PDA

View Full Version : Microsoft XNA



WizCraker
03-26-2004, 11:40 PM
Check out the demos on this page.

http://www.microsoft.com/xna/

nerdyguy227
03-27-2004, 09:05 AM
I wonder if it will be the base for Windows Codename Longhorn

WizCraker
03-27-2004, 08:07 PM
No.

Q: What tools do developers get with XNA?
A: XNA tools will include DirectX and the High-Level Shader Language (HLSL), XACT, PIX and the Xaudio API, in addition to other development tools such as Visual Studio.

Q: What does Microsoft XNA offer developers?
A: Microsoft XNA lets developers spend less time constructing and more time focusing on game creation. Microsoft XNA will:

- Enable developers to turn innovation into impact
- Help contain skyrocketing development costs
- Open up cross-device development opportunities
- Make it easier to make blockbuster games because Microsoft XNA is based on familiar development tools
- Allow game developers to focus on game design and spend less time fighting hardware complexity
- Enable life-like graphics, sound and movement
- Enable developers to design for Windows and Xbox simultaneously

Q: What is Microsoft XNA?
A: Microsoft XNA is a powerful next generation development platform that equips developers to deliver breakthrough games while combating rising production costs and ever-increasing hardware complexity. It integrates new and existing tools and technologies from Microsoft and its partners so that developers can make better games faster. Video games on future iterations of all Microsoft game platforms-including Windows, Xbox, and Windows mobile-based devices -can be powered by tools and technologies from the XNA development platform.

"The next version of the Microsoft Windows operating system, code-named "Longhorn," marks a significant change not only in terms of how the operating system works, but also in the way in which applications are built. The Longhorn version of Windows includes a new storage system, natural search technology, and an increased emphasis on security and trustworthy computing."
--"Source from Longhorn: A First Look (http://msdn.microsoft.com/longhorn/default.aspx?pull=/msdnmag/issues/04/01/DevelopingAppsforLonghorn/default.aspx)"

"Longhorn represents the most significant step forward in the Windows platform since the move from 16-bit to 32-bit computing in 1995. "
--Source from Longhorn Developer Center Home (http://msdn.microsoft.com/longhorn/)"

Karmacop
03-27-2004, 09:37 PM
Nice marketing info :p

WizCraker
03-27-2004, 11:04 PM
Thanks. =8-)

T-Light
03-27-2004, 11:50 PM
"catalyst for a new ecosystem" - Microsoft

Hmm,yes, Fluffy talk.

How much and when?

ps, Cheers WizCraker

Jaffro
03-28-2004, 05:16 AM
Q: What is Microsoft XNA?
A: Microsoft XNA is a powerful next generation development platform

So what is XNA again?

nerdyguy227
03-28-2004, 01:08 PM
This is very intrusting

tokyo drifter
03-28-2004, 03:15 PM
I just thought that it was Direct X 10, they just decided to rename it to XNA.

Beamtracer
03-28-2004, 09:00 PM
Originally posted by Jaffro
So what is XNA again? XNA is another attempt by Microsoft to take control of 3D standards, by overthrowing OpenGL and installing its own proprietary DirectX and other devices.

Everyone is happy with OpenGL. Then here comes Microsoft, wanting to supplant it. Do they have to control everything?

claymation
03-28-2004, 09:36 PM
of course, I heard they are going to make pace makers and the OS on toilet paper, there is even rumors of them writing the Lawyer 1.0.0.00.1.1001 to handle their law suits and legal battles.

XNA basicly is a way for them to abstract the the machinery into just calls for transparency or for a shader effect and XNA wil handle telling the hardware what to do or doing it in software. By abstracting out teh hardware I can just focus on adding lots of cool graphic features and XNA will worry about what video card you have so I don't have to. Basically it will save programmers from having to program for every video card.

Karmacop
03-28-2004, 09:37 PM
Well since XNA is a complete development platform and not just a 3d thing, I think you'll find they are trying to take over all game development ;)

WizCraker
03-28-2004, 10:11 PM
Originally posted by tokyo drifter
I just thought that it was Direct X 10, they just decided to rename it to XNA.

DirectX 10 will not be released until the next major release of Windows [Longhorn], end of 2005 early 2006. That would mean the the next version would not be release until summer 2006 winter 2007.

That said, you can expect the next variant of DirectX 9 should be out later this year with updated shader, tools handling.

mgreenway
03-29-2004, 01:28 AM
Go Bill:cool:

Emmanuel
03-29-2004, 03:55 AM
Let's face it, consoles are so popular because they are easier to manage and handle, every user has the same hardware.
PCs are *far* more difficult to handle when developing games.
I don't see anything bad in creating a unified development platform, it doesn't mean that the content will be unified, but as much as everybody would like to have a standard 3D format, as much everybody would like to concentrate on the content instead of having to fight with the environment.
OpenGL or DirectX, I don't care, I only care about getting games to the people :)

Karmacop
03-29-2004, 06:50 AM
What you should be worried about is in 10 years time when to have a game that will run on any system requires the makers to purchase an expensive XNA license.

caesar
03-29-2004, 09:30 AM
I like the Xbox, and I want Halo 2 for my PC ! This XNA is not any driver, is a SDK for the Xbox and the PC - now, if Xbox 2 will use a power pc (like Apple/IBM G5) insted of a pentium, its really confusing....

WizCraker
03-29-2004, 12:00 PM
Originally posted by Karmacop
What you should be worried about is in 10 years time when to have a game that will run on any system requires the makers to purchase an expensive XNA license.

XNA does not add any extra costs to the current license for developers. It is just a tools set to help standardize development between Windows and Xbox.

Who wouldn't want something easier to work with.

Beamtracer
03-29-2004, 03:13 PM
Originally posted by Emmanuel
OpenGL or DirectX, I don't care, I only care about getting games to the people :)
Why does Microsoft want to destroy OpenGL? What do you think their reason for that might be?

What do you think the effect of this on Playstation and Nintendo might be? They don't have the leverage of a Windows OS at their disposal to force people to develop for their platforms at the expense of other platforms.


Originally posted by caesar
Xbox 2 will use a power pc (like Apple/IBM G5) insted of a pentium, its really confusingMicrosoft sees the console as the future of computing in the home. With the PC, Microsoft controls the software but not the hardware. With the console Microsoft hopes to control both hardware and software.

Sure, other companies have controlled both hardware and software, like SGI, Sun, Apple, Be and a long line of others. The difference with Microsoft is that they are using a monopoly in one market to gain a stranglehold of another market. That's the dangerous part of it.


Originally posted by WizCraker
XNA does not add any extra costs to the current license for developers. It is just a tools set to help standardize development between Windows and Xbox.

Who wouldn't want something easier to work with. It will add costs down the track. Microsoft will get their royalties at some stage, there's no doubt about that.

"just a tools set to help standardize development between Windows and Xbox"? You left out "at the expense of other platforms". At the expense of industry standards. At the expense of open architecture. At the expense of innovative new competitors coming onto the market.

Developers of computer games should be worried about Microsoft gaining a stranglehold of the console market. Imagine if there was only Microsoft. MS would decide what games will exist and what games won't. You will have to pay whatever royalties that MS demands to enter their closed console platform. You think that's good?

js33
03-29-2004, 03:59 PM
Beam,

It's already that way in regards to the Xbox and the PC so what would be different in the future?

Cheers,
JS

Karmacop
03-29-2004, 04:11 PM
The difference in in the future maybe MS will be the only company left, so to make games you HAVE to use MS products. Sure XNA doesn't cost anything now, but as people come to depend on it watch it get more expensive ....

WizCraker
03-29-2004, 04:56 PM
Originally posted by Karmacop
The difference in in the future maybe MS will be the only company left, so to make games you HAVE to use MS products. Sure XNA doesn't cost anything now, but as people come to depend on it watch it get more expensive ....

No it will not have a price value on it.

tokyo drifter
03-29-2004, 05:32 PM
Originally posted by Beamtracer
Why does Microsoft want to destroy OpenGL? What do you think their reason for that might be?

