CS 1.3 - OpenGL vs D3D

LarryXtreme

Senior member
May 16, 2001
278
0
0
I was just wondering what was the difference. Was OpenGL always an option? I think I've always used D3D. I have a Geforce2 GTS. I'm using OpenGL now but I don't notice the difference. Can someone explain to me the advantages/disadvantages? Thanks.

Oh yeah, the voice thing would be cool if it were more clear. Too muffled. And if you don't hear what the guy says, you can't go back and check like you can with messages.

Also, I don't know if you've noticed, but they have a spelling error on one of the menus! If you click on the "Filter" option and go to the screen where you choose what you want to filter, you will see that on the left it says "Fitlers."
 

LarryXtreme

Senior member
May 16, 2001
278
0
0


<< i have no problem with my Geforce 2 GTS

danny~!
>>



I have no problem with mine either, I'm just wondering why OpenGL is better than D3D.
 

thaRealest

Banned
Aug 10, 2001
227
0
0
speaking of GL anyone wanna helpme out? I cant run Return to Wolfenstein because of this error GLW_StartOpenGL() - could not load OpenGL subsystem

Where do i get opengl?
 

worth

Platinum Member
Feb 4, 2001
2,369
0
0
You need a 3D accelerator, latest drivers, and probably latest DirectX in Windows.
 

Shantanu

Banned
Feb 6, 2001
2,197
1
0
OpenGL is not "beter" than D3D. Nor vice-versa. It has to do with which renderer has a better implementation for a particular game. Half Life is based on the Quake2 engine, which was basically written from the ground up to run under OpenGL. When Half Life was being made, there were still a lot of video cards at that time which did not have proper OpenGL drivers. So as an afterthought, they threw in a D3D renderer as well. By the time the game came out however, most video cards did have OpenGL ICDs so basically everyone ran the game in OpenGL mode, and continue to do so to this day, because a lot more work was put into that renderer for Half Life and it clearly shows.
 

worth

Platinum Member
Feb 4, 2001
2,369
0
0
Shantau--most game developers agree that OpenGL is more powerful, and faster, so in that way it is "better."
 

Shantanu

Banned
Feb 6, 2001
2,197
1
0
Yeah, but D3D is easier to code, has far superior support with the kind of video cards that consumers actually put in their computers, and is present on a hell of a lot more games than OpenGL. What is "technologically superior" seldom wins in video gaming, as time has proven over and over again.
 

worth

Platinum Member
Feb 4, 2001
2,369
0
0
Shantaun, and that is the reason for weak, unstable games.

Look at the Quake3 engine, that engine feels so stable that I can feel that any game based on it won't give any errors.
 

Shadowfire

Banned
Aug 25, 2001
382
0
0
OpenGL are wicked drivers u sometime need to play nice games, as i did last night. I installed Serious Sam, and it kicked me off sayin i don have the right drivers for both of My GeeForce's 2, so i installed the new one's that included OpenGL, and now it all seems to work...
I guess they are additional drivers that do something somewhere unnoticed... =o)
 

Shantanu

Banned
Feb 6, 2001
2,197
1
0
You can quote all the computer science theory you want, but what matters is reality. The vast majority of computer game programmers have not embraced OpenGL and D3D will be API of choice for most video games for the foreseeable future. I really don't care what OpenGL can do on paper; I want to see games. For every Quake3 out there, you have an Unreal or Max Payne or Black & White or countless other games with equally killer graphics. I have learned the painful way (by flushing $$$ down the drain) that what video gaming companies tout as great technology matters little in the end, if they can't figure out a way to get people to write games for it. Case in point: Aureal Vortex, Dreamcast, BeOS... That said, I really don't care to debate this point any further. I have a GeForce2 MX which can run both OpenGL (Half Life, Quake, etc.) and D3D (everything else) games well, so I'm covered for the future. Cheers.