PDA

View Full Version : How about Direct X View Ports



Danic101
04-08-2007, 01:57 PM
I would like to see Direct X 10 accelerated view Ports in a Vista only version of LightWave, especially with the new hardware coming out from NVIDIA and ATI it would be a hot new feature.

RedBull
04-08-2007, 03:35 PM
This should likely be in the feature requests area.

You must understand that OGL is the professional standard for professional applications, and it's used in LW for this reason. For example, Macs account for around 50% of LW's market share, and do not support DirectX or Direct3D.

So this basically means a difference in coding for Windows and Mac versions,
which doesn't make a lot of sense to Newtek developers i'm sure.
3D studio Max, can get away with it because it's PC only.

Lightwave 5.6 used to have D3D support (not viewports)
but it was never really utilized or updated in subsequent releases.

These days Direct3D can be faster and look better than OGL equiv, and is usually faster than OGL...

As for Vista only support that even more stupid, no self respecting professional would be using Vista for professional 3D, not for many years yet.
So it would be supporting only a very small percentage of users, with a standard of technology we are already using.

Dirk
04-08-2007, 04:45 PM
About Vista - this doesn'T look good:


http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/pubs/vista_cost.html


About DirectX in LW: would be great for game developers. Maybe it's possible to integrate as a plugin?

cresshead
04-08-2007, 04:47 PM
That's a pretty bold statement! Having actually used various "pro" applications under Vista, I can say that they all run flawlessly, except a few viewport errors in LightWave due to the state of current nVidia drivers which is not really something to blame MS for. Some 3d programs actually run better and render slightly faster under Vista. Once SP1 is out, I reckon it's pretty damn solid. Even now it's a better launch than XP was back in it's day, no matter what all the haters who haven't even tried Vista yet says.

People said the exact same thing about XP and here we are... no self respecting 3d professionals using it... at all... or... hey wait a moment! :p

Autodesk has it done right, they support DirectX and there's not a single bad thing to say about having that as an option. None that a Windows user can think of anyway.

Sometimes, I feel that people are hating on MS just because it's popular to so, I'm actually geniunely satisfied with my Windows experience. Not a single system crash, blue screen or whatever in my 3-4 years with XP. I'm pretty certain Vista will be the same, once ironed out a bit.

Not really a MS fan here, but having used Macs since the IIfx, every single work day of the past many years, I have no doubt which is the better platform of the two operating systems.

quoted for total agreement:thumbsup: :D

omeone
04-08-2007, 05:14 PM
At least one expert in this field is predicting the demise of OGL...

...we do expect Direct3D to be the preferred option on the Windows platform going forward. This will be due mainly to the fact that the card vendors will focus more on their D3D drivers...

From the card vendor's view ... the D3D approach will get more attention from the hardware vendors than the OpenGL approach so we'd expect that to be more robust.

Full article quoted:
http://worldcadaccess.typepad.com/blog/2007/02/techsoft_3d_com.html

ercaxus
04-08-2007, 05:33 PM
one thing: D3D is not platform independent OGL is.

cresshead
04-08-2007, 05:50 PM
until something replaces direct3d AND open gl...
give it 3years...all change!

mattclary
04-08-2007, 07:40 PM
one thing: D3D is not platform independent OGL is.

Yes, part of Microsoft's master plan. In 10 years I will be surprised if anyone still uses OpenGL.

MS is not my favorite compant right now, but can't say they have done the wrong thing in promoting DirectX. I think it has evolved past OpenGL and will continue to do so.

hrgiger
04-08-2007, 08:32 PM
Just out of morbid curiosity, where did you get this number from? My intuition tells me that it's a whole lot less, but I've never seen any numbers on it.

Yeah, I'd be surprised if it was 25%, let alone, 50%. I would like to see some hard numbers on that one too...

KevinL
04-08-2007, 08:41 PM
neverko said " I'm actually geniunely satisfied with my Windows experience. Not a single system crash, blue screen or whatever in my 3-4 years with XP. I'm pretty certain Vista will be the same, once ironed out a bit."

Darkside worship?

Have fun.... ;)

AbnRanger
04-08-2007, 08:59 PM
Sometimes, I feel that people are hating on MS just because it's popular to so, I'm actually geniunely satisfied with my Windows experience. Not a single system crash, blue screen or whatever in my 3-4 years with XP. I'm pretty certain Vista will be the same, once ironed out a bit.

