DoomIII & HL2 are DX9 what??

[stalkersoftware]

DOOMIII and HL2 require which version of DX? I mean o thy support sm3? If it does they are dx9c. Buit I dont think dx9c was around during development?
:confused:

[Vitalka]

They don't really support sm3 as far as i know.

[RamonGTP]

Doom3 is an OpenGL game.

[stalkersoftware]

Originally posted by RamonGTP
Doom3 is an OpenGL game.

:confused:
open GL??
Cant be. I am not sure but I think it dx9b
:confused:

[RamonGTP]

Um, no dude... Its openGL

[Someone Stupid]

It is OpenGL at it's finest.

[stalkersoftware]

:eek:
hay thats pretty good!

[Bigjakkstaffa]

Doom III doesnt use SM3.0 due to its Open GL origins (Carmack won't code in Direct X). Half Life 2 out of the box, won't support SM3.0, though Gabe has staed there will probably be an SM3.0 path added later (probably when the R500 arives). It'll be interesting to see if HL2 features SM2.0b from the off too. One interesting feature of the source engine is that it will be able to auto-update itself to take on board the newest graphical advances, for example when DX10 is released, Source will be able incorporate new DX10 features and trickery.

At this current poitn in time i wouldnt worry about games having SM3.0 support out of the box, simply because the current generation of cards dont have the power to do anything particularly special with SM3.0 (dynamic branching for example apparently seriously hammers performance on current SM3.0 cards). It wont be until the next generation that we'll start seeing "new stuff" coming as a result of SM3.0

--Jakk:t

[PacNW CE]

Hey, Does any one but Carmack program in OGL? When I say any one else I mean mid major + development firms. I don't know a lick about programming in OGL or DX. How much more complex is one from the other?

[Bigjakkstaffa]

Cliffy B provides Open GL support, but doesnt really program primarily for it (as shown by the fact its not easily selectable in UT2003/2004).

Really, the only guy who innovates and keeps Open GL alive in the retail gaming aena is John Carmack (and buy extension the peopel who license his engines), for a number fo reasons, a) It's what he knows best (the guy writes Open GL drivers for Linux for crying aloud) and b) he's quite the critic of software design patents and the like, makign him fundamentally opposed to Direct X.

That said, there is a market for Open GL, it's an open source API and sources of information on how to use it are abundent, as such its ideal for many novice game makers, similarly you can "do more" with Open GL, in terms of high faluting jiggery pokery, part of the reason why guys who know OGL well, such as John Carmack, can pull off the amazing visual work they do. Similarly in the non-gaming sector Open GL is the preffered API as it is extremely accurate and precise. Indeed, i personally prefer Open GL over D3D wherever i can get it, the only thing is this is becoming more of a rarity and even when implemented Open GL rendering is often seriously under-developed (e.g. UT2003).

However, with MS' muscle and John Carmack being the only real "champion" of OGL on the gaming scene it does tend to stagnate after every iD new release and get left behind, and then suddenly explode back onto the scene four years down the line with iD's next game. Thsi trend (along with architectural elements) probably explains part of the reason why ATi have allowed their Open GL performance to stagnate, simply because the API itself (at least in the commerical gaming arena) has a habit of being left stagnant for many years at a time.

--Jakk:T