62 posts in this topic

Posted

Exellent, how good is the port though? Think we'll see more easy ports thanks to a common architecture across the platforms now? (Minus Wii U)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

OOP and interfaces are a wondrous thing... since Quake at least. The low-level functions are libraries that call the platform-specific functions. Barely any PS3 games were programmed down to the metal, either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Possible interpretations could be a myriad of things, automatic authoring of a API call translation layer however is farfetched at best.

 

Think about it for a second, if Sony could write a compiler to that was capable of doing such a thing, why aren't there FOSS compilers to do the same on Linux (Win32, DirectX, etc)? Why would companies like Valve go to the effort of writing their own layers (togl) for their Mac/Linux ports when they could auto-generate it?

 

I think what is more likely is Sony have got some sort of ReactOS type thing going on with DirectX on the PS4.

It could be something akin to Google's ANGLE project, which is an implementation of OpenGL ES 2.0 atop DX9 and 11. Which in my experience (having used it) works quite well. Not quite the "ReactOS level" stuff you're thinking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

...

I guess we will agree to disagree

 

Exellent, how good is the port though? Think we'll see more easy ports thanks to a common architecture across the platforms now? (Minus Wii U)

 

I think you should read the thread :shifty:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

It could be something akin to Google's ANGLE project, which is an implementation of OpenGL ES 2.0 atop DX9 and 11. Which in my experience (having used it) works quite well. Not quite the "ReactOS level" stuff you're thinking.

 

Not reactOS "level", but rather in spirit. If Sony were to invest in a PS4-side implementation of the DirectX API the process of porting could end up being trivial.

 

Then again, Valve have already proven with their "togl" translation layer that even with the (allegedly minor) cost of translation, the performance gains of OpenGL not only eliminate that cost - but manage to beat native DirectX.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Not reactOS "level", but rather in spirit. If Sony were to invest in a PS4-side implementation of the DirectX API the process of porting could end up being trivial.

 

Then again, Valve have already proven with their "togl" translation layer that even with the (allegedly minor) cost of translation, the performance gains of OpenGL not only eliminate that cost - but manage to beat native DirectX.

This Myth/lie continues to persevere.

 

a few facts about it. When Valve announced this, they also at the end, in "small letters" said that it was due to new improvements in the engine, and that these same improvements on the DX version would give the same performance boost on windows/directX, effectively making DX still faster. and another fact, this supposed higher performance has NEVER been actually shown and proven, certainly not on real users computers. 

 

if you dual boot linux and windows and run one of their cross platforms games and measure performance, the windows version will still run faster and look better, despite this magical claim of higher OGL performance. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Uh, what?

 

The compiler's job is to convert valid code into (in this case) valid x86(_64) machine code, it doesn't write additional code.

Have a look at C++-template-meta-programming or pragma-based-code-generation (OpenMP, etc.) and then tell me again, that compilers don't write additional code

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

This Myth/lie continues to persevere.

 

a few facts about it. When Valve announced this, they also at the end, in "small letters" said that it was due to new improvements in the engine, and that these same improvements on the DX version would give the same performance boost on windows/directX, effectively making DX still faster. and another fact, this supposed higher performance has NEVER been actually shown and proven, certainly not on real users computers. 

 

if you dual boot linux and windows and run one of their cross platforms games and measure performance, the windows version will still run faster and look better, despite this magical claim of higher OGL performance. 

 

Hah, if this was OpenGL to DirectX and coming from Microsoft Studios you'd take it as gospel.

 

Not sure why you're talking about Windows and Linux builds either, the comparison was DirectX and OpenGL on Windows. To quote Valve's blogpost:

 

 

This experience lead to the question: why does an OpenGL version of our game run faster than Direct3D on Windows 7? It appears that it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Hah, if this was OpenGL to DirectX and coming from Microsoft Studios you'd take it as gospel.

 

Not sure why you're talking about Windows and Linux builds either, the comparison was DirectX and OpenGL on Windows. To quote Valve's blogpost:

 

 

No, I wait for the fact, not wild speculations. 


Ergo, OpenGL is faster than DirectX. No myth here.

 

Except, it's NOT. Valve has NOT been able to produce any conclusive evidence that it is faster. 

 

also if you know something about OS and how they work. you would know that NT actually has a faster and more efficient multi tasking system than Linux. So one owuld have to assume that with wild speculations like this, and NO actual proof that their games are faster on linux with OPenGL(in fact quite the opposite) it's just Gabe again sprouting pure nonsense on his idiotic anti windows agenda. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

No, I wait for the fact, not wild speculations. 


 

Except, it's NOT. Valve has NOT been able to produce any conclusive evidence that it is faster. 

 

also if you know something about OS and how they work. you would know that NT actually has a faster and more efficient multi tasking system than Linux. So one owuld have to assume that with wild speculations like this, and NO actual proof that their games are faster on linux with OPenGL(in fact quite the opposite) it's just Gabe again sprouting pure nonsense on his idiotic anti windows agenda. 

 

No, you support anything pro-microsoft as the ultimate truth and dismiss anything to the contrary.

 

You prove as much by ranting on about Linux again despite the fact I already stated (as does the quote, if you had bothered to read it) it has nothing to do with Linux at all, it's purely a matter of DirectX and OpenGL.

 

But please, do go on ranting about Gabe and the NT kernel, despite neither of them having anything to do with the point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

 it takes the source and creates a binary. That's it.

 

 


There is a stark contrast between templated code generation and actively being able to author new code between two disparate APIs.

 

nice back peddling.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

nice back peddling.

 

No, it's not back pedalling at all. If you knew what you were talking about you would understand that.

 

You're still writing code with templates, you're just abstracting even further than normal. High and low level languages are a scale of how explicit you're being.

 

That is not however throwing a compiler a bunch of API calls and expecting it to magically figure how to translate into another.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

No, you support anything pro-microsoft as the ultimate truth and dismiss anything to the contrary.

 

You prove as much by ranting on about Linux again despite the fact I already stated (as does the quote, if you had bothered to read it) it has nothing to do with Linux at all, it's purely a matter of DirectX and OpenGL.

 

But please, do go on ranting about Gabe and the NT kernel, despite neither of them having anything to do with the point.

 

 

Well nothign really uses OGL on windows, because DX is faster. and even if you where talking Windows vs Windows, there's still NOTHING actually showing that OGL is faster(and you did actually mention linux as you talked about supposedly and falsely so faster multitasking in your quote).

 

So again, untill there's actual proof that OGL is in any way faster than DX... no it's not. in the meantime, I have plenty of proof it's not. like any game that still uses both, (probably need to go back to some older games for that now) and 3D modeling suites that let you choose DX/OGL/Software. Which in the past mean you chose between Fast/Stable/Really Stablet. Though with the newer versions of DX, it's not only faster than OGL it's also faster. (FYI the stability didn't affect gaming, it was merely a result f DX not being able to handle "corrupt" meshes so well when you where doing certain operations that could causes weird crap to the mesh) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Read the freaking article, it says multiple times there is untapped potential in the PS4 and that there is stuff they can do with the PS4 GPU that they can't really use because the game is multiplatform, I'm pretty sure PC graphics cards are more than capable than PS4 GPU so that leaves one option, Xbox One.


Great! Now we have to wait for this untapped potential in the PS4 too? I am still waiting for someone tapping PS3's potential after all these years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Well nothign really uses OGL on windows, because DX is faster. and even if you where talking Windows vs Windows, there's still NOTHING actually showing that OGL is faster(and you did actually mention linux as you talked about supposedly and falsely so faster multitasking in your quote).

 

So again, untill there's actual proof that OGL is in any way faster than DX... no it's not. in the meantime, I have plenty of proof it's not. like any game that still uses both, (probably need to go back to some older games for that now) and 3D modeling suites that let you choose DX/OGL/Software. Which in the past mean you chose between Fast/Stable/Really Stablet. Though with the newer versions of DX, it's not only faster than OGL it's also faster. (FYI the stability didn't affect gaming, it was merely a result f DX not being able to handle "corrupt" meshes so well when you where doing certain operations that could causes weird crap to the mesh) 

 

Give it up HawkMan, you're just embarrasing yourself. To go on and say something as ignorant as "nothing really uses OpenGL on Windows" just makes you into a complete joke.

 

Now, actually read the quote I added, or if you're really so desperate to fight against reality, read it at the source under the heading "OpenGL versus Direct3D on Windows 7"

: http://blogs.valvesoftware.com/linux/faster-zombies/

 

It has nothing to do with Linux, NT, Multitasking or any of the other rubbish you rant on about, it states in quite simple terms:

We have been doing some fairly close analysis and it comes down to a few additional microseconds overhead per batch in Direct3D which does not affect OpenGL on Windows.

 

If you want to critique OpenGL, target Khronos's over-attatchment to legacy cruft, the slower rate of version progress or the complete mess that is the extension system. But when it comes down to speed, OpenGL wins.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

If there's someone embarassing themselves I'd say it's the guy who keeps saying OpenGL is faster, despite the lack of ANY actual proof of it, and numerous proof that indeed it is. 

 

You just keep quoting Gabes vomit that he never bothered to back up with anything real except his claims. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Great! Now we have to wait for this untapped potential in the PS4 too? I am still waiting for someone tapping PS3's potential after all these years.

 

Still waiting? Naughty Dog.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

If there's someone embarassing themselves I'd say it's the guy who keeps saying OpenGL is faster, despite the lack of ANY actual proof of it, and numerous proof that indeed it is. 

 

You just keep quoting Gabes vomit that he never bothered to back up with anything real except his claims. 

 

I provided proof, you just don't want to acknowlege it because it challenges your biased worldview.

 

Your "defense" (if you could even call it that) thus far, has been to firstly rant on about Linux when it wasn't relevant, rant on about Gabe despite him not being involved, and then try to weakly save face by bringing up Linux AGAIN, making a statement that illustrated you didn't fully read, understand or comprehend the source quote I've provided to you multiple times now.

 

If this was a matter of a Microsoft employee making a claim in Microsoft's technalogical favour, you would jump on it instantly as a factual source. However, because Gabe didn't buy into your Windows 8 hivemind, apparantly everyone at Valve is now a part of a mass Gabe-orchestrated conspiracy to perpetrate "hatred" against Microsoft, and is inadmissable. Seriously, get a grip.

 

If all that wasn't hilarity enough, you yourself have yet to post a single shred of proof to the contrary. The best argument you have is in the large share DirectX has, which is even more hilarious when you consider the history Microsoft have in regards to planning to gimp OpenGL and then backpedaling.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Give it up HawkMan, you're just embarrasing yourself. To go on and say something as ignorant as "nothing really uses OpenGL on Windows" just makes you into a complete joke.

 

Now, actually read the quote I added, or if you're really so desperate to fight against reality, read it at the source under the heading "OpenGL versus Direct3D on Windows 7"

: http://blogs.valvesoftware.com/linux/faster-zombies/

 

It has nothing to do with Linux, NT, Multitasking or any of the other rubbish you rant on about, it states in quite simple terms:

 

If you want to critique OpenGL, target Khronos's over-attatchment to legacy cruft, the slower rate of version progress or the complete mess that is the extension system. But when it comes down to speed, OpenGL wins.

 

 

I still want to know where all these programs on Windows are that run OpenGL by default/at all? 

 

Game engines take care of most the translation.  Most people do not reinvent this anymore.  This is why there's only a few it would take forever for anyone to catch up now days.  Small indie games don't really count because of the scale of what they do / support.  Unless that indie game uses an entry level engine/wrapper. (ex: Unity) 

 

I also recommend most people in this thread should maybe go read some programming books about game engine design and not game design.  If anything a few chapters about porting might help everyone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Ergo, OpenGL is faster than DirectX. No myth here.

Stop posting false information. The only people who have actually been developing OpenGL to a standard which is like current DirectX is AMD. Those OpenGL libraries aren't even built into OpenGL as default and are considered 3rd party plugins, without those OpenGL is like jumping back in time. Also, the PS4 doesn't even use OpenGL!

 

Also, everyone should stop mentioning PS4 and DirectX. They have no relation, the only thing Sony have said is that the CPU is based around the schematics of DirectX instruction sets. Far from means it'll work with DirectX, they've basically copied it. LOL DirectX on a FreeBSD based platform. That'd be hilarious.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I provided proof, you just don't want to acknowlege it because it challenges your biased worldview.
 
Your "defense" (if you could even call it that) thus far, has been to firstly rant on about Linux when it wasn't relevant, rant on about Gabe despite him not being involved, and then try to weakly save face by bringing up Linux AGAIN, making a statement that illustrated you didn't fully read, understand or comprehend the source quote I've provided to you multiple times now.
 
If this was a matter of a Microsoft employee making a claim in Microsoft's technalogical favour, you would jump on it instantly as a factual source. However, because Gabe didn't buy into your Windows 8 hivemind, apparantly everyone at Valve is now a part of a mass Gabe-orchestrated conspiracy to perpetrate "hatred" against Microsoft, and is inadmissable. Seriously, get a grip.
 
If all that wasn't hilarity enough, you yourself have yet to post a single shred of proof to the contrary. The best argument you have is in the large share DirectX has, which is even more hilarious when you consider the history Microsoft have in regards to planning to gimp OpenGL and then backpedaling.


Here is the deal. If Gabe used DirectX 9, then yes Hardware OpenGL is going to be faster. I really doubt he bothered to use D3D 11.
D3D 11 is going to be much faster than D3D 9, because it's an API written from the ground up and has a lot less draw calls.

With the new consoles coming up, anyone worth their salt is going to be going for D3D 11.x

I don't really trust Gabe, because he might just use DX 9 and if he used that, then he is setting up a strawman argument in the first place. Gabe doesn't like Microsoft anyway, so I really wouldn't trust his word.

It's like trusting Jonathan Blow to speak for indies on Xbox.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Interesting article ruined by blind fan boyism. Athernar, sort yourself out. You're talking bollocks and you know it. More back-peddling than the tour de France in reverse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I provided proof, you just don't want to acknowlege it because it challenges your biased worldview.
 
Your "defense" (if you could even call it that) thus far, has been to firstly rant on about Linux when it wasn't relevant, rant on about Gabe despite him not being involved, and then try to weakly save face by bringing up Linux AGAIN, making a statement that illustrated you didn't fully read, understand or comprehend the source quote I've provided to you multiple times now.
 
If this was a matter of a Microsoft employee making a claim in Microsoft's technalogical favour, you would jump on it instantly as a factual source. However, because Gabe didn't buy into your Windows 8 hivemind, apparantly everyone at Valve is now a part of a mass Gabe-orchestrated conspiracy to perpetrate "hatred" against Microsoft, and is inadmissable. Seriously, get a grip.
 
If all that wasn't hilarity enough, you yourself have yet to post a single shred of proof to the contrary. The best argument you have is in the large share DirectX has, which is even more hilarious when you consider the history Microsoft have in regards to planning to gimp OpenGL and then backpedaling.


My linux ps was in DIRECT response to a Linux claim so I wasn't the one who brought it up, and it obviously wasn't unrelated then.

And Gabe is the only person of any relevance claiming OGL is faster than DX, and even he claimed the could optimize their DX code the same. And you still haven't provided ANY examples that show OGL being faster or more efficient on ANY platform.

Your best defense seems to be to babble on about stuff that's totally unrelated to the topic abut OGL being better which is your claim, while claiming you have provided evidence without actual doing it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Stop posting false information. The only people who have actually been developing OpenGL to a standard which is like current DirectX is AMD. Those OpenGL libraries aren't even built into OpenGL as default and are considered 3rd party plugins, without those OpenGL is like jumping back in time. Also, the PS4 doesn't even use OpenGL!

 

Also, everyone should stop mentioning PS4 and DirectX. They have no relation, the only thing Sony have said is that the CPU is based around the schematics of DirectX instruction sets. Far from means it'll work with DirectX, they've basically copied it. LOL DirectX on a FreeBSD based platform. That'd be hilarious.

