|
Title: Open GL vs Direct 3D (Which is better?) Post by: Footman on 2005-03-17, 02:41 I was never really sure. So I'm turning to you guys to help solve my little dilemma.
Title: Re: Open GL vs Direct 3D Post by: Tabun on 2005-03-17, 02:43 Just go and see who developed and promotes the use of direct3d. Then go seek open source solutions and come to the same conclusion as I have. OpenGL kicks D3D's arse.
Title: Re: Open GL vs Direct 3D Post by: Chilvence on 2005-03-17, 07:27 OpenGL was stable and fully matured when D3D still needed to have its nappies changed regularly. I can really see no legitimate, sound reason why D3D was created, which makes me thing even more that it is just a ploy to choke people into using Windows eternally. And I usually dont bother with paranoid MS conspiracy theories :)
Title: Re: Open GL vs Direct 3D Post by: Lordbane2110 on 2005-03-17, 10:39 Open Gl Quite Easily kick's ass
Title: Re: Open GL vs Direct 3D Post by: Phoenix on 2005-03-17, 18:53 Direct3D sucks. It's a Microsoft API. That's reason enough.
Title: Re: Open GL vs Direct 3D Post by: death_stalker on 2005-03-18, 05:10 :thumb: Open GL rocks!!! :thumb:
Title: Re: Open GL vs Direct 3D Post by: Woolie Wool on 2005-04-02, 07:53 D3D is (at the moment) more powerful than OGL and the D3D version of FreeSpace 2 Open doesn't crash on startup. Of course, either of these could change at any time...
Title: Re: Open GL vs Direct 3D Post by: Chilvence on 2005-04-02, 16:31 Yeah, but can D3D make toast? HUH?
Title: Re: Open GL vs Direct 3D Post by: Woolie Wool on 2005-04-02, 18:20 OpenGL doesn't either. Besides, who would want to use a computer as a toaster?
Title: Re: Open GL vs Direct 3D Post by: Phoenix on 2005-04-02, 19:48 I've seen a PC that makes coffee, so why not a toaster?
Title: Re: Open GL vs Direct 3D Post by: Lordbane2110 on 2005-04-03, 00:41 Sure Why Not
id love if it could make me toast, coffee, iron hell do everything so I didn't have to move my lazy ass from the PC :)~ |