The begining of the end of DX dominance on windows ?

[Elixer]

With the just released OpenGL 4.4 specs, and the great news of

Finally, in a move that should have developers everywhere jumping with joy, OpenGL finally has official and up to date conformance tests. OpenGL has not had an up to date conformance test since the project was led by SGI almost a decade ago, with the task of developing the tests being a continual work in progress for many years. In the interim the lack of conformance testing has been an obstacle for OpenGL, as there wasn’t an official way to validate implementations against known and expected behaviors, leading to more uncertainty and bugs than anyone was comfortable with.

(from http://www.anandtech.com/show/7161/...-opengl-44-opencl-20-opencl-12-spir-announced)

This makes you wonder, if this is the beginning of the end of directX.
Pretty much every other device besides Windows uses some form of openGL as standard.
With MS basically forcing people to upgrade the OS to get the latest DX version, and no such limitation exists for openGL, it seems it is only a matter of time before openGL takes over.

 

[2timer]

I believe DX will remain around residually for some time just because people are accustomed to it, but yes, hopefully OpenGL will be adopted more and more.

 

[FalseChristian]

I hope your right. It all depends on id software. They make all their games using
OpenGL. Rage is a good game but hardly any company is using their game engine
but, hopefully, id software's next game which will be OpenGL will be excellent in the
graphics department so other game developers will use the engine. Then OpenGL will be
take off again like when id software brought out GLQuake and Quake II. These were
excellent game engines and were used by quite a few developers.

I've always preferred OpenGL.

 

[SPBHM]

XP was by far the most popular OS when MS forced users to adopt Vista for DX10,
OGL had the opportunity to support DX10/11 features on XP, but it didn't help, games kept using DX9 for years anyway...

the latest big budget title to use OpenGL (Rage?) was a failure in many levels, it had huge technical issues, drivers were not good enough, the market is just to used to DX, and it just works.

 

[BallaTheFeared]

Who cares, all the other doom and gloom threads say AMD is dying, Intel is dying, MS is dying, gaming is dying, and oh yeah, enjoy your ARM tablet.

 

[cmdrdredd]

I hope your right. It all depends on id software. They make all their games using
OpenGL. Rage is a good game but hardly any company is using their game engine
but, hopefully, id software's next game which will be OpenGL will be excellent in the
graphics department so other game developers will use the engine. Then OpenGL will be
take off again like when id software brought out GLQuake and Quake II. These were
excellent game engines and were used by quite a few developers.

I've always preferred OpenGL.

LOL id software the savior? Yeah right...they can't make a good game to save their life anymore.

This topic comes up every time...yet here we are...DX11 is IT and OpenGL is almost nowhere to be found. Not to mention...the next console will be DX11 based. That doesn't bode well for OpenGL game support.

 

[Stuka87]

This does give OpenGL a chance to actually be used by AAA developers (Its used a lot in Indie games). And if it is, it can only be good for us. Having competition is very rarely a bad thing.

 

[DaveSimmons]

Sony calls their PS4 API a "DirectX 11.1+ feature set" not an OpenGL one. With both consoles and the major engines in use based on DX / DX-like designs, DX is not going away any time soon.

http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2013/...4s-hardware-power-controller-features-at-gdc/

Also, id said they wouldn't be licensing engines any more, so it will be up to id and Zenimax games to lead this imagined renaissance.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2010-08-12-id-tech-5-only-for-bethesda-titles

 

[Ben90]

Carmack said that DX is superior, the only reason why they didn't use it is because of how invested in OpenGL they were already. If he could start from scratch, he would have used DX.

 

[Red Hawk]

So, the gist of this is that OpenGL is restoring a feature that DirectX has had all along? That won't cut it. DirectX is too entrenched in game development. "We do everything the other guy does" doesn't gain market share for you; you need to have a killer feature the competition doesn't have. As for being compatible with older versions of Windows, like SPBHM said they already had an even greater opportunity when Microsoft didn't update Windows XP to DirectX 10. That opportunity is smaller now than it was then, as DirectX 11.1 is still partially compatible with Windows 7. And even if it does become an issue that threatens DirectX's dominance, Microsoft can always release a platform update to bring the functionality to older versions of Windows.

And the assertion that "pretty much every device uses OpenGL" is false; the Xbox 360 and Xbox One use a form of DirectX, and as DaveSimmons mentioned the PS4 is targeting a DirectX feature set rather than an OpenGL feature set. The major game engines that developers have been prepping for the next generation of consoles -- Cryengine 3, Frostbite Engine 3, Unreal Engine 4, etc -- are all built with DirectX.

