>From: Chris Hanson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > My understanding is that the problem is OpenGL doesn't matter as > much to them. DirectX seems to much more significant, as their major > market is games.
Somebody should tell ATI that DirectX is not available in Linux. (Though, I have not asked my Microsoft dealer about it.) There is no OpenGL vs. DirectX competition in Linux. In Windows, why they choose DirectX over OpenGL? I remember Carmack flamed DirectX at some point. Now he is using DirectX. If DirectX is truelly better, then in Linux, we should have equivalent system. Perhaps OpenGL could be evolved more toward DirectX, or an exact clone of DirectX API could be written over OpenGL. That would make life in Linux simpler both to the game developers and the driver authors. OSG, Delta3D, Crystal Space etc. compiles in multiple systems. Why commercial game engines do not? What are the parts of the game or engine which does not compile in Linux without major modifications? OSG is available, but what scenegraph elements it does not have compared to commercial games/engines? Why OSG is not that good that game developers must have it? OSG has plenty of external plugins, but they cannot be downloaded easily together. Do game developers have time to download the basic OSG and then browse through N webpages to download useful plugins? (The same problem is, e.g., in GIMP with all its external plugins.) One solution would be that plugin developers submit both the plugin and the documentation/webpage as a downloadable package to the OSG site -- otherwise the plugin webpage would not be linked in the OSG pages. That should set some standard how the plugin-aware software are distributed. Juhana -- http://music.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/linux-graphics-dev for developers of open source graphics software _______________________________________________ osg-users mailing list [email protected] http://openscenegraph.net/mailman/listinfo/osg-users http://www.openscenegraph.org/
