OpenGl compatibility

[code_glitch]

Ah, right.... Will check it out. Didn't expect to do 2 binds etc. Hopefully I shall have more luck this time.

[phibermon]

As stated in a project post, I'm all for GL 3.2+ . Only really using GL4.x for tesselation atm.

I think with games like Just Cause 2 being DirectX11 only, we're going to start to see more and more games follow suit. Microsoft want to push people onto later platforms (money in the pocket) and you can guarantee that the next XBox will use DirectX11 or greater. The next playstation will no doubt follow suit with GL4+ (PS3 is totally OpenGL).

I think when these platforms hit us, there will be no justification for publishers/developers to spend time and money maintaining/implementing old code paths (I prefer your render-path terminology actually Sascha). To do so for a sub-set of PC users will not be economically viable.

In fact the only reason we've seen a slow adoption of DirectX 11 is simply because of the existance of the Xbox 360 and the same reasons stated, it's just far cheaper to stick to DirectX 9.

On a side note, thank you Sascha and everyone at the delphigl.com community for your excellent GL4.1 compatible headers! I know that Free Pascal has GL4 headers, but when it comes to GL, I trust you guys more

[thegilb]

I think with games like Just Cause 2 being DirectX11 only, we're going to start to see more and more games follow suit. Microsoft want to push people onto later platforms (money in the pocket) and you can guarantee that the next XBox will use DirectX11 or greater. The next playstation will no doubt follow suit with GL4+ (PS3 is totally OpenGL).

Are you sure Just Cause 2 was DX11 only? Really sure? Microsoft have tried to make newer versions of DirectX an incentive to move players onto new versions of Windows, with varying degrees of success. The tide will change when the majority own DX10 / DX11 capable hardware, though publishers have a mixed relationship with the PC as a platform due to piracy and perceived popularity / ROI.

I think when these platforms hit us, there will be no justification for publishers/developers to spend time and money maintaining/implementing old code paths (I prefer your render-path terminology actually Sascha). To do so for a sub-set of PC users will not be economically viable.

That depends on a LOT of factors. Keeping the majority of your potential market by reusing tried and tested DX9 technology has been the strategy that has kept the PC market buoyed for several years now.

In fact the only reason we've seen a slow adoption of DirectX 11 is simply because of the existance of the Xbox 360 and the same reasons stated, it's just far cheaper to stick to DirectX 9.

I would say the main reason is that most users were or are happy with XP and didn't upgrade to Vista (for obvious reasons). Another good reason is that although technically you can do some new things in DX10 / DX11, you can do everything else in DX9. Finally the biggest reason is that with consoles often leading the revenue share, there is little point in blowing a whole load of money on developing cutting edge technology and graphics for a tiny minority of your customers. Though it is convenient that the XB360 is a DX9 hardware platform, what you gain with one hand is lost with another when you target PS3 and Wii.

[phibermon]

Hi Gilb,

Are you sure Just Cause 2 was DX11 only? Really sure? Microsoft have tried to make newer versions of DirectX an incentive to move players onto new versions of Windows, with varying degrees of success. The tide will change when the majority own DX10 / DX11 capable hardware, though publishers have a mixed relationship with the PC as a platform due to piracy and perceived popularity / ROI.

Not so sure now, no I'm only going by articles I read upon release. Reading up I hear claims of DX10 but alas, no DX9 yet (which is an odd concidering the engine clearly supports that generation of hardware (360))

I would say the main reason is that most users were or are happy with XP and didn't upgrade to Vista (for obvious reasons). Another good reason is that although technically you can do some new things in DX10 / DX11, you can do everything else in DX9. Finally the biggest reason is that with consoles often leading the revenue share, there is little point in blowing a whole load of money on developing cutting edge technology and graphics for a tiny minority of your customers. Though it is convenient that the XB360 is a DX9 hardware platform, what you gain with one hand is lost with another when you target PS3 and Wii.

I agree (but perhaps the XP issue is less relevent now with 7 + DX11 as it was with Vista + DX10) my apologies if I've missed your point or mis-represented mine, but your final point is more or less what I meant. We talk of DX9/11 but what we really discuss is functionality of the hardware. Modern cross-platform commercial engines (stop me if I'm wrong) pretty much abstract away the differences in the APIs, offering capabilties that are common to the major platforms and scaling to capabilties such as available video memory that differ, where it fits with the development process (so high-res textures on the PC can always be expected as assets from the artists are higher still, but models optimized for PN-Patch tesselation may very well require additional work/money)

There are other notable additions but would you agree that the hardware tesselation stage is the big one? Regardless of the API through which the hardware is exposed, I feel we won't see a majority adoption of this functionality in PC games until the next generation of consoles.