|
|
|
|
|
by marshray
5464 days ago
|
|
The moderate experience I have with OpenGL confirms this explanation. However, it sort of misses the point. The author may be a bit too close to OpenGL to judge the relative significance of the all the historical details he knows. Take a step back: A) There's no way in hell Microsoft would allow OpenGL to take the lead from Direct3D on Windows and Xbox. They would wield the carrots and the sticks to prop up Direct3D (and perhaps even disadvantage OpenGL) if it ever came down to it. B) OpenGL is a success by any objective measure. Nearly every platform except Windows and Xbox uses it exclusively. E.g. mobiles. Game consoles may have dedicated APIs but I'm sure there's a better OpenGL compat layer than a Direct3D. Recently I've developed some code on Linux for OpenGL 3.3 with GLSL and it is awesome. |
|
OpenGL is a success. D3D is a success. Two competing products/APIs/services can both be successes. The game is about providing solutions. Both D3D and OpenGL did that for a large customer base. It's not about winning/losing, but does it help solve your problem.