Not really a MS fan here, but having used Macs since the IIfx, every single work day of the past many years, I have no doubt which is the better platform of the two operating systems. But you don't understand, those of us who are fine with Windows have to me made to..FEEL...as if MAC's are actually superior. After all, as someone else stated on here, MAC's are Mercedes and we Windows guys are Ford Focus'...
Give me a Freakin' break! So, you like you MAC's. Cool. But stop this d:devil: mn nonesense, telling me how superior your platforms are. If you want to buy a MAC, and always have to wait for programs to support it, and pay a lot of extra cash for it...knock yourself out. But I won't. I'm perfectly fine with Windows, and building my own PC's....with exactly the parts I want.
I have used MAC's in the classroom, while in school, and I didn't find a single thing SUPERIOR about it.
As a matter of fact, I had plenty of crashes using Adobe Illustrator on MAC G5's...not a single one on my Windows XP Desktop at home. Take that "Superiority" crap where someone actually cares.
And yes, Red Bull, I'd like to know where you pulled this 50% figure from...seeing that MAC's make up less than 5%of the overall computer market.

mattclary
04-08-2007, 09:32 PM
But you don't understand, those of us who are fine with Windows have to me made to..FEEL...as if MAC's are actually superior. After all, as someone else stated on here, MAC's are Mercedes and we Windows guys are Ford Focus'...

And my response to that rather ludicrous statement... ;)



Man, I love finding this kind of stuff. So my Mercedes is really built by Ford????? :eek:

http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/archives/000613.html




Asus W3J

Ladies and gentlemen, we have a winner.
Asus is the OEM who manufactures Apple's laptops, and it shows: the Asus W3J hits the sweet spot on all my criteria.


14" 1280x768 widescreen Core Duo
4.4 lbs without DVD-R
Clean, slimline aluminum design
Dedicated ATI x1600 graphics
A nifty swappable bay which supports DVD-R (included), blank bay for lightest weight, an extra battery, or an extra hard drive. "

creativecontrol
04-08-2007, 09:55 PM
I have to agree with Neverko. Direct3D seems to be way ahead and that should not be ignored. Seeing the endless severe problems we've been having with OpenGL and it's lack of great driver support maybe it's time to switch. Out with the old and in with the new sooner than later. You have to ditch old systems from time to time to move ahead.

As far as Mac support, who cares? Any computer is nothing but a box to get a job done. Get over it. If Lightwave can be made to run better on one than the other, great! I'd be saying the same thing if Mac had some great 3D solution but they don't right now.

I wish Newtek would aim their resources at 1 platform, whatever it is. Think about it, you use the OS to launch a few programs. Who cares what it is.

OpenGL hasn't been properly updated in years and moves ahead at the pace of a snail. It was great at the time but those days are done and fading fast. There has been no effort at all to bring significant new ability to it.

Games and gaming cards have made 3D affordable. This should be considered.

Captain Obvious
04-09-2007, 06:06 AM
Just out of morbid curiosity, where did you get this number from? My intuition tells me that it's a whole lot less, but I've never seen any numbers on it.
It's about 35%, actually. modo is about 45% Mac. Maya about 30%. Cinema 4D about 40%.



As far as Mac support, who cares? Any computer is nothing but a box to get a job done. Get over it. If Lightwave can be made to run better on one than the other, great! I'd be saying the same thing if Mac had some great 3D solution but they don't right now.
If NewTek dropped Mac support, they'd lose more than a third of their user base. It's not a finacially responsible decision to make.




OpenGL hasn't been properly updated in years and moves ahead at the pace of a snail. It was great at the time but those days are done and fading fast. There has been no effort at all to bring significant new ability to it.

What the heck are you smoking?


As for D3D, GET FLIPPIN' OVER IT! It ain't faster than OpenGL! Sheesh.

cresshead
04-09-2007, 06:27 AM
direct x autodesks prefered display type for viewports in 3dsmax and as such it can drive more polys and have higher frame rates...of course this is for max not lightwave...but direct x also has more shaders available too for game development...of course it's currently tied into windows.

