Screenshots comparing OpenGL 2.1 against DirectX v9 & 10
in my opinion and eyes Open GL looks better. Here are OpenGL 2.1 Specifications PDF. http://www.opengl.org/regis... I'm sure everyone knows OpenGL is only about graphics. ///////////////////////////// ////////////// Next-Gen.biz disclose:ID Software and John Carmack,will proclamation a mystery Games(Use OpenGL 2.1 API) in September. graphics technic can achieve the tiptop!!!!
Sure does, i wonder if that is a game or if that's just a tech demo of what it can do. OpenGL 2.1 looks amazing
I would say OpenGL 2.1, then DX10, and then of course 9. The top and bottom left renders are pretty ridiculous. Crysis of course is awesome in DX10.
Thats the next generation !! When you look at DX 10 thats nothing ! Seriously that's nothing compared to OpenGl 2.1. I thought Dx 10 is the next generation but now I say DX 10 is made for last generation. I showed the Open Gl pictures to someone and he said I cannot believe it is a game.
they put up the freaking worse shots of DX10, and and they're showing a DX10 game compared to a OpenGL tech demo.
You got better ones Odion? Post them. And remember none of these are looking at background details just character models
those facial renders by ogl are stunning...
http://www.istartedsomethin... http://i.i.com.com/cnet.g2/... http://www.ixbt.com/video2/... http://www.gamepro.com/comp... http://www.purepc.pl/files/... http://alanwake.com/screens... http://img.gamespot.com/gam...
First screen was good, but i don't think it quite matched OpenGL 2.1. That's just my opinion tho. Second pic was scenery which we didn't have any shown from OpenGL so can't count that. 3rd pic didn't work, access denied
still don't think those facial shots measure up to opengl's. plus that flight simulator one is an artist concept. not an actual rendering using dx10 it says artist concept image.. concept. i assume you know what that means
DirectX10 looks like garbage compared to OpenGL2.1.Doesn't the PS3 use OpenGL?
open = opensource. So anyone can edit and use it.
uses OpenGL|ES where ES stands for embedded systems. id be interested to know from kojima what % of the cell MGS4 is using.
i completely disagree, and that is a pic not a artist rendition. Also neither system has OpenGL 2.1 or Direct X 10
Odion, OpenGL 2.1 is better. Don't try to spin things. Also, PS3 Uses OpenGL ES 2.0 Here are more OpenGL 2.0 renditions all in REAL TIME. Odion|| Heddon I'll even show you the video. http://us.download.nvidia.c... If you have a Geforce 8800 you can download it http://us.download.nvidia.c... … dSetup.exe Human Head: GeForce 8800 Ultra (106.8 M ) YMinimum System Requirements: GeForce 8800 Ultra, Windows XP, ForceWare Drivers 97.44 or higher, 512MB system memory, 256MB video memory
Do a DirectX9 Vs. OpenGL 2.0
took this from wikipedia "Rendering uses PSGL, a modified version of OpenGL ES 1.0 (OpenGL ES 2.0 compliant except for the use of Cg instead of GLSL), with extensions specifically aimed at the PS3". Does that mean the PS3 uses OpenGL ES 1.0.
Actually i've heard that the OpenGL inside the PS3 is software upgradeable and will evolve over time. I don't have a source, as i don't remember which article i read it from. Google it if your interested, i think it may have been a part of an old Ken K. interview with the whole PS3 future proof, yadda yadda yadda. Now if this means OpenGL 2.1 or higher is possible on the PS3, i don't know
I am not spinning I believe DX10 to be better. I also counter your face and lighting vid with something that is live action http://www.youtube.com/watc... EDIT ya i just did a little research that human head one is using DX10, it was Nvidea's tech demo for the 8800 card. I even look at their site. None of those pics are OpenGL 2.1 except Carmacks Here is some DX10 tech demo's also http://www.youtube.com/watc... http://www.youtube.com/watc...
really wasn't impressive especially after the nvidia ones.. her face had nothing on that guys..
we have to see if this is going to be possible in gameplay. i doubt it, but if it does OpenGL 2.1 is going to be what we all gamers have been waiting for.
