Balloon 3D

That really sucks because at least Acer has an agreement with NVIDIA that
NVIDIA must make their driver *not work* (!!!!) with the Video card on Acer
laptops.  I really don't understand the logic behind this at all.  All I see
from it is not being able to get the advantages of updated drivers when they
are made, as well as newer games not playing because they don't recognize
the  NVIDIA driver.  Incredibly annoying to put it gently.

_________________________________________________________________
PC Magazine’s 2007 editors’ choice for best Web mail—award-winning Windows
Live Hotmail.
http://imagine-windowslive.com/hotmail/?locale=en-us&ocid=TXT_TAGHM_migration_HM_mini_pcmag_0507

On May 28, 2007, at 20:43 , Andreas Raab wrote:

On the OLPC XO-B2, the 200x200 Cube3D runs at 23 frames per second,  
at 400x400 it's 12 fps.

Empty wonderland (just ground plane) is 14 fps at 200x200, 5 fps at  
400x400.

After adding a large pooh object it is 6 fps at 200x200, 2.6 fps at  
400x400.

Perhaps if someone would spend time on profiling and optimizing it  
would almost become usable ... and perhaps adding an Xv overlay that  
scales up by two ...

- Bert -

On 28/05/07, Bert Freudenberg <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Well, seems MS marketing was successful on you. The opposite is true
> - with OpenGL you can access the full range of hardware features that
> a specific vendor puts in their cards, not only the ones that MS
> deems worthy of supporting. Using OpenGL you can program with DX10-
> like features even in XP (for example, NVIDIA's demos usually use
> OpenGL).
>

You are totally right on this point. Saying that OpenGL is inferior to
DirectX it's a marketing move and nothing more.
About 10 years ago i tried to implement something in 3D using directX.
it was a horror for me as for newbie. Then i tried to do same using
OpenGL and had working example app in few days.
And since then OpenGL will be always superior for me. Its simple. It
works. And works as required, regardless platform where you using it.
What else you need?

DirectX started out inferior to OpenGL. I remember the days when DirectX first came out. Cards that fully supported OpenGL were high end and very expensive, several hundred dollars each. The DirectX cards were cheaper, more affordable to average consumers, but supported fewer features. I remember somebody (maybe ID Software?) came out with a library called MiniGL that could run accelerated 3D graphics using a subset of OpenGL on the more expensive DirectX cards. I have very little experience with developing for DirectX, OpenGL, etc. So I can't make an assessment about the superiority of the current versions.

---Mark
[hidden email]

In my opinition - OpenGL is a Graphics Library at first place, while
DirectX is just a library which lets programmer to speak _directly_
with hardware (i think that's why is was called so).
>From this point, OpenGL will be always superior. Because it does not
depends on any hardware and have a good abstraction level for generic
graphics rendering. It's simple to imagine a plotter device , which
understands OpenGL commands, but hard to imagine plotter drawing using
DirectX. :)

So, while OpenGL is always focusing on generic
interfaces/implementations for all possible platforms/hardware,
DirectX is focused on supporting a cutting-edge features of some video
cards. And from this point - OpenGL is better choice for creating apps
IMHO.

Its good that we having 2 different graphics libraries competing each
other, but bad for hardware manufacturers - they need to support both
of them in their products, and its always tempting to support only one
of them.


On 02/06/07, [hidden email] <[hidden email]> wrote:
> DirectX started out inferior to OpenGL. I remember the days when DirectX first came out. Cards that fully supported OpenGL were high end and very expensive, several hundred dollars each. The DirectX cards were cheaper, more affordable to average consumers, but supported fewer features. I remember somebody (maybe ID Software?) came out with a library called MiniGL that could run accelerated 3D graphics using a subset of OpenGL on the more expensive DirectX cards. I have very little experience with developing for DirectX, OpenGL, etc. So I can't make an assessment about the superiority of the current versions.
>
> ---Mark
> [hidden email]
>
>