OpenGL. In the late 90's there were a few of OpenGL game on Windows (Homeworld for one) but since then video card manufacturers have dropped the ball on OpenGL and developers have become complacent and lazy relying on DirectX. It's going to be pretty difficult to stop mainstream devs from suckling at the teat of DirectX and to get ATI/Nvidia to pick up their game.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
Insightful
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
opengl32.dll
These figures are remarkable
I've been using Linux for 10 years and in all that time, hardware has always run better under Linux than it does under Windows. Soundcards sound better, graphics cards run faster, ethernet cards run slightly faster.
What is more remarkable, is how willfully blind and deaf most people are. People have been trumping this advantage for as long as I've been using Linux and this is now 'news'?
The most prevalent kind too - HOME END USERS, who, without doubt, love games!
* This isn't a "bad thing", because even I, a KNOWN "Windows/Microsoft fanboy" around here, has to admit that after trying KUbuntu 10.x in 2010 for around 6 months & more recently KUbuntu 12.04? It's finally getting pretty damned good... better than ever imo @ least (& I tried Linux 1.02 - Slackware distro, back as far as 1994, later RedHat 6.x around 1997-1998 iirc, & finally KUbuntu on/off!)
Would I like to see it happen? Sure, & want to know WHY? It'd SCARE THE HELL OUT OF MICROSOFT! So, why am I stating that, MS 'fanboy' or not?? Well... since sometimes, a little fear is a powerful motivator to do even better!
(Everyone "wins" in competitions, especially end users/consumers of a product is why... bonus!)
I use Delphi a LOT, even for OpenGL or DirectX work!
(Since it's always been my fav. since 1997 when it knocked the chocolate out of JAVA, MSVB 5.0, MSVC++ 5.x on 7/10 tests & only losing 1 to C++ by a PUNY MARGIN no less... but, it soundly also blew away C++ by double to TRIPLE margins or more in math & strings, & EVERY PROGRAM DOES THAT, bar-none, pretty much) & it can do Linux too (just like C++ which I like a lot also, albeit via Borland C++ Builder (Embarcadero now)).
Since FreePascal (& Borland Kylix before it) is almost a perfect copy of Win16/32/64 Delphi? I can always "move over" @ any time IF I need or wish to... bonus!
(Gotta love "cross-platform" capable compilers and ones that can do, if chosen in build options, "True 'Stand-Alone' Non-Interpreted Executables - fastest & most efficient type there is imo, bar-none ("oldschooler here"'s why - I do .NET &/or JAVA too, + a dozen or more other languages & build methods in them, but I personally like "real" self-contained exe's the best for reasons noted above... & because of multi-platform capable languages like C++ &/or Object Pascal? I can, & with my favorites!)
APK
P.S.=> As far as programming? I've done a fair bit of programming in both 3d display methods (for screensavers mostly) - I always found OpenGL easier to work with than DirectX personally (it's not as "complex" imo @ least, and I *think* PART of that is because DirectX could control a LOT MORE than just display outputs (other things like sound, controllers, etc./et al))...
... apk
You must be working on wall street.
If you sell 2 tablets in 2009 and sell 4 tablets in 2010, that is what percentage of growth?
Meanwhile, if you sell 100 million desktops in 2009 and 110 million desktops in 2010, what percentage of growth is that?
It is the same with the so called BRIC economies. Massive growth? Yup, percentage wise. Easy when you come from nothing. I could double my speed on the mile if I actually did some excersise for once. Meanwhile olympic athletes are happy with a tenth of a second! They must SUCK!
Calculating what is really being used out there, that is hard. For instance, mobile gaming devices. We know they are being sold but I don't see them in public. Turns out that many use them at HOME and NOT on the go. Many a laptop never leaves its desk. Meanwhile how many tablets are gathering dust like the Wii which outsold in hardware but severely undersells in software? Nintendo ain't reporting losses for nothing.
People who claim because item X sold a lot is going to kill off item Y are the kind who just love headlines and stop to think. Like you.
Attach a keyboard and a tablet becomes a laptop? Really? So all of a sudden it gets a HD? USB Hub? Ethernet port? Multi-channel sound output? Expansion bays? Right click? Multi screen support?
I didn't understand how people could be reviewing Windows 8 in a positive way. And then I saw a video review on a "reputable" site and they reviewed it on a "desktop" with a resolution that would make a netbook weep. Yah... no wonder then that the slashdot sentiment differs a bit, how many here run at netbook resolutions?
Tablets can only replace a PC for those people who barely use a PC, in the same way a bicycle or public transport can only replace a car for those who barely use the functionality of a car. I should know, I don't have a car and don't miss it and when people ask, but how do you move house with your own car then, I say "I don't!". Really who the fuck wants the hassle, I pay a company who sends a big truck and strong men and they do it faster, safer and me not getting tired which is the most important bit.