Interesting comparison. I think that the characters they used to compare were better on OpenGL than the ones of DirectX. It's possible that the artists were aiming a different look or it's also possible that the artists have different skill levels. A fair comparison is to make 1 character and run it on OpenGL and DirectX and compare the results. This is like Comparing Gears of War and Too human. They are both running under the same platform and running under the same engine, yet they look different and many would argue that one looks better than another. I think if they really want to prove which one is better they should run the same assets and see which one renders it better and quicker. Also, I hope Sony fanboys arent stupid enough to turn this into a XBox 360 vs PS3.... OpenGL is open source and it's possible to make games on the 360 using it. Xbox 360 can use OpenGL + DirectX.... PS3 can only use OpenGL.
As the Xenos GPU can only run the DirectX API; in fact, it was built specifically for DirectX. Just ask ATI. RSX was also built specifically to run OpenGL. There is nothing that can change that. What is being shown in the comparison is the best that DirectX and OpenGL have to offer, thus the comparison photos are quite fair.
i cant believe my eyes Open Gl look like reality. those are tech demos but geees thats amazing
Don't get me wrong, I like OpenGL as much as anyone else, but I'm not sure what those shots have to do with OpenGL 2.1. Most of the images are from the Mudbox gallery: http://www.mudbox3d.com/gal... and the rest are from the ZBrush gallery. I'm not 100% sure, but I think they are renders and not realtime at all. I know some of them were created before OpenGL 2.1 even existed. It sounds like OpenGL 2.1 is just a major code cleanup, where OpenGL 3.0 will bring DirectX 10 features to GL. They big advantage of OpenGL is of course that it runs on multiple platforms and not just Vista. http://www.theinquirer.net/...
The open GL ones are taken from Pixologic Zbrush gallery .. wtf? ... nothing to do with realtime stuff. I'm VERY sure at least 2 of them are taken from the MachineFlesh challenge entries (one made by a brazilian guy I forgot the name.) .. I'm looking for it to compare if it's the same exact angle/render.
The old man is Ben Kingsley done by The Ripper from CG talk: http://www.tkio.net/Images/... The armour guy is done by Fausto de Martini .. : http://www.mudbox3d.com/gal... The one with the things on the back is from machineflesh challenge .. Didn't found it.. but anyway :3 .. you guys got the picture .. and I see how SILENT everyone is.. LOL
MS needs to dump DirectX and joing Apple in supporting OpenGL.
Microsuck is not interested in innovation or giving the end user the best possible experience. They are more interested in dominating the market with their mediocre products. LMAO look at all the pitiful xbots trying to spin the fact that directx just got owned like a toothless crackwhore. FYI morons, that $3-$5k rig is called the PS3, it can push an insane number of polygons. If you aholes were actually not biased toward your crap platform and did some reading on the PS3's capabilities you would know what it's capable of.
The gears of war picture isnt in game i think its a target render. In the game it doesent look even near as good as it does on that pic.
I hate to break this to you all, but only the Direct X (9 and 10) screen shots are from games models, the open GL models are high resolution (polygon count) models not intented from game use. The shot of the man with the metal orange and grey implants in his back, and holding the metal orange and grey rifle, was made by a student at my university (Swansea Institute of Higher Education - SIHE) and is several years old, and therefore not even even Open GL 2.1. Maya the software it was (likely) made in does use Open Gl for real time feedback, but that shot is rendered! Mostly Likely with Maya Software or Mental Ray. This source article is very low on validity, don't draw any conclusions from it. (For the record I'm not attacking Open GL, its a brilliant and versatile Graphics Language, I'm simply attacking the articles validity.)
Why do they do comparisons of things like this? Do you guys have any idea how much a computer that run these kinds of apps would cost? Somethimes people do these comparisons and don't realise that the rest of the world just can't just plop down next to a $3-6 thousand dollar computer to see for themselfs. As for OpenGL 2.1 it looks somewhat better but is it realtime or concept or CGI screens? We all know DX9-10 screens are gameplay but what about the others?
Half of those images claiming to be OpenGL are pre-rendered images done by artists over at CGSociety. For example, the man at the top left corner of OpenGL images is a render by an artist called Jacques Defontaine, and the space marine with the red armour is done by Fausto de Martini, an artist at Blizzard. Someone is trying to pull a fast one here. It's pretty pathetic.