I found this post of Norbert of AutoDesk, developer of Autodesk Inventor - 3D MCAD software capable of using both DirectX AND OpenGL).
I just quote most of it - this inside point of view:
...Direct3D is different. It is a separate 3D graphics API whose specification is controlled by Microsoft. As such, Microsoft can make the requirement that any graphics HW, consumer or workstation, that wishes to be WHQL (Windows Hardware Quality Lab) certified for Windows, must pass the WHQL testing and certification suite which tests for compliance with the Direct3D specification. This assures that if a graphics driver passes WHQL certification, there is a certain level of compliance and reliability associated with the graphics driver, both for 2D (e.g. GDI, GDI+) and 3D (meaning Direct3D but _not_ OpenGL).
... [snip]...
Specifically, regarding your question about working around developments in the gaming industry... Autodesk is working very closely with Microsoft to incorporate support for CAD features and capabilities into Direct3D. We are working very closely with Microsoft to make sure that CAD usage is tested as part of WHQL testing and certification of Direct3D graphics drivers. This will apply to _all_ graphics HW on the Windows platform, meaning high end "workstation" graphics HW, consumer graphics HW, and low-cost graphics chipsets that come on-the-motherboard.
I would like to take a slight digression just to give a bit of a historical perspective on the issue of 3D graphics HW. I have been around long enough to have worked with 3D graphics HW _before_ OpenGL existed. In that earlier time period, I worked with over seven different 3D graphics APIs. When SGI succeeded in imposing OpenGL as "the" 3D graphics API on the entire industry, this was not viewed as a "wonderful event" by everyone in the SW industry. The HW industry loved it, and they have been rather successful in ignoring any innovation or suggestions for 3D graphics development from the SW community during the entire time OpenGL has existed. Autodesk has attempted to work with the OpenGL HW community to enhance 3D graphics but has been met with a very deaf ear by the OpenGL HW community, similar to the experiences of many other SW vendors. Perhaps one exception to this situation has been the willingness of some OpenGL HW vendors to "adjust" their OpenGL implementations so some 3D games using OpenGL will run better... but there has been little, if any, serious collaboration between graphics HW vendors and CAD SW vendors to incorporate features that seem reasonable from a SW perspective. Perhaps this is one reason why there are over _350_ documented OpenGL "extensions" that expose various "features" available on various generations of graphics HW from various HW vendors.
Microsoft has had a long and interesting history with Direct3D and they have had some evolving to go through to reach the point where they are now with Direct3D 9 on WinXP (and Win2K) and Direct3D 10 on Windows Vista. However, the _most_ important aspect from a SW development (and computer user) perspective is that Microsoft has been willing to listen and incorporate suggestions from the SW community. The resulting Direct3D specifications (as well as SW development tools) that have come from Microsoft are at least a generation or more advanced beyond the rather obtuse, cryptic OpenGL specifications and stone age development environments that the graphics HW vendors push at SW developers to use with OpenGL.
The bottom line is that competition is good and the fact that we have Direct3D as a professionally developed 3D standard instead of being forced to use OpenGL is very healthy. Without Direct3D, we are completely at the mercy of the graphics HW vendors in terms of what they believe the industry needs. For example, I continue to be amazed at how we as computer users seem willing to "accept" a blue screen crash or an application crash-to-the-desktop caused by an
Slashdot Mirror
...Direct3D is different. It is a separate 3D graphics API whose specification is controlled by Microsoft. As such, Microsoft can make the requirement that any graphics HW, consumer or workstation, that wishes to be WHQL (Windows Hardware Quality Lab) certified for Windows, must pass the WHQL testing and certification suite which tests for compliance with the Direct3D specification. This assures that if a graphics driver passes WHQL certification, there is a certain level of compliance and reliability associated with the graphics driver, both for 2D (e.g. GDI, GDI+) and 3D (meaning Direct3D but _not_ OpenGL).
Specifically, regarding your question about working around developments in the gaming industry ... Autodesk is working very closely with Microsoft to incorporate support for CAD features and capabilities into Direct3D. We are working very closely with Microsoft to make sure that CAD usage is tested as part of WHQL testing and certification of Direct3D graphics drivers. This will apply to _all_ graphics HW on the Windows platform, meaning high end "workstation" graphics HW, consumer graphics HW, and low-cost graphics chipsets that come on-the-motherboard.
I would like to take a slight digression just to give a bit of a historical perspective on the issue of 3D graphics HW. I have been around long enough to have worked with 3D graphics HW _before_ OpenGL existed. In that earlier time period, I worked with over seven different 3D graphics APIs. When SGI succeeded in imposing OpenGL as "the" 3D graphics API on the entire industry, this was not viewed as a "wonderful event" by everyone in the SW industry. The HW industry loved it, and they have been rather successful in ignoring any innovation or suggestions for 3D graphics development from the SW community during the entire time OpenGL has existed. Autodesk has attempted to work with the OpenGL HW community to enhance 3D graphics but has been met with a very deaf ear by the OpenGL HW community, similar to the experiences of many other SW vendors. Perhaps one exception to this situation has been the willingness of some OpenGL HW vendors to "adjust" their OpenGL implementations so some 3D games using OpenGL will run better ... but there has been little, if any, serious collaboration between graphics HW vendors and CAD SW vendors to incorporate features that seem reasonable from a SW perspective. Perhaps this is one reason why there are over _350_ documented OpenGL "extensions" that expose various "features" available on various generations of graphics HW from various HW vendors.
Microsoft has had a long and interesting history with Direct3D and they have had some evolving to go through to reach the point where they are now with Direct3D 9 on WinXP (and Win2K) and Direct3D 10 on Windows Vista. However, the _most_ important aspect from a SW development (and computer user) perspective is that Microsoft has been willing to listen and incorporate suggestions from the SW community. The resulting Direct3D specifications (as well as SW development tools) that have come from Microsoft are at least a generation or more advanced beyond the rather obtuse, cryptic OpenGL specifications and stone age development environments that the graphics HW vendors push at SW developers to use with OpenGL.
The bottom line is that competition is good and the fact that we have Direct3D as a professionally developed 3D standard instead of being forced to use OpenGL is very healthy. Without Direct3D, we are completely at the mercy of the graphics HW vendors in terms of what they believe the industry needs. For example, I continue to be amazed at how we as computer users seem willing to "accept" a blue screen crash or an application crash-to-the-desktop caused by an