What do you think the effect of this on Playstation and Nintendo might be? Playstation and Nintendo don't use OpenGL, they use their own proprietary solutions. Microsoft doesn't want to destroy OpenGL. OpenGL isn't even a good engine for games anymore, Direct X left it in the dust a long time ago. Open GL is good for DCC purposes and the occasional game but ask any gamer out there, Direct X (and XNA now) is a much more powerful game development solution.

tokyo drifter
03-29-2004, 05:38 PM
Originally posted by Karmacop
The difference in in the future maybe MS will be the only company left, so to make games you HAVE to use MS products. Sure XNA doesn't cost anything now, but as people come to depend on it watch it get more expensive .... It's nearly impossible to dethrone Sony as the king of the console market. They have a sizeable majority of the market share and have a huge loyal user base. Not to mention that Microsoft loses money with each X-box it sells. And just wait till Sony releases the PSP, people will be going, "gameboy? what's that?" :)

Adrian Lopez
03-29-2004, 06:37 PM
Originally posted by tokyo drifter
OpenGL isn't even a good engine for games anymore, Direct X left it in the dust a long time ago.First of all, OpenGL isn't an engine, it's an API. Furthermore, the very notion that it isn't suited for today's games is patently false. It may not be as popular as Direct3D, but that doesn't mean it's any less suited for today's games.


Open GL is good for DCC purposes and the occasional game but ask any gamer out there, Direct X (and XNA now) is a much more powerful game development solution.A gamer with no programming experience passing judgment on OpenGL's suitability as a game development tool? Surely you're kidding.

tokyo drifter
03-29-2004, 07:09 PM
Originally posted by Adrian Lopez
First of all, OpenGL isn't an engine, it's an API. I'm sorry, you're correct. I should have said "game engines based on the opengl API"


Furthermore, the very notion that it isn't suited for today's games is patently false. It may not be as popular as Direct3D, but that doesn't mean it's any less suited for today's games. You're right, there's lots of great openGL games coming out like Doom 3. It just seems to me that it's losing ground.


A gamer with no programming experience passing judgment on OpenGL's suitability as a game development tool? Surely you're kidding. Nope, I'm not kidding. I'm just looking at it from an end users perspective. It's like all the people here who comment on Lightwave development that are end users and not programmers.

Fausto
03-29-2004, 07:29 PM
Man are there way too many conspiracy nuts on this planet. I would have thought this the exclusive domain of those late night radio shows not Newtek's forums. Deluded discussions about aliens from other planets, abductions and who really killed JFK are always on topic somewhere else other than here. I add this whole, THE EVIL MS is out to conquer the world bullS%#$* right up there with the rest of it.

Why is it that a monopoly by Apple, they control the hardware and the software, is okay? As was SGI's monopoly when they had their own workstations, and OS configured to only work together. Yet if MS competing in the game console arena want to make it easier for developers to make games for that and any other console that will or may utilize XNA it's discribed as MS wanting to conquer the world.

There's a name for this, it's called having a victim complex. MS is the big old bad wolf, and any wrongs done are done by them.

Bill Gates a man that has given away probably more money than Apple has earned has been described as a geek to the anti christ. Come on guys let a little reality in from time to time, trust me it will make things interesting.

Cheers.

Karmacop
03-29-2004, 07:36 PM
Originally posted by WizCraker
No it will not have a price value on it.

It wont have a price now, but what about in 10 years? What if they discontinue XNA and so then all the developers need to switch to XNA+, because XNA+ is just like XNA only better, and XNA+ does cost?

Don't think MS is doing this out of the kindness of their hearts, they are doing it for money and power.

mlinde
03-29-2004, 09:55 PM
Originally posted by Fausto
Why is it that a monopoly by Apple, they control the hardware and the software, is okay? As was SGI's monopoly when they had their own workstations, and OS configured to only work together. Yet if MS competing in the game console arena want to make it easier for developers to make games for that and any other console that will or may utilize XNA it's discribed as MS wanting to conquer the world. First, Apple's "monopoly" is constantly mentioned to be less than 3% of the computer market, or maybe up to 5%. Explain to me how controlling 3% of a market is a monopoly.

Second, the issue is how MS does things. Microsoft as a corporation (not Bill Gates as an individual) seeks to dominate every market it penetrates, in any way it can. Why did MS make Internet Explorer? Was it to improve the capabilities of web browsing, or to control the software people use to access the internet? Why do they charge less than $1 for a Windows License to PC manufacturers? Why do they lose money on the XBox? The corporate culture at M$ is to control every aspect of your computing experience. Is this any different from the culture at Apple? Maybe not, but Apple certainly isn't in a position to cripple the computer world by releasing a sub-par product, are they?