Captain Obvious
04-09-2007, 06:46 AM
Autodesk doesn't use D3D because it's faster; they use it because they it because, well, why not? It doesn't really matter. Of two things, you choose one of them. Autodesk chose D3D, and stayed with it.

tektonik
04-09-2007, 07:03 AM
we should oppose this thread to the LW on linux one :)

direct-x is a blatant attempt to lock-up the market

they (MS) tried 3 times to kill openGL and it didn't work

i am a windows user but i beleive in open standards

i hate autodesk for their max format wich is opaque (tehrefore i hate 3d models from max)

i love autodesk for the 3d modeling in autoCAD (true volumes) wich is open

Captain Obvious
04-09-2007, 07:10 AM
D3D is not an attempt to kill Ogl. They just wanted their own API, one they could control. How can you HATE models from 3dsmax just because the native file format isn't open?

IgnusFast
04-09-2007, 07:13 AM
The games by id and a few other companies tell me that OpenGL is nowhere near dead, even in the consumer space.

But have you guys ever actually *programmed* anything in Direct3D?? What a mess. Even using the .Net framework, which is just a wrapper on the same old COM objects, it's still a mass of poorly written, ill planned crap.

lots
04-09-2007, 07:14 AM
Autodesk doesn't develop its OGL implementation because it has no reason to. They only develop for windows. And their main focus is games. Games use DirectX (not all but a few...). Since Autodesk doesn't develop for other platforms, the OGL system isn't quite as robust as it should be.

OpenGL and DirectX fill similar roles in terms of 3D. Both are perfectly capable of providing excellent real time graphics, shaders, etc. In fact, because of OpenGL's, well, open nature, it should develop at least as fast as DirectX, if not faster. The real thing to notice here is public awareness. OpenGL, like most open source software is relatively unknown outside of the industry. Microsoft has a pretty massive advertising arm, and so DirectX gets some exposure in the mainstream. It's not because itss better. It's because it's more known. :P

OpenGL is used for the visualizations in Doom3 for example. On its release it was a pretty nice looking engine. Also, knowing Epic, the Unreal3 engine will be fairly platform independent, meaning OpenGL at least for its non windows versions. And from playing UT2k4 on linux, natively, I don't expect the graphics for UE3 to be any different from the Windows version (Granted, I could be wrong :P)

OpenGL will always be platform independent. Most open source software is. Hardware makers like Nvidia or AMD, would do best by ensuring that their drivers cover OpenGL, otherwise they lose market share to non windows users (OSX, Unix, Linux, BSD, whatever else) who will buy hardware that actually does :P While that may not be as big a crowd as the Windows user base, it is a sizable chunk of users that they would be unable to sell hardware to...

lots
04-09-2007, 07:15 AM
IgnusFast: I've coded for OGL, its quite nice actually...

Then again most open APIs are *grin*

creativecontrol
04-09-2007, 08:51 AM
It's about 35%, actually. modo is about 45% Mac. Maya about 30%. Cinema 4D about 40%.



If NewTek dropped Mac support, they'd lose more than a third of their user base. It's not a finacially responsible decision to make.




What the heck are you smoking?


As for D3D, GET FLIPPIN' OVER IT! It ain't faster than OpenGL! Sheesh.


If the market is 35% but it takes half your resources then it's not financially sound. I don't know that it does but my point is that development is very slow. Perhaps if we focused on 1 platform it would help.

As for OpenGL, OK, name something that opengl has brought to the table lately. It can't do anything but draw shaded textured objects (on a good day). Doesn't look any different than 5 years ago. No new shaders that are worth anything, nothing dramatic at all. And we can't even get the most basic things to work like editing a large mesh in modeler. Currently full of bugs such as vanishing geometry etc. Less driver support by current card makers.

I'm not a programmer so I don't know what it's like to work with but it looks like we should at least be considering something else!

Captain Obvious
04-09-2007, 09:02 AM
If the market is 35% but it takes half your resources then it's not financially sound. I don't know that it does but my point is that development is very slow. Perhaps if we focused on 1 platform it would help.
Lightwave is 90% platform agnostic, at least. Developing it for two platforms does not take twice the resources as developing it for one. It's a rather small increase.



And we can't even get the most basic things to work like editing a large mesh in modeler. Currently full of bugs such as vanishing geometry etc. Less driver support by current card makers.
That's not an OpenGL issues; it's a Modeler issue.



