From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) id GAA28700; Sat, 10 Apr 2004 06:24:45 +0200 (MET DST) X-Authentication-Warning: pauillac.inria.fr: majordomo set sender to owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr using -f Received: from concorde.inria.fr (concorde.inria.fr [192.93.2.39]) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) with ESMTP id GAA28678 for ; Sat, 10 Apr 2004 06:24:44 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from outbound28-2.lax.untd.com (vlan1-1.bigip2.lax.untd.com [64.136.28.160]) by concorde.inria.fr (8.12.10/8.12.10) with SMTP id i3A4OgYM024404 for ; Sat, 10 Apr 2004 06:24:43 +0200 Received: from outbound28-2.lax.untd.com (smtp01.lax.untd.com [10.130.24.121]) by smtpout01.lax.untd.com with SMTP id AABAHQ7Y3A7YRQ7S for (sender ); Fri, 9 Apr 2004 21:23:53 -0700 (PST) Received: (qmail 487 invoked from network); 10 Apr 2004 04:23:46 -0000 Received: from dsc07-sei-wa-207-220-169-90.rasserver.net (HELO vangogh) (207.220.169.90) by smtp01.lax.untd.com with SMTP; 10 Apr 2004 04:23:46 -0000 From: "Brandon J. Van Every" To: Subject: RE: [Caml-list] OpenGL Date: Fri, 9 Apr 2004 21:32:37 -0700 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.6604 (9.0.2911.0) In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Importance: Normal X-ContentStamp: 14:7:2231895548 X-Miltered: at concorde by Joe's j-chkmail ("http://j-chkmail.ensmp.fr")! X-Loop: caml-list@inria.fr X-Spam: no; 0.00; brandon:99 caml-list:01 wether:01 apis:01 picnic:99 api:01 unification:01 apis:01 superset:01 disadvantage:01 api:01 deployed:01 disadvantage:01 inherently:01 brandon:99 Sender: owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr Precedence: bulk X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 223 Sorry the following is acerbic. I'm just trying to save you endless wasted time. Brian Hurt wrote: > > I'll admit to not having a lot of experience with OpenGL (or > any other 3D > rendering library), and have not given one thought to merging it with > Ocaml. But from the reports earlier in this thread, a direct > mapping of > the OpenGL interface into Ocaml runs into problems, > especially in the more > advanced functions. Which is what lead me to question wether we were > thinking inside a box. You should first understand "the box." Then you could tell me whether 3D engines that wrap up multiple APIs, such as The Nebula Device, are a good solution to "the box." I don't think talking to a C++ 3D engine will be entirely a picnic, but it sounds better than implementing an OCaml 3D engine from scratch. I can count on a goon squad to keep adding features and fixing bugs in The Nebula Device. It's a large and very well run project with a company contributing code. What do you have to offer by comparison, just scratching your head wondering about 3D API unification for the first time? Nothing. 3D engines are a *lot* of work. You need a really really really REALLY compelling case before Not Invented Here sounds like a good idea. The C++ binding would have to be pretty horrible before I'd say, screw it, start from scratch. > I'd love to hear someone who's done real 3D work comparing > and contrasting OpenGL and Java3D as approaches. Crank up Google. It has certainly been discussed by many parties. If you want to save time, I will tell you the obvious: Java3D sucked, that is why nobody took it seriously. If it is starting to "not suck" now, great, but I don't care. Real 3D graphics guys have real 3D graphics work to do with real APIs and engines that have proven their commercial viability. You point me at some major commercial app done in Java3D, then I will change my tune. > > Moreover, as OpenGL is available on a superset of the > > platforms for which > > Direct3D is available, what would be the advantage in using > > Direct3D as a back end rather than OpenGL? > > Supposedly performance, Nonsense. Same HW, and lotsa those NVIDIA guys are ex-SGI folk. The drivers do not suck so bad that there's some huge difference between DirectX and OpenGL. The main disadvantage is that OpenGL 1.5 only has a shading language as an ARB extension, not a required part of the API. That will change with OpenGL 2.0, but where is 2.0? If you want a standardized, widely deployed shader language, DirectX is way ahead of OpenGL. I am not sure how big the gap is now, as I don't currently care about shader languages and haven't been keeping up. The main disadvantage of DirectX 9 is it has no support for 64-bit floating point. I don't know why Microsoft doesn't get on with this feature. It would allow DirectX to move into the CAD and scientific visualization markets and pave the way for finally putting OpenGL under the table. Not that I want / need that result, I just don't understand why MS hasn't done it already. Maybe it's the XBox politics, not wanting to make DirectX on the PC get too far ahead of XBox. Minor points: OpenGL is generally regarded as a cleaner, easier to initialize API than DirectX. OpenGL is C, DirectX is C++. Either of those is an advantage or disadvantage depending on who you're talking to and the circumstances. > but I've never seen hard numbers. That means you haven't looked. Start with www.tomshardware.com for some common benchmarks. If you look carefully, you will not see any evidence of either API being inherently faster than the other. What you will see, is that some apps were developed with greater OpenGL expertise, and others with greater DirectX expertise. Cheers, www.indiegamedesign.com Brandon Van Every Seattle, WA 20% of the world is real. 80% is gobbledygook we make up inside our own heads. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.643 / Virus Database: 411 - Release Date: 3/25/2004 ------------------- To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr Archives: http://caml.inria.fr Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs FAQ: http://caml.inria.fr/FAQ/ Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners