Tremulous FPS +RTS +GPL.. New game for Frag?

[Mr. Analog]

Agreed.  I apologize if my posts are antagonizing you this week Mr. Analog, as that is not my intent at all.

Oh, but its so much fun.

Hehe

[Tom]

which, considering how decrepit OpenGL is

Unless you meant that OpenGL sucks (in which case I agree LOL).

I dunno. I appreciate the flexibility and ease of use. Especially in OpenGL 2.0, with GLSL. Its quite nice.

I look at the DX API and just shudder. All that COM and LPDIRECTDRAWSURFACENN crap...  eeeuuuhhhhh.

And if you hate GL just due to glVertex and the glBegin/glEnd interface, thats about the WORST way to use GL You want VertexBufferObjects, VertexLists, etc.

I've already got an interesting indirect object interface where objects store all their positional and other data in a interface class, which can be implemented using VBO's, Vertex Lists, or even the horrible glBegin/glEnd interface.

Your "OpenGL sucks" is about the same as "Y'know a lot of Mazdas suck".

[Mr. Analog]

Your "OpenGL sucks" is about the same as "Y'know a lot of Mazdas suck".

Yes, I expected your response and I still stand by that statement. As a WinDork, running a gfx card designed with ActiveX in mind I find OpenGL far less performant. I also do not like the way most of the games I have played that use OpenGL look (Quake, HalfLife) compared to Direct3D (Unreal, Battlefield).



I've read that OpenGL code can look just as ugly as Direct3D code, it's just more accessable to beginners.

[Tom]

Gfx cards are designed for DX?** who does that these days? Nvidia? I'm pretty sure they are devoted to GL as well.

Though the level of ugly is related to (API.ugly * Coder.style.ugly). Where GL.API.ugly == 2, and DX.API.ugly == 8. Even for a really skilled coder with the cleanest coding style, the UGLY api used is going to mess things up You know unless they make an entire wrapper for the ugly api that doesnt look so bad, and you just ignore the code in the wrapper.

And your little GL games vs. DX games, that depends on the team, coders, and artists involved. You just don't like the Quake/HL style.

**) AFAIK even nvidia makes Hardware thats totally API agnostic and just codes whats needed into their drivers. (I know a dude who works for NV in the tech depts)

Yes, I expected your response and I still stand by that statement.

So you think Mazda's suck too?

[Cova]

Gfx cards are designed for DX?** who does that these days? Nvidia? I'm pretty sure they are devoted to GL as well.

I'm pretty sure nVidia cards ARE designed for DirectX first, and GL second - the vast majority of games are DirectX nowadays, though nVidia keeps pretty good GL support around for id games and linux support.

ATI on the other hand are almost purely DirectX.  Everyone knows their GL drivers suck and are slow, and nVidia has been ahead in the benchmarks of GL-based games (read: id games) for ... forever really.  ATI keeps GL support around so that people can't say "but your hardware can't play xxxx"

[Tom]

Designing hardware for a specific software api is a little silly. Now basing it on what the API needs, sure, that  I can understand.

edit:

DX and GL 2.0 have SHOCKINGLY similar "needs".

[Cova]

Designing hardware for a specific software api is a little silly. Now basing it on what the API needs, sure, that  I can understand.

edit:

DX and GL 2.0 have SHOCKINGLY similar "needs".

I don't see any problem with designing hardware for a specific API, I think it happens fairly regularily.  Graphics is a decent example - MS announces what features will be in the next DirectX, then ATI/nVidia announce they have hardware acceleration for it.  DX10 will be pushing unified shaders, ATI did it already in the 360 chip and I'm pretty sure I've read somewhere that their next PC chip will be unified as well.

On a more theoretical level - whenever you want to accelerate some software by hardware-accelerating part of it - you basically have an API (perhaps a very small one, a funtion or a few) and you design hardware that implements it.  Designing chips for a certain specification (eg. MP3 decoding, DVD video playback, etc) is also basically designing hardware around a defined API - but instead of a function (or set of functions) its a defined input and output format.

[Tom]

To me, a GPU card is too complex to design it specifically with something like DX in mind. And the way NVidia and ATI deliver linux drivers, it appears as if my suspicions are correct. they have two parts, a direct source interface between the distributed binary module that actually talks to the hardware, and the kernel api.

With something like a GPU, you take the features you want, define a clear interface for accessing them, and then code for that interface. The fact that GL on windows hasn't ALWAYS been a wrapper around DX would also seem to say that the card exposes a interface which the drivers then use, and then the GFX API ontop of that uses the underlying drivers. Of course the underlying drivers can cater to a single higher level API, as happens with ATI and thier CRAPPY CRAPPY drivers. even thier windows drivers could be alot better. Back when A rage 128 pro was new ATI had the crappiest drivers I had ever seen.

Designing chips for a certain specification (eg. MP3 decoding, DVD video playback, etc) is also basically designing hardware around a defined API - but instead of a function (or set of functions) its a defined input and output format.

Exactly, except its usually lower level than an API like DX will want. As for most MPEG2 decoder chips and MP3 decoders, they accept raw MPEG, and then give you back raw pcm. at least for the more complete mpeg chips. My mini-itx box has one that doesn't actually take raw MPEG streams, you have to give it the individual "frames" or "slices" for it to do its thing, which means you have to parse the MPEG stream first.

[Mr. Analog]

Wow, now I know what to bring up in D&D to get you all angry and stuff... J/K

I don't mean to rail against anyone here but for kripes sake if you think something as broad as GPL gaming sucks in general; Please bring up some reasons and don't get surprised if someone taps you for it.

If you think I'm an asshole for saying it, fine, I can handle that criticism.

Point is, in my earlier post I was trying to illustrate that if I say something that is going to be a divisive topic I should at least expect rebuttal and have some reasoning behind it. When I made my statement about OpenGL I thought it was obviously an intentional TROLL as a joke (too much caffiene for me today or something...). If you want to keep talking about it ('cause, I do think OpenGL has, much like Coach Z, "more than two problems") let's start a new thread instead of sending this one into further off-topic-ness.

And now I will take some time to smile and be happy, I hope you will too.

     

[Tom]

I thought it was obviously an intentional TROLL as a joke

MEEP. Ooops? I've been a little to argumentative I need some TV/Movies/Anime to watch...

[Mr. Analog]

I thought it was obviously an intentional TROLL as a joke

MEEP. Ooops? I've been a little to argumentative I need some TV/Movies/Anime to watch...

I'm not any better, I think astro-trolling sorta gets installed permenantly after a while (too much Slashdot or something, I think).

[Tom]

astro-trolling

Its been a while, but I don't recall Astro Boy being a troll

[Mr. Analog]

astro-trolling

Its been a while, but I don't recall Astro Boy being a troll

Oh he was totaly on the Futuropolis forums starting flame wars about power cells and how much better his OS was compared to Atlus...

[Tom]

I'm speachless.

[Mr. Analog]

I'm speachless.

He made the children cry, so they built a new version...