I'm not a programmer
That much is PAINFULLY obvious...



it looks like we should at least be considering something else
No it bloody well doesn't.

creativecontrol
04-09-2007, 09:30 AM
Lightwave is 90% platform agnostic, at least. Developing it for two platforms does not take twice the resources as developing it for one. It's a rather small increase.

Have you looked at the bug threads for Mac? Doesn't look like 90% to me.



That's not an OpenGL issues; it's a Modeler issue.

Whatever it is, it needs a solution. Maybe a switch isn't the answer but maybe it is.



That much is PAINFULLY obvious...

Not everyone is a programmer but sometimes it takes a user to point out the obvious. Programmers are sometimes a little too close to their projects to see the big picture. There's also another expression for it.



No it bloody well doesn't.

Yikes! Are you on the OpenGL board of directors or selling licenses or something? You're saying we should never look at any new solution ever?

Captain Obvious
04-09-2007, 09:37 AM
Yikes! Are you on the OpenGL board of directors or selling licenses or something? You're saying we should never look at any new solution ever?
OpenGL is free. You can't sell licenses of it.

Of course NewTek should consider other solutions, if something better appears. But D3D isn't really better, and it's not viable anyway. You seem to think that OpenGL isn't up to par. That's just not the case. You seem to think that the problems with viewport speeds in Lightwave are because of OpenGL, when it's really just a lack of optimizations. Unoptimized D3D isn't faster than unoptimized OpenGL.

creativecontrol
04-09-2007, 09:49 AM
OpenGL is free. You can't sell licenses of it.

Of course NewTek should consider other solutions, if something better appears. But D3D isn't really better, and it's not viable anyway. You seem to think that OpenGL isn't up to par. That's just not the case. You seem to think that the problems with viewport speeds in Lightwave are because of OpenGL, when it's really just a lack of optimizations. Unoptimized D3D isn't faster than unoptimized OpenGL.


I never once said it was faster, all else being equal. However, it does seem to be making advances in shaders and rendering techniques where opengl clearly isn't. This is sad because I prefer an open solution and It was a wonderful thing when SGI released it. Just seems with a lack of development that it's dying a slow, painful but certain death.

As for all the problems, I don't know if it's Newtek's fault or opengl or drivers or what but it is a major problem. I don't know that a D3D is any better but it would be nice to see some testing in this area.

Captain Obvious
04-09-2007, 09:55 AM
However, it does seem to be making advances in shaders and rendering techniques where opengl clearly isn't.
What the heck are you talking about? GLSL has been out for ages now. OpenGL has full access to all the hardware in modern video cards, just like D3D.



Just seems with a lack of development that it's dying a slow, painful but certain death.

No offense, but you don't know what you're talking about.



I don't know that a D3D is any better but it would be nice to see some testing in this area.
Testing would be pointless, because Direct3D isn't a viable option.

creativecontrol
04-09-2007, 10:04 AM
GLSL?? Are you joking? I said useful improvements. GLSL is hardly dramatic, and very slow. Seems to use the CPU for everything so how does that use the newest hardware?

Anyway, no offense taken but it's just an opinion dude. As a casual observer that's what I see. I'm not on the NT development team so my opinion matters little if at all.

This was fun but I have to get back to work (which takes twice as long because of display problems) :)

Captain Obvious
04-09-2007, 10:09 AM
So you are, by your own admission, clueless. Then why do you think your opinion matters?

If you seriously believe that OpenGL cannot render shaders, your knowledge is obviously so limited that you should ask questions instead of giving advice.

Captain Obvious
04-09-2007, 11:25 AM
The fact that GLSL in Lightwave is rubbish does not mean that GLSL is rubbish.

theo
04-09-2007, 11:39 AM
Get up on the wrong side of the hammock today Cap'n? ;)

creativecontrol
04-09-2007, 11:52 AM
So you are, by your own admission, clueless. Then why do you think your opinion matters?

If you seriously believe that OpenGL cannot render shaders, your knowledge is obviously so limited that you should ask questions instead of giving advice.

Ummm...where did you learn to read Cappy? Again not what I said. My opinion matters little because NT is going to do what they want. I'm just one of thousands of opinions but that doesn't mean I shouldn't voice it. Did you come from the old Soviet block by any chance?

Anyway, have you LOOKED at some of DX10's shader capabilities? I have yet to see great realtime volumetrics come from opengl. That's just a small sample.

GLSL in LW is almost useless because it doesn't make full use of hardware.

As for not viable? It certainly is for Max. Part of staying ahead is observing trends in the industry and moving to make use of them in a timely fassion.

AbnRanger
04-09-2007, 12:55 PM
What the heck are you talking about? GLSL has been out for ages now. OpenGL has full access to all the hardware in modern video cards, just like D3D.



No offense, but you don't know what you're talking about.



Testing would be pointless, because Direct3D isn't a viable option.Ok Cap...No offense mind you...So, tell us, are you now the anointed forum programming Guru?
Just a simple question for you, from us "Know-Nothings"...which is PAINFULLY obvious, I must say.
Now that Direct X 10 is being released, and NVidia already has a GPU ready for it...what exactly does OpenGL have to counter it's new features/capabilities? Just curious, you know...

lots
04-09-2007, 01:32 PM
Autodesk doesn't develop its OGL implementation because it has no reason to. They only develop for windows. And their main focus is games. Games use DirectX (not all but a few...). Since Autodesk doesn't develop for other platforms, the OGL system isn't quite as robust as it should be.

OpenGL and DirectX fill similar roles in terms of 3D. Both are perfectly capable of providing excellent real time graphics, shaders, etc. In fact, because of OpenGL's, well, open nature, it should develop at least as fast as DirectX, if not faster. The real thing to notice here is public awareness. OpenGL, like most open source software is relatively unknown outside of the industry. Microsoft has a pretty massive advertising arm, and so DirectX gets some exposure in the mainstream. It's not because itss better. It's because it's more known. :P

OpenGL is used for the visualizations in Doom3 for example. On its release it was a pretty nice looking engine. Also, knowing Epic, the Unreal3 engine will be fairly platform independent, meaning OpenGL at least for its non windows versions. And from playing UT2k4 on linux, natively, I don't expect the graphics for UE3 to be any different from the Windows version (Granted, I could be wrong :P)

OpenGL will always be platform independent. Most open source software is. Hardware makers like Nvidia or AMD, would do best by ensuring that their drivers cover OpenGL, otherwise they lose market share to non windows users (OSX, Unix, Linux, BSD, whatever else) who will buy hardware that actually does :P While that may not be as big a crowd as the Windows user base, it is a sizable chunk of users that they would be unable to sell hardware to...

Just to quote my self :P

Anyway I agree with Capt. Having codded (and currently coding) for OpenGL, It is not any less capable than DirectX. You can write shaders of all kinds for OpenGL, just like you can for DX. You can access the hardware just as well with DX as you can with OGL. Maybe even better because its not a convoluted MS API. What IS different is the marketing arm behind OpenGL. Which is basically none. So in the main stream (outside of developer world) no one knows any better :P Microsoft has a huge marketing dept. Thus, DirectX gets better exposure. Alot of things that DX has picked up recently have been available for a while in OGL.

Just look at what Id and Epic do with OpenGL.

As for Lightwave's performance with OpenGL, that is a lightwave problem, not an OpenGL problem. Just because there's an API for it doesn't mean that the engine you write based on that API is well written. NT knows its issues with its current OpenGL implementation (which before 9.0 was not a real OGL implementation anyway :P ). And they are working on it.

Also, note the name OpenGL. Meaning open source, meaning free for anyone to download, modify, and redistribute. This ultimately makes it the better of the two.

According to the wiki on OGL, as of OpenGL 2.1 DirecX10 like features are available through extensions to OpenGL.

Also, check out the following links for more info:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenGL
http://www.opengl.org/about/overview/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_Direct3D_and_OpenGL

lots
04-09-2007, 01:39 PM
5 min time limit:

I meant free for anyone to download and use. It does not use GPL licensing, so its a bit different in the requirements. OpenGL is free for developers to develop for, but costs a licensing fee to build into hardware and drivers. It is also controlled (developed) by the ARB (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenGL_Architecture_Review_Board)

creativecontrol
04-09-2007, 01:49 PM
Well, I'm glad to hear it. Changing systems is always difficult and if we don't need to that's great. I'd just like to see some results.

One concern is the reduced attention the OpenGl side of drivers is getting. Not a good sign.

Verlon
04-09-2007, 06:44 PM
Captain is just cranky about this because he loves his Mac...

OGL? DX10? Glide? Whatever? I do not care. What I want is better and faster and easier.

I'll leave the how of it to NT. If they can make Lightwave better using DX10, so be it. If they want to stick with OGL, so be it.

One thing we CAN be sure of is that NT is a LOT better informed about what they can and can't do efficiently than we are. Let's leave the decision to them. Really, does it matter so much to us as long as it gets done right?

AbnRanger
04-09-2007, 08:13 PM
Captain is just cranky about this because he loves his Mac...

OGL? DX10? Glide? Whatever? I do not care. What I want is better and faster and easier.

I'll leave the how of it to NT. If they can make Lightwave better using DX10, so be it. If they want to stick with OGL, so be it.

One thing we CAN be sure of is that NT is a LOT better informed about what they can and can't do efficiently than we are. Let's leave the decision to them. Really, does it matter so much to us as long as it gets done right?One thing I do know is that, with Max, more and more plugin developers are leaning toward Direct 3D (Polyboost and Redviewer, are two that recently come to mind). Wonder why?

lots
04-09-2007, 09:49 PM
Because in Max, the OpenGL implementation sucks (from what I understand, even more so than it did in LW). And most uses for max center around the gaming industry, so using an API that alot of games use is handy..

It doesn't mean OGL is less capable.

I mean look at it this way. Why did we ever use VHS when there were better solutions out there? Its not because it was better..

TripD
04-10-2007, 02:14 AM
I've a question for all of you guys. To me, it seems that if NT is going to make advances in it's modeler preview windows, wouldn't it make sense to make those advances in such a way as to proximate the final result in Layout? What I mean by this is, what advantage is there to using the latest Open GL shader models if they in fact are not how Layout will provide shading in the final render? Or are those shaders used in Layout's computations as well?

I can understand how using Windows shaders might benefit (for game developers) if they are used directly in the games being created, but I don't see how either choice, OpenGL or the windows version would benefit if the final output is nothing like it.

Nota Bene: I am not taking any sides in this discussion!

lots
04-10-2007, 07:06 AM
To my knowledge neither layout or modeler show any shader information in the viewports. Also the advances coming to Modeler are derived from the advances to Layout's OGL speed in 9.0.

John the Geek
04-10-2007, 07:44 AM
As consumers, we should pool our support for the platform that better supports us. OpenGL strives to do that, DirectX is just out to screw Microsoft's competition.

If we put more support into openGl it would easily surpass DirectX and we'd all be happy. Performance and compatibility, right? That's what matters, I keep hearing in this thread over and over again.

Supporting DirectX only accomplishes one of those two goals, and will never run on anything outside of Microsoft. Which makes it much less desirable.

And then for how long? If MS does crush OGL, then what? Remember what happened with Internet Explorer? Once Netscape was obliterated IE just stalled for many years and many users eventually switched to Firefox. Microsoft only cares about winning, not supporting the customer.

Once DirectX is dominant they won't have to support it much anymore because it will be the mainstream norm and people will still pay to use simply because they have to.

Verlon
04-10-2007, 02:16 PM
As consumers, we should pool our support for the platform that better supports us. OpenGL strives to do that, DirectX is just out to screw Microsoft's competition.

If we put more support into openGl it would easily surpass DirectX and we'd all be happy. Performance and compatibility, right? That's what matters, I keep hearing in this thread over and over again.

Supporting DirectX only accomplishes one of those two goals, and will never run on anything outside of Microsoft. Which makes it much less desirable.

And then for how long? If MS does crush OGL, then what? Remember what happened with Internet Explorer? Once Netscape was obliterated IE just stalled for many years and many users eventually switched to Firefox. Microsoft only cares about winning, not supporting the customer.

Once DirectX is dominant they won't have to support it much anymore because it will be the mainstream norm and people will still pay to use simply because they have to.

What do you think OGL is out to do? Do you think those coders are doing just to make a better world? If so, why pay a licensing fee to use it? OGL is out to screw OGL's competition.

Everyone wants their product to be successful. They fight tooth and nail to make it so. DX and OGL are no exception (no offense, Exception :) ). The most obvious way to do this is to have the best product.

