

Khronos Group releases OpenGL 4.1, claims to leapfrog Direct3D 11 - yanw
http://arstechnica.com/software/news/2010/07/khronos-group-releases-opengl-41-claims-to-leapfrog-direct3d-11.ars

======
ajg1977
Unfortunately it really doesn't matter what's in an OpenGL spec, nor how it
compares to Direct3D. What matters are which features the hardware
manufacturers choose to support and how well they do so. If the past is any
guide then OGL will continue to lag Direct3D for a long time to come.

Apple are probably the biggest supplier of high-end OpenGL capable hardware+
outside of the PC market, but unfortunately neither they nor their hardware
partners offer full support for OpenGL 3.0 - despite all Mac's manufactured
since late 2008 being capable). Even older games such as Portal or Half-life 2
run about 50% faster under Windows & Direct3D on the same hardware.

I've developed with both Direct3D and OpenGL on multiple platforms for most of
the past twelve years, as well as using platform-specific APIs like libgcm on
the PS3. At the end of the day they are all just tools and a means to an end.
Those with the best support and tools are the ones I most enjoy using.
Currently that's Direct3D, with an honorable mention to libgcm on the PS3.

(Unlike the Ars article suggests, nobody serious is writing games on the PS3
using OpenGL)

------
rbanffy
IMHO, the killing feature is not requiring Windows...

Seriously, I don't get why one must compare OpenGL, that is cross-platform and
runs everything between small phones and visualization workstations to a 3D
acceleration library that runs on only one OS and is heavily targeted at
games.

~~~
ajg1977
Windows, Xbox, Xbox 360, Zune HD, and the upcoming Windows Phone, all run
Direct3D.

If you've run Vista or Windows 7 lately with an Aero capable card, then much
of your desktop experience was rendered by Direct3D.

Finally, Firefox 3.7, Office 2010, Internet Explorer 9, and many more upcoming
apps, all make use of the Direct3D rendering layer (via Direct2D) for hardware
accelerated rendering.

So yeah, these days it's used in more than a single OS and for a lot more than
just games :)

~~~
rbanffy
s/cross-platform/cross-vendor/

Did you notice you mentioned one desktop OS, one dead failed console, one
successful console, one failed media player still on sale and an OS that
hasn't hit the market and that has, consequently, no market share, all made by
the same company?

How does that remotely compare with the breadth of vendors, device formats,
architectures and operating systems OpenGL covers? My phone runs it. My laptop
runs it, as does every high-end visualization system I ever used.

~~~
ajg1977
There's a pretty good chance (e.g. about 100%) that anything you would want to
run on that high-end visualization system won't run on your laptop, and
anything you would want to run on your laptop won't run on your phone.

If your definition of success is to be running on the broadest spectrum of
devices with no regard to marketshare, adoption, or interoperability, then
you're right - OpenGL is far more attractive than Direct3D. Ditto Linux over
OSX/Windows.

My interests are driven more by market realities.

Having a wide breadth of device vendors and formats is NOT attractive when
considering what platforms to target. This is one reason why games on iPhone
are far more prevalent than Android - there are basically three iPhone
revisions to worry about, compared to a dozen Android handsets that all have
slightly different specs, capabilities, and driver bugs.

If OpenGL sees accelerated adoption over the next few years it will be because
it's the chosen API of the wildly popular and relatively homogeneous iOS
family of devices, not because it has the greatest breadth of hardware
support.

~~~
rbanffy
> There's a pretty good chance (e.g. about 100%) that anything you would want
> to run on that high-end visualization system won't run on your laptop, and
> anything you would want to run on your laptop won't run on your phone.

I agree I will not be able to view 3D medical images on my phone with the same
ease I can with a visualization workstation, but that's beyond the point. The
point is the same functions are being called by Google Earth on the cellphone
and the medical imaging application.

> your definition of success is to be running on the broadest spectrum of
> devices

No. That's my definition of "cross-platform". Comparing OpenGL with Direct3D
is an apples to oranges comparison.

------
Groxx
> _Previously, OpenGL ES was slightly incompatible with conventional OpenGL.
> With OpenGL 4.1, that's no longer the case; the desktop platform is a
> superset of the embedded one._

Brilliant move. _That_ might constitute leap-frogging; if WebGL gets more
traction, this could be a killer feature.