Karmacop
03-29-2004, 10:41 PM
Having a monopoly isn't illegal, it's abusing a monopoly that is.

WizCraker
03-30-2004, 12:00 AM
Originally posted by Karmacop
It wont have a price now, but what about in 10 years? What if they discontinue XNA and so then all the developers need to switch to XNA+, because XNA+ is just like XNA only better, and XNA+ does cost?

Don't think MS is doing this out of the kindness of their hearts, they are doing it for money and power.

XNA or any version that follows will be charged. It is a set of tools that are pretty much free to the developer. As a developer it does not cost me anything to use the DirectX API and the HLSL. I could just as easly make a game for Windows and sell it without giveing Microsoft anything for Licensing. Why? Because Microsoft know if people like my game they will by it and there fore since it only runs on Windows they will stick with Windows. What does XNA add to the picture it gives the already available tools of DirectX and HLSL and merges the development tools of the Xbox so that I can now make my develop my next game for Windows and the Xbox easier and more streamline with out jumping through loops going between two different file systems. The only licensing fee that I the developer pay is for the rights to develop for the Xbox not for Windows. The cost for the Licensing of Xbox development includes everything for developing for the Xbox only. XNA comes in as a complimentary free addition as Microsoft know if I make the game on both platforms I win and they win. They will never charge for XNA and the price of Licensing will not go up because of XNA. Also the only time I would need to license with Microsoft for Windows is if my software used any part of Microsoft Software outside the scope of Windows.

jamesl
03-30-2004, 12:09 AM
Originally posted by mlinde

Second, the issue is how MS does things. Microsoft as a corporation (not Bill Gates as an individual) seeks to dominate every market it penetrates, in any way it can.

Unlike those benevolent organizations known as Apple and Sony. They were established to spread good will and warm fuzzies for the betterment of all mankind.

ALL COMPANIES SEEK TO EXPAND MARKET SHARE. Steven Jobs doesn't hate Bill gates because of what he's done, he hates him because he beat him to the punch. And I know a bit about how Sony seeks to dominate markets, and is seldom unsuccessful (betamax not withstanding...)

All publicly traded companies are beholden, under law, to endeavor to increase profitability for their shareholders. True fact.

j

Emmanuel
03-30-2004, 02:14 AM
I am not a M$ fanboy, but let's check reality for a moment:
people have always feared that a company like M$ would take over the world and control everything.
The possibility is there, no doubt, but since ten years people hate M$ for the *bad* things they could do, like killing competitors etc.
Have they ? Probably.Is it as bad as those conspiracy paranoids predicted ? I dunno, really, we *still* have mac OS, we *still* have Linux (and companies migrating to both, like Pixar or ILM).
We have M$, and we all now that PC gaming would not be where it is today, if it hadn't been for Windows PCs and thus a common standard.
I like DirectX, I like OpenGL, do I know why ? As a consumer: no.
To me it all looks the same.Does a games developer have to pay to use DirectX in games ? Does a game developer have to pay to make a windows based game ? Heck, if You are after the money, go and make a game that runs on Windows, Mac, Linux, PS2, Xbox and Cube.
Thats probably six (!) different platforms, so M$ obviously haven't been able to dominate the world so far.
I am against stopping our progress just because "M$ could...".
Some poeple see M$ as some kind of AIDS virus, that waits til time has come to annihilate anybody else because they were able to infest each and every thing around us.
And even though I am a SciFi nerd, that sounds and looks a bit *too* unbelievable.
To progress on a broad front, we need standards, and M$ was very able to push those standards, because its one company, OpenGL is a conglomerate of different companies IIRC, and in such a case, democracy is holding it back.Maybe thats a reason why M$ left that boat: too slowly progressing, too many different interests and opinions, too many egos.

caesar
03-30-2004, 06:12 AM
Originally posted by Emmanuel
have Linux (and companies migrating to both, like Pixar or ILM).

I read Pixar just released Renderman for Mac OS 10.3, and announced its moving all theirs linux machines for Mac OS X.3 based G5 within the next few years (www.geek.com) last week, I lost the complete url....



