|
|
|||||||
| IL-2 Sturmovik The famous combat flight simulator. |
 |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#11
06-24-2008, 06:59 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
Basically the only real difference between Open GL and DirectX in Il2 is Perfect mode period. Perfect mode gives you better clouds etc... But to answer the boader post here in part is the answer What is the difference between DirectX and OpenGL? The answer to this one is: everything. OpenGL was designed ages ago (pre 1990), while DirectX 1 was build (1994) specifically to draw game developers from DOS onto the new Windows 95 platform. DirectX is (to all intensive purposes) a Windows / Mircrosoft only solution, while OpenGL runs on most desktop operating systems that exist (including a variety of embedded platforms). While DirectX provides strong support for many features outside of 2D and 3D Graphics, OpenGL relies on external systems to provide that functionality (potential systems include: SDL, OpenAL, GLUT (OpenGL Utility Toolkit), or even DirectX). What does DirectX Compatible mean? When a graphics card is DirectX 9 Compatible, it means that it supports the DirectX 9 specification and can run software built to run on top of DirectX 9. Due to it’s history, each version of DirectX breaks compatibility with the previous version. As a devloper, I see this as a nightmare for Microsoft and the developers that work with DirectX. Mainly for a developer: if you are qualified in DirectX 10, you need to learn how to drive DirectX 11. Why is there only OpenGL 1 and 2? Considering that OpenGL is the older of the two, these numbers make OpenGL seem way out of date. The simple answer to this question is: Extensions. Where DirectX revises the entire platform with each release to incorporate new features, OpenGL has a system called Extensions. This allowed graphics card vendors to add new functionality without changing OpenGL itself. Those applications and games that needed the Extension can look ask the OpenGL system for the Extension, if it doesn’t exist: the game can work around not having the Extension, or explain to the user that their graphics card cannot support it. Major Extensions in recent years include: Multitexturing Normal Mapping Shaders Why is there no such thing as an “OpenGL compatible” graphics card? Again the answer is Extensions. Because the core OpenGL specification is so simple, almost any graphics card that is capable of any 3D graphics is OpenGL compatible. For that reason, no-one bothers with the idea of “OpenGL Compatible”. Why is there no such thing as an “OpenGL compatible” graphics card? Again the answer is Extensions. Because the core OpenGL specification is so simple, almost any graphics card that is capable of any 3D graphics is OpenGL compatible. For that reason, no-one bothers with the idea of “OpenGL Compatible”. The answer posted above is found by googling the question and is not my own work http://lemnik.wordpress.com/2007/05/...opengl-part-2/ Last edited by Bobb4; 06-24-2008 at 07:05 PM. 
|
|
#12
06-24-2008, 07:06 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Open GL3 has been out since late 2007
For the OP. Have a read > http://www.opengl.org/discussion_boa...&Number=229374 http://www.winmatrix.com/forums/inde...howtopic=13647 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compari...L_and_Direct3D Last edited by KG26_Alpha; 06-24-2008 at 07:17 PM.
|
|
#13
06-24-2008, 07:46 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Doesn't mean OpenGL is bad, but it also doesn't mean it's more important or better than DX. While Unreal was developed, the strongpoints became pretty clear: ID-Software claimed OpenGL was the better choice for the Quake-Engine, because it was easily adoptable for other systems and ran on a very wide array of PCs, with and without 3D-acceleration at high framerates. EPIC decided to go for DX, because it was easier to achieve certain effects. Today this competition is even worse. While OpenGL is widely supported and can be adopted for other OS, DX is used by consoles and opens possibilities to easily exchange programs to and from these platforms.
|
|
#14
06-24-2008, 10:53 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
The misconception is that alot of people probably don't realise that OGL is being used as opposed to DX without them knowing, as per the list i pasted .
The fact IL2 allows you to choose DX or OGL is just another setting amongst many user are allowed to change in the settings, most modern games wont allow such a vast amount of "direct" adjustments. The original IL2 was able to run on 8mb graphics and low system spec and with the progression of hardware it soon caught up with the game engine and what IL2 could look like. Modern games can throw you out of the set up because your graphics/system isnt up to spec (BF2) as happened to my son. Edit> After testing IL2 1946 under DX & OGL with IL2 1946 there are many differences with Nvidea cards and drivers, landscape and water being the major ones. "ATI" I cant comment on as I don't use them. 
Last edited by KG26_Alpha; 06-25-2008 at 12:35 AM.
|
|
#15
06-25-2008, 05:59 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Water-reflections will not render correctly, decals will not show, lighting and particle effects are almost completely gone, even some weapons-effects won't show under OpenGL. And of course it is faster because of that. Just like IL2 is faster under DX. That doesn't mean, though, that UT is optimized or built for OpenGL! (And yes, I know what I am talking about, because I modded UT a lot and even gave a course at university to teach others to do so.) IMHO the main thing about OpenGL is this rebellion-thing again. As the name says, OpenGL is pretty much open, while DX is owned by Microsoft. Bohooo, must be bad, evil, demonic, capitalist crap - how can anybody promote it? Nonsense. Both have their pros and cons, that's all there is to it. As somebody I know from the gaming industry said to me about the difference between DX and OpenGL: "I cannot imagine why anybody would prefer to use OpenGL from the programmers point of view. You get the same effects in OpenGL for a lot of work, you get in DX with just a short single line of coding." Last edited by Feuerfalke; 06-25-2008 at 06:02 AM.
|
|
#16
06-25-2008, 09:43 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Is_the_say...tense_purposes' Bad grammar bothers me. Bobb, I do realize that wasn't your writing. Nice link, though. Last edited by heloguy; 06-25-2008 at 09:46 AM.
|
|
#17
06-25-2008, 11:38 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Seriously though, the main difference b/n the two APIs is slowly becoming a non-issue in terms of graphical feature sets. OpenGL is opened sourced so it is perfectly adaptable to other OS platforms and IMO the code is much more user friendly. The down side is, it only handles graphics. OpenGL 2.1 (I think) is the official version, OpenGL3 is still some time away from being adopted. DX on the other hand is a real biatch to code in (although DXUT is making things easier) but has follow the complicated COM system, but, it can be used for other devices besides the GPUs. DX makes things less complicated when dealing with things like sound cards and gaming input devices. Although is only available on Windows, it is an API that melds well in to the OS. nVidia and ATI support both APIs on the cards we mainly use for this sim and I think it's mute to compare em this way. Both have their advantages and disadvantages and their fan boys/girls. I'm having fun learning DXUT at the moment, but the release of XNA 3.0 CTP has now really got my attention. It's a dream to code in but doesn't have joystick support (but there are ways around that  )
Last edited by Codex; 06-25-2008 at 12:19 PM.
|
|
#18
05-11-2010, 04:58 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Like most have said. Both have their Pro's and Cons...
I prefer to use Opengl when i can...but unfortunately it seems i have to use Directx for IL-2 1946 cause i get severe slow downs in Opengl mode, i'm not sure why. The directx mode runs smooth except for occasional hiccups with large explosions. Probably just some quirk with my GPU.
|
|
#19
05-11-2010, 06:03 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
il2 looks better in OGL
|
|
|
|
Linear Mode