If you use a PC without needing to easily cut and paste, have a right click menu for ease of access or for that matter, pin-point control... well... then a tablet can replace your PC. I have tried to make slashdot posts on a tablet and it is a pain in the ass for editing.
And ergonomic. I know the kind of people that can replace a desktop with a laptop. They are the ones who will develop back problems. You are NOT SUPPOSED to work in the position that a laptop forces you to work in. Head UPRIGHT, screen at eye height!
Sure, you can buy a dock and external monitors and you just made your laptop into an easily overheating overly expensive non-upgradable desktop. Wheee!
But hey, if you think tablets can replace PC's, fine. I give you my tablet for free. But if you EVER even touch a PC or laptop for the rest of your live, you put a tattoo on your forehead "I am to dumb to exist, please kill me". Deal?
Didn't think so.
People have been crying the death of the desktop for years if not decades. By the way, what happened to smartphones replacing the desktop? That seems to have dropped away, suddenly it is the tablet that is the new king... odd that... did you ever post that the smartphone would replace the PC?
Zero growth is normal in mature markets, it is inevitable that someday everyone will have the product and you can only sell replacements and PC's last a long a time now. High growth is normal in immature markets. Only a fool would make absolute predictions by comparing these two figures.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
Edit code... on a tablet?
Really? On a touch screen keyboard. Edit code? No right click? Murderous copy past? For gods sakes if you force me to work on windows with no 3rd mouse button I already loose productivity and you want me to work with one click? You an apple fan?
I hate to imagine what kind of code you write.
What about 3D modelling or even photoshopping? On a tablet with a touch screen finger input? Man, and I thought I hated designers but even I would not torture them like this.
I suppose I am just to old to get caught in the next wave of excitement that is going to change everything and then it doesn't.
Come back in ten years, if everything is still the same... well... then you are an old fart too getting fed up with young kids crazy dreams. Just like me and those who came before. Everything the same as always.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
You think you're funny?
Yes.
And yes, I'm using that phrase correctly. OpenGL is not faster than Direct3D, so the whole "I'm just asking a question!" aspect of the summary is silly.
Direct3D is used because it's faster and supports more features of the hardware. Valve's incompetence does not change this fact.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge's_Law_of_Headlines
You're worse than dingleberries for allowing that headline.
Steam includes much more functionality than just the store itself, like chat, voice communication, global friends lists and stuff like that. Then there is the fact that it integrates quite cleanly with most games and does not bother you once you're in the game. If the windows app store is anything like Games for Windows Live, then most gamers I know won't touch it with a ten-foot pole.
opengl isn't bundled with windows anyway
I'm not an OpenGL expert, but I assume that opengl32.dll that's located in my \Windows\System32 directory came with Windows - who else would put it there?
Not that it matters, to be honest. The list I linked to was a whitelist; if something is not there, it can't be called from Metro. If it's a third-party DLL, you can call it so long as you package it with your app, but then that DLL itself is also subject to the same whitelist. So ultimately you can only do things on that list.
Obsolete? Steam is synonymous with PC gaming right now, MS has trouble tying its shoelaces in the morning, I think Steam will be fine.
"we've got trenchcoats and bad attitudes" - John Constantine, HellBlazer
Comment removed based on user account deletion
opengl32.dll in the Windows directory is usually the software stub driver that will call down to a real driver if it can find one. It's also relatively common (or, at least, used to be - it has been about a decade since I last used Windows, so I might be talking nonsense) for drivers to ship their own opengl32.dll so that they didn't have to fit their OpenGL implementation into Microsoft's driver architecture so closely. The OpenGL DLL doesn't need to talk to any other DLLs except the one that implements the interface to the kernel (and every Metro app must talk to that, or it would never be able to do anything). It is, however, possible that the Metro stuff gets a system call whitelist so can't call into the graphics driver directly (although that would make Direct2D and Direct3D hard to implement).
That said, it's largely irrelevant: things that rely heavily on 3D acceleration are not likely to want to be Metro applications.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
OpenGL runs in a surface (I believe that is the terminology used for a driver independent window) on Windows since Vista, so it should work in Windowed mode, but will have a performance hit
Not a significant one. A surface is just a texture and render-to-texture is cheap on modern GPUs (it's basically how you do everything, from double buffering through reflections to windowing). The windowing system then just runs a little bit of GPU code to composite the resulting windows. You have two places for overhead in this model. The first is that the other windows are in VRAM. This likely costs you 8-16MB of VRAM, maybe a bit more. Not really noticeable on a GPU with 256MB-1GB of VRAM. The second is that the window server will be stealing a little bit of GPU time to render the windows. This typically involves rendering something on the order of 100 textured triangles... on a GPU rated to push out billions of textured triangles per second.
expect a performance hit up to about 20% for context switching and compositing with DirectX based windows (as it is today)
If the performance hit is really that high, then Microsoft has done something badly wrong, at least on modern GPU hardware. The cost of context switching is nil, as the GPU has its own MMU and can support at least 8 contexts in hardware, so your window server will always be in the GPU's TLB and not need any bus traffic. I'd accept that for older hardware, where a GPU context switch meant dumping the contents of VRAM to main memory and then pushing it back, but that hasn't been the case for a few years. With a lot of SoCs, the GPU uses the same MMU as the CPU, so there's about the same cost for a GPU context switch as a CPU one, and you do one of those every 10ms...
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
The OpenGL DLL doesn't need to talk to any other DLLs except the one that implements the interface to the kernel (and every Metro app must talk to that, or it would never be able to do anything). It is, however, possible that the Metro stuff gets a system call whitelist so can't call into the graphics driver directly (although that would make Direct2D and Direct3D hard to implement).
Thanks for reminding me. Yes, this description seems to be accurate with respect to how things worked, at least in XP when I last dealt with all that stuff.
A Metro app will simply not be able to load the DLL from system32 - only specifically whitelisted DLLs can be loaded from outside the app package directory, and it ain't one. That pretty much kills the idea on the spot for any practical purposes, but I don't think it would work even if you bundle the DLL. The code inside would still run in userspace, and as such would still be subject to all the usual sandbox restrictions for calls it makes into any other part of the OS, kernel included. Most of those are actually enforced on sandbox level; a few, by the app verification process that your app has to pass in order to get into Windows Store.
I've been wishing for the death of DirectX for many years, and it's not happened, so I'm not holding my breath this time.
If there's one thing that MS is experts in, it is in creating lock-ins. So whether Armageddon or the death of DirectX come first, let's just say I wouldn't make huge bets.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
What this means is that the SOURCE engine runs better now on OpenGL than on DirectX, but if you read the original article correct, you'll see that they know how to get DirectX up to the same speed. Appearently they just didn't use the API's to it's fullest, let's not forget that with any revision of an engine you'll find better/newer ways to do stuff which increase the performance, and that's exactly what they did, as the first incarnation of Source on OpenGL on ubuntu ran at about 6fps, but after much optimizations (appearantly also on the drivers manufactures side) it runs much MUCH faster.. Doing the exact same thing for DirectX would propably also mean better and faster performance..
Also one point, how is the image difference between OpenGL and DirectX?
So it's the source-engine running on OpenGL (with a completely revised graphics-path) that runs faster then the source-engine running on DirectX (with an 'old' graphics-path). Let's just see how DirectX performs when they've done the same revision.
Which one is better? who knows. Both have their advantages and both have their disadvantages.. If crossplatform with non DirectX platforms is your goal, than I would say go for OpenGL..
BUT!! people should also remember, DirectX is not the same as OpenGL.. Direct3D is the same as OpenGL, DirectX is much more than graphics alone.. And that's propably the reason why DirectX is more popular, you don't have to go out and look for all the different libraries (like OpenAL for audio, ODE for physics, etc)
Does it matter why?
No.
When the next 3DMark comes out, the frame differences of 20% will be from a card costing 80% more. Therefore a more efficient game engine FOR ANY REASON will be cheaper to run for the same result.
certainly some versions did come with opengl screensavers too.
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
SGI did an amazing job developing OpenGL. SGI was always, first and foremost, a graphics company. Its no wonder it has taken 11 versions of DirectX to get almost as fast or in some cases, probably faster but it still only work on WindowsOS, whereas OpenGL is cross platform.
Why are we still wasting time on proprietary, platform specific API?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_OpenGL_and_Direct3D
My .02.
Eric
Yes, and Microsoft can use their cash mountain to "encourage" developers to use the app store, even running it at a loss for a while in order to destroy Valve's business.
Last I heard, the MS app store only hosts those godawful Metro apps.
Good luck getting developers to support that!
GLaDOS for President 2016! "Well here we are again. It's always such a pleasure." -- GLaDOS, 2011
I'd also expect WinRT won't support graphics, mathematical functions or English. (Can anyone confirm/deny/abort?)
FTFY.
I know tobacco is bad for you, so I smoke weed with crack.
This deserves Informative.
"Those who consume the bulk of goods are those who make them. We must never forget this secret of our prosperity."
I'm not an OpenGL expert, but I assume that opengl32.dll that's located in my \Windows\System32 directory came with Windows - who else would put it there?
That's just there so that you can call the hardware accelerated functions from the graphics driver from which the opengl implementation is provided and provides a fallback for when you don't have a hardware implementation - but of course on a tablet device with hardware specifications you most assuredly do have capable hardware. The question is whether those devices will ship with drivers that have an implementation of opengl, that question can't be answered by your link. It's too early to say whether opengl will be ruled out, there's certainly no technical reason it couldn't be there.