OpenGL or Direct Graphics

[Darkwraith]

I have been developing in both graphic libraries, and I find merit in both. My question is which do you think is better.

Thx.

[Zaei]

Sigh. This is a VERY old topic. Both have merits, both have strengths. Both have weaknesses and shortcomings. Know what each is capable of, and choose based on each individual project. You cannot say that "OpenGL is better then DirectX", or vice versa. Its all in what you use each for.

Z.

[Darkwraith]

True, but what I have seen so far in my studies is that OpenGL has far greater capabilities (in terms of graphics and manipulation) than Direct3D, however, Direct3D is easier to use.

[parksie]

I find OpenGL easier to use. Then again that's what I'm used to.

The overriding reason to use OpenGL these days is for portability.

[Darkwraith]

It's simplier in terms of the function calls, but its graphic manipulation (rotating and translating) where the graphic's coordinate system changes makes it somewhat more difficult.

[Zaei]

Originally posted by Darkwraith
True, but what I have seen so far in my studies is that OpenGL has far greater capabilities (in terms of graphics and manipulation) than Direct3D, however, Direct3D is easier to use.

OpenGL gives you "extensions" which allows immediate access to the latest features of the latest video cards. However, you end up writing card specific code (ATI extensions dont work with nVidia cards, etc). DirectX, on the other hand, doesnt give you these latest features, but it DOES give you a single abstracted interface to the hardware, so in theory, code written for one card should work the same on all comparable cards (this will never be true, drivers and card design, etc). However, with a quick release cycle like DX has, its not a big problem.

Z.

[CornedBee]

Have only used DX yet. This will change when I create my linux box.