3 ms·
After spending a few months porting a Direct3D9 game to work in OpenGL 2.x, this article certainly resonates with me. It's quite easy to get code working nice a
by jamesu 12y ago
After spending a few months porting a Direct3D9 game to work in OpenGL 2.x, this article certainly resonates with me. It's quite easy to get code working nice and fast in one driver, while in another it stalls and drops down to 1 fps because you didn't anticipate the driver developer designed their version of the API to work under different performance characteristics.
Meanwhile in Direct3D9, the game still runs smooth at 60+ fps on all major drivers on most recent hardware. Granted, it's a bit of an Apples vs Oranges comparison, but it certainly causes a lot of headaches especially when you need to go so far as to modify the art so it batches better.
There is also still a lot of conflicting information on how best to use OpenGL. OpenGL 3.x certainly helped by consolidating a lot of stuff which was in extensions, but in my case its not really that good for me as I still have to put up with the land of OpenGL 2.x.
- yoklov 12y ago> OpenGL 3.x certainly helped by consolidating a lot of stuff which was in extensions, but in my case its not really that good for me as I still have to put up with the land of OpenGL 2.x. Ha, where I work we still get support tickets about our ancient GL1.5 renderer from time to time. If only we could drop it. And then I get home and see people on /r/gamedev suggesting that OpenGL 3.2 is outdated and not even worth supporting anymore. I even got downvoted for saying that my less-than-three year old laptop ran GL3.2. Maybe I'm just in need of an upgrade...