which grahpics engine do you think looks better? both engines look beautiful but they also look very different from eachother which makes it hard to compare. i dont know why but i think openGL looks better than DirectX. btw, im not an nvidia fanboy.
Depends on the game i guess. I like open gl cause nvidia is the best for open gl and they seem to play smoother for me. I do play css which is direct x and it also plays very well at 1028x768 2aa 4af. Halflife2 for me plays ok but still has annoying hiccups in it. I like both. I have no real answer to which is better. They both are great.
I've always been an openGL fan, ever since 3dfx and GLide. In general openGL games have always looked better imo, more contrast - darker blacks and brighter whites, but this might just be my imagination. The textures seem to be more detailed too, you can see it in UT and the IL2 games.
I agree, OGL is amazing. It is easier on GPUs too because it lacks shaders, which OGL has other methods to impliment shader like effects.
OpenGL here too, it feels like you can have more control over the world of the game if you use DirectX though.
well just think once Vista hits the market it will be the end of Open Gl,because it will only support Direct x and Open Gl is neutered totally. This is in the profile of Vista.
But if you are using OpenGL in Fullscreen, there is no performance problem. Only in Windowed Mode where OpenGL is layered over the D3D Aeroglass interface do you get a hit.
Microsoft's first technical beta of Vista layers OpenGL over Direct3D in order to use OpenGL with a composited desktop to obtain the Aeroglass experience. If an an application runs using a high-performance OpenGL ICD - the desktop compositor will switch off - significantly degrading the user experience.
Are you they're gonna do this, I read that they only did that did that as an experiment in the beta's. And If they do drop it how are we gonna play future games like Quake Wars.
Yeah, that exactly what it says at OpenGL.org. What it means is that OpenGL is layered over the top of D3D for the Aeroglass interface to work, which incurs a speed hit. In fullscreen, the interface is disabled and you get full performance. This is explained in the large thread which the title links too.
I say OGL looks better... and i have since the days of CS 1.0 when switching to it made me go "Wow." I do think that DX preforms better though... it could just be my cards afvantage in that area thats making things seem that way however. The most interesting comparison to do in this case would be the same game on both of these.
OpenGL = Open Source = Always changing That's why I believe it always has the potential to look the best. All the nVIDIA demos are done in OpenGL.
OpenGL for life. All the reasons for OpenGL are what I would have said. I still remember being able to use the crappiest cards to play UT. Just throw in an nVidia card and it would run perfectly. I also couldn't agree more with the smoothness and lower FPS. I'm not sure how they do it, but just looking at CoD 2 shows that it's true.
OpenGL for many reasons and got nothing to do with nvidia being the best for gaming GL. i like the graphics of OGL and how it's more forgiving on your pc, also it doesn't suffer much glitches like Direct3D does, better stability. directX is more like a lottery and it's a lot more dependent on the engine and optimizations the developers did, and it's not too forgiving either. comparing "Chronicles of riddick" vs "FarCry", i have to say farcry wins the graphics war , while riddick wins the perfomance war even though the engine is still jaw dropping, don't you agree? :thumbup:
