Jump to content


Just Joined
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About schmedly

  • Rank
    InsanelyMac Protégé
  1. But DirectX wasn't made specifically for games. As a whole, DirectX (Direct3D is merely one part of it) was designed for multimedia. Remember that buzzword circa Windows95? And don't forget the many dismal attempts Microsoft released before they got to this point, and not without help at that. Direct3D 3, 5 and 7 were fairly well {censored}-laden. Thank nVidia for helping to rewrite the API for the XBox and D3D8. As for gaming it's certainly possible to argue that shaders are more important in a visual sense, but it's not accurate to imply that OpenGL is somehow drastically behind the curve in this respect. There's no high level effect that can't be produced with either API (HDR, depth of field, motion blur, etc). Shaders in D3D9 are marginally more flexible than GLSL 1.1, but that's about it. A visual sense? Huh, what you say? Yeah shaders can do non-visual things, aka GPGPU computing. Figured I'd cover my bases on that one. But there's no available DirectX10 compliant hardware to run it. So even if you magically torrent-ize a Vista install, this is a moot point. OpenGL is in the same state for this next iteration as well. Given the climate of non-Windows platform recognition these days, it would be a hard sell for Microsoft to capitalize on an Windows specific physics API. There are so many choices (even aside from strictly commerical offerings) that there's really no point in creating another one... Havok, Novodex, ODE, Tokamak, Renderware Physics. The true problem with this scenario is that accelerated physics are not integral to a game in the same way graphics or sound are. You can see the ball, and you might hear it bounce.. but notice how the physics of it would be dependent on the presentation? Accelerated physics will never be as ubiquitous as 3D polygons or positional audio... these day's it's just a gimmick for particle interaction, dead bodies and a bullet point on game packaging. So even if Microsoft manages to wedge an API in there, it's nowhere near as important as the other parts of the game... not even close.
  2. What else do you expect them to depend on? The entire drawing API of MacOS X depends on OpenGL, even for desktop rendering. There are only two hardware accelerated graphics API's seeing substantial use in the industry. Direct3D/OpenGL on Microsoft platforms and OpenGL only on everything else.. including the PS3. {censored}. SGI created IrisGL (which became OpenGL when it was opened for public consumption) for realtime graphics, not CAD applications. The fact that all major CAD applications (not to mention design software like Maya and 3DS Max, along with nearly all enterprise level visualization suites and medical imaging) use OpenGL doesn't change this either. Huh? Microsoft has yet to release DirectX 10 or Shader Model 4.0, so how exactly does the put them ahead? Also, let's not neglect the upcoming OpenGL 2.1 and GL Shading Language update in favor of a sensationally one-sided and illl informed comment. And what relevance is this? Novodex and Havoc (physics API's) are in no way reliant on Microsoft. With either an Ageia PhysX card or ATI and nVidia's propsed Physics on a GPU idea, how does a Microsoft wrapper around one of these make any difference? Don't get me wrong it'll be cool to have a dedicated 64 pipe card, but that is derived from a chip in a Microsoft product doesn't make it any less usable by other means.
  3. Hey all, I've decided to get rid of one of my Hackintosh project cases, so it's up on eBay. http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewI...AMESE%3AIT&rd=1 From the listing: I just listed it, and it's sitting on an initial bid of 99 cents, so for those interested it's still dirt cheap. Thanks for any interest. Schmedly