Re: [osg-users] OFT: Interesting commentary of the future of OpenGL

[Cory Riddell]

Everybody is talking like there aren't any high performance cross-API  scene graphs nor could one be made. They do exist and they are expensive. I've also seen a bunch of messages dismissing the gamer market to make the argument that OpenGL is big everywhere else and thus D3D doesn't matter. Well, the last statistics I've seen has the gaming industry an order of magnitude larger than everything else; I wouldn't ignore it. I'm not working on a game, but I do recognize that I can write a fast, cheap 3d app because the technology has been pushed so hard by gamers. With more money being spent on D3D hardware, I wouldn't be too quick to write it off. BTW- I know very little of the two API's and I don't particularly want to know any more (I only know what Wikipedia tells me: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_OpenGL_and_Direct3D). OSG is invaluable to me because it takes care of details that I don't want to worry about and lets me work at a higher level. If the layer on top of OpenGL gets too thin and I have to learn a lot about the underlying API, then that layer isn't valuable to someone like me. But I know I'm just one member of a very diverse community. My needs and desires probably aren't the same as yours. This discussion that Gordon triggered has been fantastic though because I'm learning so much about my fellow OSGers. Cory Tueller, Shayne R Civ USAF AFMC 519 SMXS/MXDEC wrote: > I agree with what is said here. >From my experience, generalization and high > performance end up being mutually exclusive. Eventually you have to > surrender to one to obtain the other... > > -S > > -----Original Message----- > From: osg-users-boun...@lists.openscenegraph.org > [mailto:osg-users-boun...@lists.openscenegraph.org] On Behalf Of Jan Ciger > Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2009 3:04 PM > To: OpenSceneGraph Users > Subject: Re: [osg-users] OFT: Interesting commentary of the future of OpenGL > Hi, Sukender wrote: > Hi Robert, > Well yes, I forgot about XBox... So yes, the wrapper may be a > solution. However, I'd like to insist on the fact that we should > "attract" D3D devs by telling them that we're going towards an API > agnostic scene graph, and them see with them what we may/should do > about D3D support. Honestly, I wouldn't care too much about platforms like XBox - it is here for a year or two more and the next XBox is likely to be very different. However the OSG devs will have invested lot of time into the D3D infrastructure that will be obsolete when the new XBox is out. Then what? Chase the moving target again? What for? To be competing with things like the Source engine or others that do not care about OpenGL and can be tightly optimized for D3D? If you want to develop Windows/XBox games using OSG, be my guest, but we should not try to target every possible rendering API which is there. I prefer a tool that does one thing and does it well to a jack of all trades that does everything but nothing well. I think OSG only stands to lose by fragmentation of the development resources if Direct 3D was to be supported, and for very little gain. Regards, Jan _______________________________________________ osg-users mailing list osg-users@lists.openscenegraph.org http://lists.openscenegraph.org/listinfo.cgi/osg-users-openscenegraph.org ------------------------- _______________________________________________ osg-users mailing list osg-users@lists.openscenegraph.org http://lists.openscenegraph.org/listinfo.cgi/osg-users-openscenegraph.org

_______________________________________________
osg-users mailing list
osg-users@lists.openscenegraph.org
http://lists.openscenegraph.org/listinfo.cgi/osg-users-openscenegraph.org