OpenGL needs a big advantage over DirectX rather than simple equivalence, and better devices focused on it than tablets and smart phones, in order to start bringing DirectX down.

Carmack said that DX is superior, the only reason why they didn't use it is because of how invested in OpenGL they were already. If he could start from scratch, he would have used DX.

Really now? I'm interested to see the interview where he said this.

 

[TakeNoPrisoners]

DX is way too ubiquitous to just be simply thrown aside, pretty much every major developer makes games with DX. I do not remember the last game that ran only in OpenGL. Rage? That game wasn't even that good. OpenGL has a long way to go to gain the market share DX has.

 

[24601]

Considering even the super duper professional rendering software is switching from OpenGL to DirectX 11, and with both the next gen consoles being DirectX 11.1 (One of them literally just running DirectX 11.1 on Windows 8), I'm fairly sure DirectX is stronger than ever.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/best-workstation-graphics-card,3493-5.html

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/best-workstation-graphics-card,3493-8.html

 

[3DVagabond]

The use of OpenGL in portables can have an impact on PC's. The more platforms something supports the better. Dx is where it is because of Windows and M$ throwing so much capital behind it. As more OS's get used in other devices, it takes away some of Dx's luster. Up until now it's been pretty much a no brainer to go with Dx. It doesn't mean that it will stay that way, though.

 

[3DVagabond]

Considering even the super duper professional rendering software is switching from OpenGL to DirectX 11, and with both the next gen consoles being DirectX 11.1 (One of them literally just running DirectX 11.1 on Windows 8), I'm fairly sure DirectX is stronger than ever.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/best-workstation-graphics-card,3493-5.html

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/best-workstation-graphics-card,3493-8.html

Strange how the text says DirectX, but the graph says OpenGL. :\

 

[24601]

Strange how the text says DirectX, but the graph says OpenGL. :\

For this specific page, we skipped Viewport 2.0 with DirectX 11 and focused on the older SPECapc 2009 suite because it employs OpenGL. I'm only interested in four tests at this point, and we'll come back to the photo-realistic rendering later.

They tested OpenGL because they didn't want to anger Nvidia and AMD by showing their artificial professional card segmentation as pointless.

People always forget how hilariously fragmented OpenGL's specification adherence is.

Just take a look at the common SoC OpenGL implementations and you will know the utter disdain developers actually have for the prospect of writing actual code for it.

People use Unity Engine or they just don't make android games at any efficiency (of effort) at all.

 

[cmdrdredd]

Really now? I'm interested to see the interview where he said this.

Dated 11th March 2011
http://www.bit-tech.net/news/gaming/2011/03/11/carmack-directx-better-opengl/

'I actually think that Direct3D is a rather better API today.' He also added that 'Microsoft had the courage to continue making significant incompatible changes to improve the API, while OpenGL has been held back by compatibility concerns. Direct3D handles multi-threading better, and newer versions manage state better.'

'It is really just inertia that keeps us on OpenGL at this point,' Carmack told us. He also explained that the developer has no plans to move over to Direct3D, despite its advantages.

There is also this.

'The actual innovation in graphics has definitely been driven by Microsoft in the last ten years or so,' explained AMD's GPU worldwide developer relations manager, Richard Huddy. 'OpenGL has largely been tracking that, rather than coming up with new methods. The geometry shader, for example, which came in with Vista and DirectX 10, is wholly Microsoft's invention in the first place.'

 

[3DVagabond]

For this specific page, we skipped Viewport 2.0 with DirectX 11 and focused on the older SPECapc 2009 suite because it employs OpenGL. I'm only interested in four tests at this point, and we'll come back to the photo-realistic rendering later.

They tested OpenGL because they didn't want to anger Nvidia and AMD by showing their artificial professional card segmentation as pointless.

People always forget how hilariously fragmented OpenGL's specification adherence is.

Just take a look at the common SoC OpenGL implementations and you will know the utter disdain developers actually have for the prospect of writing actual code for it.

People use Unity Engine or they just don't make android games at any efficiency (of effort) at all.

Thanks. Missed that.

 

[Genx87]

I wouldn't count on it. OpenGL had its chance around 2000. It failed miserably.

 

[ViRGE]

The use of OpenGL in portables can have an impact on PC's. The more platforms something supports the better.