 

Your terminology is poor, what you're describing is the OpenGL extension system, not "libraries". And yes, it is a mess - I said this myself. You also seem to be under the assumption that anyone uses the core OpenGL spec as is, which no one does. Is it a mess? Yes. Does it need to be fixed yesterday? Yes. Is it a crippling problem? No.

 

As far as DirectX goes on the PS4 - it's possible if Sony are willing to invest enough money into the software implementation as the GPU already conforms. The question really is, is the value in making porting between the two consoles as easy as possible worth that investment?

 

Here is the deal. If Gabe used DirectX 9, then yes Hardware OpenGL is going to be faster. I really doubt he bothered to use D3D 11.
D3D 11 is going to be much faster than D3D 9, because it's an API written from the ground up and has a lot less draw calls.

With the new consoles coming up, anyone worth their salt is going to be going for D3D 11.x

I don't really trust Gabe, because he might just use DX 9 and if he used that, then he is setting up a strawman argument in the first place. Gabe doesn't like Microsoft anyway, so I really wouldn't trust his word.

It's like trusting Jonathan Blow to speak for indies on Xbox.

 

Source does have Direct3D 10/11 codepaths on an internal level. Don't believe me? You can read Valve and nVidia's joint presentation on porting to OpenGL here. Additionally, if you have a Source engine title installed you can also see traces of this from the existence of files such as shaderapidx10.dll

 

 

 

My linux ps was in DIRECT response to a Linux claim so I wasn't the one who brought it up, and it obviously wasn't unrelated then.

And Gabe is the only person of any relevance claiming OGL is faster than DX, and even he claimed the could optimize their DX code the same. And you still haven't provided ANY examples that show OGL being faster or more efficient on ANY platform.

Your best defense seems to be to babble on about stuff that's totally unrelated to the topic abut OGL being better which is your claim, while claiming you have provided evidence without actual doing it.

 

A direct response to what you THOUGHT was a Linux claim, but was really you thinking you saw the term multitasking rather than what was actually written. (Probably because you were more interested in defending MS than actually reading what was being said)

 

It quite clearly says in the sub-heading and quote itself that the comparison was performed on Windows, and that DirectX incurred a few ms overhead per batch over OpenGL which they were planning to mitigate. (Which means work around, not fix) It's really that simple.

 

Yet more Gabe fetishism. He isn't even relevant or related to this matter, I've provided you proof and quotes from Valve's Linux cabal multiple times now. I could probably find more sources but let's be honest here, you're not really interested in that are you? You've already decided DirectX is superior because Microsoft made it and nothing will convince you otherwise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Source does have Direct3D 10/11 codepaths on an internal level. Don't believe me? You can read Valve and nVidia's joint presentation on porting to OpenGL here. Additionally, if you have a Source engine title installed you can also see traces of this from the existence of files such as shaderapidx10.dll
 
 
Zero value post from a zero value poster.
 
 
A direct response to what you THOUGHT was a Linux claim, but was really you thinking you saw the term multitasking rather than what was actually written. (Probably because you were more interested in defending MS than actually reading what was being said)
 
It quite clearly says in the sub-heading and quote itself that the comparison was performed on Windows, and that DirectX incurred a few ms overhead per batch over OpenGL which they were planning to mitigate. (Which means work around, not fix) It's really that simple.
 
Yet more Gabe fetishism. He isn't even relevant or related to this matter, I've provided you proof and quotes from Valve's Linux cabal multiple times now. I could probably find more sources but let's be honest here, you're not really interested in that are you? You've already decided DirectX is superior because Microsoft made it and nothing will convince you otherwise.


I am interested in the truth. When you have biased sources like Gabe going around making quotes like that and nobody else, who am I supposed to believe?

Do I believe that D3D 11.x is faster than OpenGL? I have not tested it myself. I know there are developers that would say that.

Can you find independent sources (that means more than one) and that doesn't have a connection with Valve that point and say that D3D 11.x is not as fast as OpenGL?

Can you do that for me? Because right now I have to be honest, I don't believe you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.