Open Gl is open and limitless in gaming, instead of it DirectX is proprietary and has limits (Half Life 2 is incredable, and uses all the directx capacity), so if you use DX you cant create things beyound its specifications - example: stencil shadows and per pixel lighting in Doom 3. But you have to be a ultra geek for something like that.
Dx is easier and faster to produce, but OGL still is king

mlinde
03-30-2004, 10:39 AM
Originally posted by Emmanuel
To progress on a broad front, we need standards, and M$ was very able to push those standards, because its one company Buying out your competition, driving them out of business by undercutting their prices, and then producing a sub-par product is not "progress" and it doesn't support "standards"

Show me an example where Microsoft has supported and improved the standard of anything created by an international or industry-wide consortium. I doubt you can. Microsoft uses the heaps of money they made with the Office suite of applications, and the market penetration they have with Windows, to force others to utilize their tools and rules. DirectX came about because Microsoft didn't like the fact that the industry didn't take all of their suggestions about 3D as orders. ActiveX came about because Microsoft didn't want to allow an out-of-house technology (Java) to provide additional functionality. Internet Explorere came about because Microsoft didn't want another company (Netscape) to possibly encroach on their desktop. WMA came about because Microsoft didn't like the idea that a freely available, standardized format (AAC, by Dolby) coult take over the downloadable audio formats. BTW, Microsoft charges you as a developer of hardware or software to use WMA, while AAC is free (which is why Sony and Apple both use versions of it in their online music stores).

I'm not saying that Microsoft is wholly evil. I'm saying that their corporate business practices are not about standards or about the best solutions. I'm saying their corporate practices are about controlling every aspect of the computing experience they can by leveraging their market share and profitability. History shows this as a fact.

Matt
03-30-2004, 10:55 AM
If it's as good as the streaming from their site I don't hold much hope!!! ;)

WizCraker
03-30-2004, 11:06 AM
Originally posted by caesar
IOpen Gl is open and limitless in gaming, instead of it DirectX is proprietary and has limits (Half Life 2 is incredable, and uses all the directx capacity), so if you use DX you cant create things beyound its specifications - example: stencil shadows and per pixel lighting in Doom 3.

Strange that you may say that since DirectX support the same Shader Model 3.0 as does openGL. Except for DirectX adopts it faster.

Adrian Lopez
03-30-2004, 02:51 PM
Originally posted by WizCraker
Strange that you may say that since DirectX support the same Shader Model 3.0 as does openGL. Except for DirectX adopts it faster. OpenGL may be slower to incorporate new features as part of the standard, but what it loses in terms of early adoption it gains in terms of well-refined design. The reason it takes so long is to ensure that important design issues are properly addressed (look at OpenGL extension docs to understand the importance of the review process).

For bleeding-edge features you can always use the extensions mechanism, which manufacturers use to expose features not yet supported by the OpenGL core.

WizCraker
03-30-2004, 05:08 PM
In the end it is up to the developer in what they want to use. And I see more DirectX games on the market than openGL so that says something in its self. Just my opinion.

Emmanuel
03-31-2004, 04:17 AM
With all that talk about M$, I wonder why no one complains about Nintendo's developer policies ?
I heard they are pretty strict about who they allow to develop for the cube/gameboy.

caesar
03-31-2004, 05:58 AM
Strange that you may say that since DirectX support the same Shader Model 3.0 as does openGL.


WizCraker, DX CANT do what OGL do - because with OGL you can do whatever you want, the hardware is the limit! DX has closed specifications, if you want any new feature you have to wait for a new DX, but OGL no, just program now!!!!

Except for DirectX adopts it faster. LOL ! OGL is now at ver. 1.5, while DX is at 9.0b LOL

And OGL has no shader model at all - Im not a programmer, but I read lot of it - DX 9.b supports Pixel Shader 2.0, and version 9.c vers 3.0, but ists not released.

Of course there´s more DX games, 80% uses windows! MS dont support DX for Linux and MAc, so DX programing is faster and easier, but is NOT the best - just think all our 3D apps uses OGL! DX is really good, i cant complain, but its always behind OGL

Red_Oddity
03-31-2004, 06:16 AM
Okay people, back down to earth..all of you...

Direct X was designed to do for the gaming industry what OpenGL did for the CAD market...