Agreed. Any hope OpenGL has of reestablishing its dominance (or at least escaping also-ran status) is going to hinge on OpenGL ES, not OpenGL. Nothing Khronos has done so far gives OpenGL a distinct and desirable advantage, over Direct3D in the consumer/gaming space. OpenGL ES 3.0 has the advantage of adoption numbers and a very tight specification.

 

[Cerb]

Considering even the super duper professional rendering software is switching from OpenGL to DirectX 11, and with both the next gen consoles being DirectX 11.1 (One of them literally just running DirectX 11.1 on Windows 8), I'm fairly sure DirectX is stronger than ever.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/best-workstation-graphics-card,3493-5.html

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/best-workstation-graphics-card,3493-8.html

And, advancements recently in OpenGL have been largely due to GPU vendors needing to adhere to DX hardware requirements.

When OpenGL specifies minimum feature sets like DX, then maybe OpenGL will compete with DX. As it is, it only kind of sort of does so, and only on Windows, where OpenGL support is also perfectly good--at least, assuming Haswell's IGP drivers are not a rehash of NHM, SB, or IB--I haven't definitively found out, yet, but also haven't read any bitching about it.

MS does, with DX, what OpenGL has generally been unwilling to do. It is needed, and spurs on useful OpenGL features as much as its own. If future OpenGL ES versions are made into proper subsets of fully-fledged OpenGL versions, then there might be hope for OpenGL by itself.

 

[Anarchist420]

When OpenGL specifies minimum feature sets like DX, then maybe OpenGL will compete with DX.

The beauty of OpenGL is that it doesn't specify minimum feature sets which means that nvidia and AMD have compete with each other more.

I'd like to see Microsoft and all of their attempts at uniformity and minimum specifications burn to the ground... an estimated 75% of their profits come from patents, it's time to allow the market to pull the rug from under them.

 

[cmdrdredd]

The beauty of OpenGL is that it doesn't specify minimum feature sets which means that nvidia and AMD have compete with each other more.

I'd like to see Microsoft and all of their attempts at uniformity and minimum specifications burn to the ground... an estimated 75% of their profits come from patents, it's time to allow the market to pull the rug from under them.

Yeah cause innovating features doesn't sometimes leave people in the dark ages. This is how you make progress, you drive the market toward upgrading their features to meet the new specifications.

There are very specific DX features that were pretty much invented by Microsoft. I mentioned one previously via a quote.

 

[Lonyo]

Isn't OGL just an open implementation of DX these days, but lagging behind a few years? (In terms of "new" features added).

I mean, come on, OGL 4.4 gets released. Supporting cards? Geforce 400 series. 2013 API supported by a 2010 card.
OGL 4.3, 2012 API supported by a 2009 card (HD5000 series).

The hardware is already there, but the API doesn't support those features until 3 years later. And why is the hardware already there? DX.

 

[Red Hawk]

The beauty of OpenGL is that it doesn't specify minimum feature sets which means that nvidia and AMD have compete with each other more.

I'd like to see Microsoft and all of their attempts at uniformity and minimum specifications burn to the ground... an estimated 75% of their profits come from patents, it's time to allow the market to pull the rug from under them.

Performance competition is good, and that's what the minimum feature sets of DirectX allows Nvidia and AMD to do. What competition would removing those minimum feature sets enable? The only thing I can foresee would be a greater focus on getting AMD or Nvidia's features into games and designing them to perform awfully on the competitor's hardware. We've seen them do this stuff to the extent that they can on DirectX, sabotaging the competitor through programs like TWIMTBP and Gaming Evolved. Thankfully the programmers have to stick to the minimum feature sets, allowing a few driver fixes to restore balance between the two competitors. I view this as a sort of necessary evil, in order to get advanced effects into games.

But without minimum feature sets, you'll get more features like PhysX which are completely unplayable on the competitor's hardware and a larger general performance gulf on sponsored games. And there will be little recourse for the competitor to help performance through driver fixes. The "competition" you speak of seems to only be possible through hurting your competitor's product and its consumers, rather than providing a simply better product that leaves your consumers better off.

As for "the market", OpenGL has been out there with its lack of minimum feature sets for a long time, and it's clear that "the market" has decided in favor of the uniformity and practicality of DirectX.

 

[Cerb]

The beauty of OpenGL is that it doesn't specify minimum feature sets which means that nvidia and AMD have compete with each other more.

Where's the beauty in that? That just means games with shittier graphics, if they don't have to support the same features (remember in the late 90s, when every game only supported a similar subset of OpenGL that was implemented in everybody's hardware, and even then had to make different implementations for them? Yeah, screw that).