DX gets a LOT of man-hours thrown at it by people whose paychecks depend on it. No atter how much you want to hate it, some of those DX10 demos are really impressive. That's why its DX10 and OGL2.1.

No matter how much you belittle it, OGL gets a LOT of man-hours thrown at it as well. Some would argue since it's primary focus is 3D applications like Lightwave, it is better for what we do than the gaming oriented DX series.

Really, this is like arguing that NT should code in Visual C++ instead of C (or the other way around). Again, lets leave it up to NT. They know which one they can better implement. I think this is one of the 'under the hood' things that shouldn't make that much difference to us, unless your system only supports one or the other which is why the Mac guys hate this idea. Apple CAN'T license the APIs because Microsoft WON'T sell them AFAIK. I think cutting off the Mac segment of out group would do us no service. I would wager that MOST of the Mac users would see a switch to DX as a sign of NT abandoning Mac users in the future (and possibly jumping ship earlier, thus creating a self-fulfilling prophecy).

Now I may not particularly LIKE Captain Obvious, but he does know quite a bit and sometimes drops a useful idea out there. I'd personally like to pillage that brain for every bit of information I can before sending him and that cutesy little overgrown ipod of his packing off into the the silicon sunset of Mac 3D land (no offense Cap'n).

I guess that kinda leans me toward the OGL group, but I can live either way. I think if NT wants to switch to DX, realistically, they will need all their ducks in a row and release such an AMAZING version that we are all literally stunned. It would have to be so amazing that the Mac users would be rushing out to buy Windows so they could run the DX version instead of the OGL (and you can imagine what THAT would take).

lots
04-10-2007, 03:28 PM
Well I guess my point is, that the two are relatively similar. The advantage of OGL is platform independence, something DX will never have. And for LW's uses, this probably puts the ball squarely in OGL's court.

You are right, OGL is out to be the dominant API. But it does have the backing of just about every other company (AMD, Intel, Nvidia, etc). In fact even Microsoft was part of the ARB up until 2003. That is much more than DirectX, which is steered solely by MS. Again, many popular game engines use OpenGL for the visualizations. Doom3 and UT2k4 are good examples of this.

Anyway, in the end, both are free to develop for. The license fee only comes into play for the hardware guys who have to add all those logic circuits to the GPUs.

Elmar Moelzer
04-10-2007, 03:54 PM
Well, I am always for more choice in terms of API and I would not mind having support for Direct 3d, or... other means of displaying graphics in realtime in LWs viewports...
Now, I want to relativate a few things here:
I dont think that it is NTs job to implement all this. I do think though that it might be a good idea for NT to allow 3rd parties to add new display modes for LWs viewports.
Mind you that this is not an easy task since you have to make sure that there is no conflicts (e.g. you cant run DX and OpenGL at the same time in the same application).
For gamedevelopers I think it would be much more beneficial if their OWN engine could run in LWs viewports showing exactly what their game would look like, not just a Direct X implementation the way NT did it.
Something that NT does to provide a preview of their surfacing in a viewport, can differ from a game- DirectX- engine implementation in oh so many ways, that it would be completely pointless to use other than for previewing certain shaders, maybe. In fact it might not be any more useful than LWs current OpenGL is.
Also by leaving the implementation up to 3rd parties, NT could keep focusing on things that benefit all of their users (like OpenGL) and dont neglect a quite considerable part of them.

LWs OpenGL speed has seen a lot of improvements already and I am sure we will see a lot more in the near future, so lets not just bash that.
MAXs OpenGL implementation is way worse than LWs and thats the reason why the DirectX implementation in MAX is so much better, the OpenGL is just so bad ;)

Further, someone mentioned volumetrics that would not be possible in OpenGL...
Well here sir is a couple of screenshots showing our own OpenGL realtime volumetric rendering in action, running in LWs viewports:
http://www.mediastudio-graz.com/volumedic/images/screenshot_heart.jpg

http://www.mediastudio-graz.com/volumedic/images/screenshot_head02.jpg

I am sure that others can do even better than we did, but it should prove the point that it is "quite" possible to do with OpenGL (and GLSL shaders).

We are currently looking into getting a DirectX implementation of this going with the kind folks of Shaxam and I am very much looking foreward to seeing how this compares. I somehow expect the DirectX-implementation to be faster and look better (and not just because these guys are really, really good!!!), but I dont want to get my hopes up to much. After all the API can only be as good as the GPU permits.

