Page 4 of 6

Re: Why not OpenGL?

PostPosted: Fri Apr 18, 2008 10:40 am
by Rich
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.

Re: Why not OpenGL?

PostPosted: Fri Apr 18, 2008 11:06 am
by liamdawe
[quote="Rich":183o1x3o]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. [/quote:183o1x3o]

Yeah i heard about that, is there any news about it at all? Would it work like we export it to a sdl runtime or something from within construct?

Re: Why not OpenGL?

PostPosted: Fri Apr 18, 2008 11:38 am
by Ashley
It's done when it's done, and yeah, you'd select it from the runtimes list.

For the record, it's probably Crysis itself that sucks up all your resources, not necessarily DirectX itself. Remember OpenGL and DirectX are both just interfaces to the same hardware.

Re: Why not OpenGL?

PostPosted: Fri Apr 18, 2008 11:41 am
by liamdawe
[quote="Ashley":2jz054ad]It's done when it's done, and yeah, you'd select it from the runtimes list.

For the record, it's probably Crysis itself that sucks up all your resources, not necessarily DirectX itself. Remember OpenGL and DirectX are both just interfaces to the same hardware.[/quote:2jz054ad]

Well that should keep others quiet about OpenGL being crappier :P

And fair enough on the done when done thing heh.

Re: Why not OpenGL?

PostPosted: Fri Apr 18, 2008 1:52 pm
by SoldjahBoy
[quote="liamdawe":2ng6n2ue][quote="Ashley":2ng6n2ue]It's done when it's done, and yeah, you'd select it from the runtimes list.

For the record, it's probably Crysis itself that sucks up all your resources, not necessarily DirectX itself. Remember OpenGL and DirectX are both just interfaces to the same hardware.[/quote:2ng6n2ue]

Well that should keep others quiet about OpenGL being crappier :P

And fair enough on the done when done thing heh.[/quote:2ng6n2ue]

I never said it was crappy... Rich basically reitterated exactly what I said. OpenGL is fine... nothing wrong with it, it's just 10x harder to make the same stuff with it as you can do with DirectX. It is also a lot harder to optimise properly which is why the doom engine ran so badly at the time... I never said OpenGL was crappy though.

Anyway, as stated already... OpenGL may be supported at a later date if necessary, and hopefully if Ash has time that will be the case because it would be nice to expand the platforms that Construct could run on.

Re: Why not OpenGL?

PostPosted: Fri Apr 18, 2008 7:49 pm
by deadeye
[quote="SoldjahBoy":3az0yqw1]...it would be nice to expand the platforms that Construct could run on.[/quote:3az0yqw1]

I would like Construct to run on my Commodore 64, this is not an unreasonable request.
MAKE IT SO

Re: Why not OpenGL?

PostPosted: Sat Apr 19, 2008 4:27 am
by Jeswen
Sorry to say deadeye, but even my overclocked Apple II struggles with more than 2 layers :(

Re: Why not OpenGL?

PostPosted: Sat Apr 19, 2008 10:14 am
by liamdawe
Okay you two just got lame now.

Re: Why not OpenGL?

PostPosted: Sat Apr 19, 2008 12:18 pm
by SoldjahBoy
LOLLERSKATES! @ Deadeye

Re: Why not OpenGL?

PostPosted: Sun Apr 20, 2008 1:24 pm
by liamdawe
You guys are just plainm being asses now, my post talking about linux and opengl is not unreasonable, do you guys really think your funny poking fun at us?