As for the whole pixel/shader/stecilbuffering bollocks, both support this, not just OpenGL, good example is the CryEngine : http://www.crytek.com/technology/index.php?sx=cryengine

heres' another exerpt at what shaders do and are:


Shaders are simply simple programs that describe the traits of either a vertex or a pixel.Vertex shaders describe the traits (position, texture coordinates, colors, etc.) of a vertex, while pixel shaders describe the traits (color, z depth and alpha value) of a pixel. (Note: In OpenGL parlance this is called a fragment, so OpenGL calles these fragment shaders). A vertex shader is called for each vertex in a primitive (possibly after tesselation) - thus one vertex in - one (updated) vertex out. Each vertex is then rendered as a series of pixels on the screen (or more correctly, onto a surface (block of memory) that will eventually be sent to the screen).

Shaders replace a section of video hardware that's typically called the Fixed Function Pipeline (FFP). This is because it performs lighting and texture mapping in a hard-coded manner, while shaders let you replace this hard-coded approach with a programmable one.



As for the MS taking over crap...bollocks...every company is into this, and yes, out of a result smaller companies dissapear or merge...

caesar
03-31-2004, 06:40 AM
Al right...is it clear to land?:cool:

Red_Oddity
03-31-2004, 06:43 AM
Dunno, there's still some pretty big egos lieing on the landing platform of this forum :D

WizCraker
03-31-2004, 04:26 PM
Originally posted by caesar
Strange that you may say that since DirectX support the same Shader Model 3.0 as does openGL.

And OGL has no shader model at all - Im not a programmer, but I read lot of it

My mistake, I work so much with DirectX that I get caught up in what it can do and forget about OGL. And with the Hardware developers like NVIDIA releasing their SDK to work with the shader model.



...and version 9.c vers 3.0, but its not released.


Not to the general public.

Adrian Lopez
03-31-2004, 04:57 PM
The funny thing about 3.0 shaders is that ATI cards will not support them (http://discuss.futuremark.com/forum/showflat.pl?Board=techdisplayadapters&Number=3553794).

WizCraker
03-31-2004, 07:30 PM
I'll never buy an ATI card again. I always have bad luck with them mostly in Lightwave. NVIDIA cards have always worked without a hitch from their cheapest chip to the more powerful ones. And their is only two thing I want out of my computer something to work with Lightwave and good online game play like UT2k3-2k4.

caesar
04-01-2004, 08:33 AM
WizCraker, do you have info about DX 9.0c? Whats changed, added, improved? What PShader 3 will work for?

ATI cards will be realeased not this time with PS 3, but I read they will jump for PS 4 straight in DX 10 in next 2-3rd new card generation

T-Light
04-01-2004, 10:17 AM
Hello all,

Just to throw another spanner in the works, I read some time ago that Mark Sibly (Authour of Blitz) was working on another software creation program, As with blitz and Blitz 3D this is also geared towards game design. However, this software is aimed at the Windows, the Mac and the Linux markets. Write on one machine and compile for all. :) . This program will use OpenGL, simply because it's compatable across all machines.

Although, I haven't looked into OpenGL a great deal, there seems to be a lot of talk in this thread of one format, for one reason or another being better than the other. Can't really comment, however, last year I bought a new card and wanted to see what DirectX 9 was capable of. I've included a couple of pictures from a program I found on the net. Unlike Microsofts latest demonstrations, this is a functioning program available for download.

It's purely graphical, but I was amazed. Are there any demonstrations for OpenGL that can match this?

Software available at
http://www.daionet.gr.jp/~masa/rthdribl/index.html

Karmacop
04-01-2004, 10:31 AM
Open gl can do exactly the same, don't know if there's any demos though ...

KouunnoHito
04-01-2004, 11:51 AM
edit

caesar
04-01-2004, 12:02 PM
Dudes, OGL can do everything DX can today in realtime rendering and more, its just a programing issue in your code.....Dx needs to wait MS create new features/versions and a new hardware specification....

Red_Oddity
04-02-2004, 02:29 AM
So does OpenGL have to wait for every representative to give the greenlight on a new feature for OpenGL...

OpenGL is dependant on approvement from the OpenGL Architecture Review Board (ARB), and DirectX is dependant on approvement from MS.

So please...

Karmacop
04-02-2004, 04:06 AM
No. Basically each member can add their own extensions, then when they meet they decide how to implement the feature based on the work everyone has done so far. There's also a leading member to make final decisions. I think this is how it works.

People think Open gl is slow to add features, but it's not too much slower these days, that was back when SGI was just lazy.

caesar
04-02-2004, 05:19 AM
Red_Oddity, you´re right, but Karmacop is too. My changes in OGL dont need to be an "ARB official" for mine use...I think the .5 revision in OGL 1.5 now in 10 years says a lot about flexibility than 9 full versions of DX...

Well, whatever, its becoming a nonsense post/thread at all:rolleyes: ...its good to have info about realtime rendering...but my freaking "open source forever - hates M$" mood is higher than ever...

Anyway, I want to play Halo 2 as soon as I could.... :D

stone
04-02-2004, 06:39 AM
its been a while since i've read this much nonsense in a thread.

first off, neither ogl nor dx is limited as such. they are just developed differently. if being a developer for windows only, neither api will limit you. opengl have suffered for a while, from being behind dx featurewise, since the ogl consortium have had a hard time setting standards.

microsoft controls development of dx singlehanded. since its closed source, on could be led to think it would mean less support the latest feautures. in reality however, dx is ahead of the gpu vendors, which is also why dx development has slowed down lately.

with dx you get widespread support under windows from the hardware manufactors, hence you know that dx will push the hardware to its limits.

on the other hand we have the opengl consortium that develops ogl, and suffered from being unable to make decissions due to rivals and different interests competing.

an example is when ati and nvidia both introduces new gpu's which works differently, meaning ogl is unable to democraticaly decide on which route to go of the two. instead of waiting for a resolution, both vendors introduce their own specific extensions to make optimal use of their card, and suddenly the developers have to make gpu specific code paths, which is highly undesireble. so basicly its useless that one can provide their own extensions since it hurts development of ogl and the developers making the applications will try to avoid using them as well.

3dlabs undertook the task to design opengl 2 and the development path for ogl to get there - ogl2 specifications exist and is waiting for hardware to take use of it. shaders was instroduced in ogl 1.5 despite someone writing differently, and the catalyst drivers also support, atleast parts of, ogl2 already.

as for shaders 3.0, there arnt actually much important new to it. ati has chosen to optimise for shaders v2, which might actually be a good move, since it will be a long while till shaders v3 will be widely used, in particular if only nvidia supports it for the time being.

so nvidia will push the marketing and hype shaders v3 for sure, but its highly likely that ati will have the best shader performance.

and as for ati cards versus nvidia cards - saying the one or other is better or worse, is a matter of preferences and marginals. nvidias drivers does perform slightly better in opengl, but then ati performs better in dx - and both performs splendid in lightwave or games when it comes to it.

/stone

WizCraker
04-02-2004, 03:11 PM
Originally posted by caesar
Red_Oddity, you´re right, but Karmacop is too. My changes in OGL dont need to be an "ARB official" for mine use...I think the .5 revision in OGL 1.5 now in 10 years says a lot about flexibility than 9 full versions of DX...

Well actually according to the OpenGL ARB it has gone through 6 releases since 1992. The last of course being 1.5 finalized June 2003 and published October 2003. The seventh release will change the major version from 1 to 2 as OpenGL will have the OpenGL Shader Language integrated in to the Core API. And according ARB the reason it is not 1.6 but 2.0 is because the Shader Language adds programmability to OpenGL. They also stated that Since DirectX is proprietary of Microsoft they can add the latest features and there fore have more releases adopted quicker and OpenGL has to go through each member of the ARB to get implemented in a new version in order to become standardized and Published. I paraphrased this from their publication of OpenGL Shader Language Book that is now available. Which by the way is a very good book on Shader programming, even if you have no experieance.

WizCraker
04-02-2004, 03:25 PM
Originally posted by caesar
Anyway, I want to play Halo 2 as soon as I could.... :D

Which will be in DirectX.

Also the post was to let everybody know of XNA not to make some pissing contest over OpenGL and DirectX.

caesar
04-05-2004, 06:57 AM
Originally posted by WizCraker
Also the post was to let everybody know of XNA not to make some pissing contest over OpenGL and DirectX.


OK, my bad!!!Sorry :o