Why not OpenGL?

That all said i still think construct is awesome and am not meaning to put anyone down, just portability is good.

Of course it is. However, like it or not, DirectX is far more supported and used. It makes more sense to get DirectX working 110% before starting another API.

As for Vista, you're speaking as if there won't be a windows again down the road, and who is to say that won't be the most popular one yet?

I know i am with you 100% on what you say.

DirectX has financial backing and windows behind it, i dont doubt it is really good, but OpenGL is portable and has all the worlds open source programmers available to lend a hand remember.

I agree one API should be finished before another started.

Which made me twig, it would be easier to add a new API and depending on operating system use the correct API than to change the whole application to work for another operating system.

So it is not impossible, just not likely from any point of view till after the 1.0 release.

I still and will always stick by Ashely for his decision.

[quote:23idjm99]saying OpenGL is not good for the future isn't the best statement ever

I didn't say it wasn't a good idea for the future, I said it was an idea for the future. As things stand, Windows is 90% of the market and Linux etc take up the minority. *If* that changed to 90% Linux and Windows became the minority (which won't happen quickly), obviously then I'd go and write a linux/opengl runtime! I'd probably be using linux myself by the time it grabbed a 90% market share.

As things stand though, Windows keeps the majority market share and I'm not going to pre-empt major, significant shifts in the IT sector by going ahead and supporting Linux and OpenGL immediately. Nobody knows for sure what would happen - it's possible Linux even eventually fades and dies away! Then I'd have wasted a lot of my precious time wouldn't I? Given that there's plenty of other things to be getting on with in the DirectX/Windows Construct, it seems plainly obvious to me to wait until the Windows version is substantially matured.

This isn't to say it'd never be done - just that once we've got as much of the Windows market as we're going to get and we're still looking to expand, then it becomes an option.

Also, I have to say... OpenGL is a lot harder to code with than DirectX... plus it is far inferior when it comes to certain draw modes/effects as DirectX has modules already made to support certain features. OpenGL is certainly capable of doing the same things as DirectX, but it is WAY harder to achieve.

Edit: oops. Nevermind.

Also, I have to say... OpenGL is a lot harder to code with than DirectX... plus it is far inferior when it comes to certain draw modes/effects as DirectX has modules already made to support certain features. OpenGL is certainly capable of doing the same things as DirectX, but it is WAY harder to achieve.

Well they seem to do pretty well with quake 4, doom3, enemy territory, quake wars...list goes on...

liamdawe - sure they do, want to create opengl construct =D?

liamdawe - sure they do, want to create opengl construct =D?

If i could program for desktop rather than for web i would join the project and give it a go.

Note to you > your not being smart by saying crap

Maybe but your not convincing enough , and i just asked if you want to create a opengl version if you like it so much, asking is bad D:?

Maybe but your not convincing enough , and i just asked if you want to create a opengl version if you like it so much, asking is bad D:?

Sorry the way you said it made me think about all other open source project when someone like myself and others ask for or about things some idiots come along and say "write a patch" its like if i could i would and not ask.

> Also, I have to say... OpenGL is a lot harder to code with than DirectX... plus it is far inferior when it comes to certain draw modes/effects as DirectX has modules already made to support certain features. OpenGL is certainly capable of doing the same things as DirectX, but it is WAY harder to achieve.

>

Well they seem to do pretty well with quake 4, doom3, enemy territory, quake wars...list goes on...

I did say "OpenGL is certainly capable of doing the same things as DirectX, but it is WAY harder to achieve."

But also note how much worse the performance of those games were at time of release compared to everything else on the market... I mean, they run fine now with the crazy hardware available, but back when doom3 came out it ran pretty well like garbage on even a high end gaming computer. It did look super sexy though...

Well they seem to do pretty well with quake 4, doom3, enemy territory, quake wars...list goes on...

Quake 4 = Doom 3 Engine

Doom 3 = Doom 3 Engine

Enemy Territory = Modified Doom 3 Engine

So what you're really showing, is that John Carmack of Id Software is good with OpenGL.

mega lolz.

I don't really care, games like it show what OpenGL is capable of, and all new bad ass games that come out suck up computer specs, just because it's OpenGL means nothing.

Take a look at crysis theres an example of directx sucking up resources like mad.

And i think this discussion has gone on long enough, we all know Ashleys position on this,so lets just support him through a good release of 1.0 hehe

Although Direct-X is what's been written, don't forget that there is an SDL renderer in the works, which supports OpenGL very easily.

The discussion about which is better depends on what you're talking about, a rough idea is here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison ... d_Direct3D

OpenGL is harder to work with programatically; but there really isn't much difference in rendering speeds.