Oh, for all those that want Direct X and Linux, well you cant have both, sorry...
CU
Elmar

RedBull
04-10-2007, 04:19 PM
That's a pretty bold statement! Having actually used various "pro" applications under Vista, I can say that they all run flawlessly, except a few viewport errors in LightWave due to the state of current nVidia drivers which is not really something to blame MS for.
Sometimes, I feel that people are hating on MS just because it's popular to so, I'm actually geniunely satisfied with my Windows experience. Not a single system crash, blue screen or whatever in my 3-4 years with XP. I'm pretty certain Vista will be the same, once ironed out a bit.

Not really a MS fan here, but having used Macs since the IIfx, every single work day of the past many years, I have no doubt which is the better platform of the two operating systems.

Wow you really know how to get your Vista rants from your paranoia into my posts! :)

No self respecting professional would be using Vista, than indeed it's a true fact is most large corporations are still using Win98 or W2K, maybe XPSP2. But no large company adopts a new OS apon release, for an IT administrator to do so would be extremely bad form.

Not to mention the lack of any performance enhancements, and cost of upgrading 300 networked rendernodes with an immature OS, to run an already established program that does not require Vista and has worked flawlessly without it.

Nobody is bashing Vista or Microsoft, so don't go getting on your high horse..
Nor did i say it couldn't run programs or MS is the devil...And let's save the Vista rocks posts for someone that cares about them..

The only people who adopt new technology so swiftly are newbies, hobbyists or enthusiasts, not professionals... That doesn't mean certain applications won't run, it means you are likely a hobbiyst... Do you make you living from LW? Do you work for a large studio?

I know none of the FX houses near me have Vista anywhere near their workstations or network, because they are businesses.. And they won't be even considering until multiple service packs are introduced. (if at all)

I'm currently typing this on Vista on my Internet machine, it will be a cold day in hell before it's installed onto my Workstations. But each to their own...
But you won't see a majority of LW users using Vista for many years..

PS... I have seen the Mac/PC stats posted on various threads over the years and it included some comments from Chuck and my Newtek Dealer (Darryl) who posted they sell about 50/50 Mac/PC.....

RedBull
04-10-2007, 04:41 PM
My 0.2 cents...

D3D IS faster than OGL these days, in the last few revisions D3D is faster.
Better yet write a test application spinning triangles, in both D3D and OGL and you will see if your code is fairly even that D3D is faster..... :)

If you try Max or Deep Exploration, have a look how much faster it can be.
(Deep exploration has 2 flavours of DX and they are both faster and display image maps with less distortion) than OGL.

It's more of a pain to write code, with DX typically taking twice as many lines of code to achieve the outcome. However with Nvidia often optimizing certain DX functions to give them artificial or actual performance increases in the latest games, and wanting to charge Quadro prices to receive OGL optimizations.

Microsoft want DX to win and it will, they left the OGL consotrium year back, because OGL was moving too slow in it's development, OGL2 standards were years behind on ratification.

OGL is still alive and kicking, and it's heaps better for me personally....
But D3D is definately moving forwards at a much greater pace, Nvidia and Microsoft will see to this, not until around DX7 was DX an actual useful technology to compete with OGL, but it is now and DX10 will make the gap bigger.

As mentioned game production is quite important to 3D in general so Max has made a smart decision in this respect.

Phil
04-11-2007, 04:40 AM
PS... I have seen the Mac/PC stats posted on various threads over the years and it included some comments from Chuck and my Newtek Dealer (Darryl) who posted they sell about 50/50 Mac/PC.....

It's worth perhaps noting that every license is dual platform (in terms of Windows vs Mac) for LW. That 50-50 split could be explainable in that sense. Certainly, if there was a direct split of the actual market, one would expect far more plugins to be available for Mac than currently are - commercial, if nothing else. Ignoring 50% of your potential market, as a vendor, makes no sense. One mitigating factor would be the obsolete development environment that LW 'stable' is based on. We'll see once UB LW hits the streets.

Captain Obvious
04-11-2007, 12:15 PM
Keep in mind that developing plugins for the Mac version was a huge hassle, because of CodeWarrior. I really think that the UB will help in this regard.