Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Direct3D 10/11 Is Now Natively Implemented On Linux!

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • I dont undestand you guys. You are not considering those whole people who have been trained in directX mode. Most people dont like to investigate and learn new things (me do like but I understand the other side people), if there are so much more knowledge base about Direct3D you cant expect coders to know any other technology. I have seen in the university lots of "Learn to code on directX" and sadly noone of OpenGL.

    Dont get me wrong, Im a pro Linux guy, for example, in my College Microsoft gives for free all kind of licenses, that way, It asures they create an army of zobies programmers that only knows his technology. My teachers imparted only Visual Basic .NET classes over Visual Studio and you cant figure how many hours (and mails to the mono mailing list) I have to investigate to do my proyect using mono (Im talking about 2006 because I have no windows long ago) and the time I spent to convince the teacher to accept my project in a technology he dont know (yeah, teachers here do nothing more than necesary to get payed). That way Microsoft works, making things hard for people like me.

    Its like java, a technology that I hate, but finished getting an open source "version" only because there are lots of programmers half-brained that have no skills to learn something diferent. And lots of people joy of this.

    This time is the same, I cant imagine Svantalf going those game-maker companies saying "You are doing it wrong, but dont worry, im going to train your developers for free". Im sure if the guys that lie in those companies were good in OpenGL mode the didnt use Direct3D, but I doubt they are. For this reason Im so happy to receive this news of a working Direct3D 10/11 state tracker. I hate those who make the "go ahead with OpenGL or die, if you try to come back we shoot you" (2? World War mode) or better explained as "or OpenGL or nothing here in Linux"

    Comment


    • Originally posted by BlackStar View Post
      Big enough So, 1 modern AAA game in OpenGL vs how many in D3D? OpenGL is the API of choice, yeah.
      Two.:-P Or rather everything they have released on Mac. They run Direct3D on Windows, but OpenGL on everything else.

      Originally posted by BlackStar View Post
      Additionally, that little company ID has abandoned OpenGL on Windows, is using OpenGL 2.1 on other platforms and has been bashing OpenGL for years. You need to brush up your knowledge, we are not in 2003 anymore.
      Oh, time for YOU to check your facts, this is from 2008:
      MPC: So, you said Rage is a 60Hz game. Is it an OpenGL or DirectX game?

      JC: It’s still OpenGL, although we obviously use a D3D-ish API [on the Xbox 360], and CG on the PS3. It’s interesting how little of the technology cares what API you’re using and what generation of the technology you’re on. You’ve got a small handful of files that care about what API they’re on, and millions of lines of code that are agnostic to the platform that they’re on.


      So yeah, FUD. And trolling.
      And since you seem to only make rootless claims and random bashing I think I have nothing more to say about this.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Yezu View Post
        So... Why is anybody so sure that D3D is better?

        I've been working with 3d graphics for some time now, both on the desktop and mobile, and my opinion is totally opposite of that.
        Heh... I missed this gem. It should be read and re-read.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Svartalf View Post
          Let's see...

          Quake III:Arena
          Doom III
          Quake IV
          World of Warcraft (We tested it at AMD when I was doing work for them...as an OpenGL sustaining engineer...)

          Oh, you meant recent stuff...hm...

          Chronicles of Riddick: Escape From Butcher Bay (Yes...)
          Portal (MacOS version...)
          Doom4 (Claimed...)

          Heh...name one...just go looking around- there's quite a bit.


          Nope. It wasn't a "better" one. It just exposed "nifty" stuff that might have "simplified" some of the graphics effects programming.
          Direct3D *is* provably better. Trivial example: try using FBOs in a cross-platform application that must run on Intel IGPs. It's impossible unless you use D3D on Windows (and prayers on everything else).

          Another trivial example: integrating OpenGL middleware in a clean matter is nigh impossible. You either have to save and restore all OpenGL state or simply reset after every external call. This is error-prone, slow - and almost completely unnecessary on D3D.

          Third example: how long did we wait for VBOs and FBOs on OpenGL? Do you remember those days?

          Fourth example: program binaries. Only SEVEN years late.

          Fifth example: how does FBO blit work for you on Ati and Intel cards? Try blitting depth/stencil FP formats for extra fun. Ever got 100ms stalls while Nvidia recompiles its shaders? Or slow paths depending on uniform usage on Apple?

          Need I go on? There's a reason why Google is working on the Angle3d project.

          They're not awful- they're poorly implemented in the case of some aspects thereof (differing ones for NVidia and AMD...)- and this isn't the fault of the API and more a fault of the vendors not putting quite enough manpower against the issue in question. And, more to the point, this doesn't fix that issue- a D3D state tracker won't magically make it "better", full on drivers with it might, but then they'd also make the 3D stack situation with OpenGL better as well.
          It certainly *is* the fault of the API when noone seems to be able to get the implementation details right (Intel, Ati, Apple, Mesa, Nvidia are all incompatible in different ways).

          Obviously a new D3D state tracker doesn't fix all that. But a single person *did* manage to add preliminary D3D10/10.1/11 code before Mesa even got OpenGL 3.x (not to mention 4.x). And this is saying a lot - the Mesa people have been working on OpenGL for years.

          Comment


          • Just a clarification -- OpenOffice is fine when working with the Open Document format. The formatting issues are related to MS formats and conversion.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by John Carmack
              "It’s still OpenGL, although we obviously use a D3D-ish API [on the Xbox 360], and CG on the PS3. It’s interesting how little of the technology cares what API you’re using and what generation of the technology you’re on. You’ve got a small handful of files that care about what API they’re on, and millions of lines of code that are agnostic to the platform that they’re on."
              Heh... I had to re-quote this, folks. Read it and comprehend just precisely what he's saying here. It is basically the same thing I've been saying for YEARS about ports, etc. now.

              Comment


              • id not only dislike Direct3d, but they are an important member of Khronos, and thus help define the OpenGL standard.

                Carmack's bitching about OpenGL goes back to 1.5 and early 2.0 days, when it was really becoming a mess and falling behind.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by BlackStar View Post
                  It certainly *is* the fault of the API when noone seems to be able to get the implementation details right (Intel, Ati, Apple, Mesa, Nvidia are all incompatible in different ways).
                  Considering that NONE of them typically get the D3D stuff right all the time either... (Don't tell me that they do, I worked for AMD as a sustaining engineer at one point, in the old Marlborough offices...there was all kinds of bug triage and fixing at similar levels to the woes we see with the Linux stuff- it just gets fixed faster because they put more efforts into it over OpenGL.)

                  I'll ask again- have you ever coded for either? If not, please don't be making comparisons as you've little clue on the subject.

                  Comment


                  • How about this, big boy?

                    Beyond3D: John Carmack not as interested in Linux (and OpenGL?)

                    A german publication has posted an interview with Todd Hollenshead, id Software's CEO, that reveals id Software and John Carmack are no longer as committed to Linux as they have been. Todd's words also imply that the Windows version of id Software's next game, Rage, will use Direct3D rather than OpenGL.
                    [...]
                    In this interview Todd mentions that a Linux version of id Tech 5 is not planned; he also goes on to mention that John Carmack is no longer as interested in Linux and that Rage will be a DX9 game, not DX10, and will run on Windows XP. Despite this, the game will ship for the Mac using OpenGL.

                    Comment


                    • The one you quoted was from 2007 BlackStar - Carmack cleared this up later (see the 2008 original quote).

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X