Robert- Robert Osfield wrote: > Well the gaming market is very big, BUT the gaming market isn't just > Windows/D3D, its much bigger than that. The Wii and Playstation2 have > been the big consoles of the last ten years, neither of which have > anything to do with D3D. MS would like to associate gaming with > exclusivie use of D3D but this is just a marketing ploy. > Ah- very good point. For some reason I wasn't thinking of consoles. > It's just hardware, it isn't D3D hardware, again we have to be careful > not to tricked by the MS marketing. Unfortunately all too often it is very closed hardware and proprietary drivers. If the hardware works significantly better with the D3D API, then I call it a D3D card. How about a bad analogy (sorry, I couldn't think of a car analogy): a Macintosh is just a PC, but the software makes it a Mac.
> I sounds like the OSG hits quite a good balance for yourself so far - > provides enough functionality to do your job without worry about the > details such as the thin API abstraction. By contast Paul Martz at > the start of thread emphasised that the thinness of the layer above > OpenGL that the OSG provides is one of it's main selling points. To > be able to satisfy two different types of users needs/desires means > that we've been successful. > Absolutely. This is the diverse community I talked about. This seems mostly to be a pretty pragmatic bunch of people, so I'm fairly confident that if D3D support doesn't materialize, it is for technical rather than religious reasons. Thanks, Cory _______________________________________________ osg-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openscenegraph.org/listinfo.cgi/osg-users-openscenegraph.org
