What do you want in Project64 ?

[squall_leonhart]

yeah i know Rice, i got GLView, and i had a document which explained the tech specs of opengl

but this is what im not getting

the Opengl 2.1 icd's in the new Forceware 96's and 97's shows a new mode called Opengl 2.0 Full (Deffered Rendering)..... what the heck is that.... .. doesn't even wanna work on FX cards.. only on 6xxx and higher

 

[Iconoclast]

play a game that has both opengl and direct3d and you'll see opengl is faster

playing different games is not a good way to test this as different games play differently.

for example.. Doom3 is locked at 60fps unless otherwise stated where as Half life 2 is just vsynched.



a good way to test performance is with UT GOTYE or Half Life 1 (the original) and fps test it in both Direct3D and opengl

No, OpenGL is slower, and I'm getting tired of you telling me things about a computer that you are not currently using. I'm the one using it, and if you're saying OpenGL is faster, then you're saying I'm on crack and I can't read the FPS on my PJ64 status bar. I have tested 20 games using both rendering engines, and DirectX is way faster for me.

Doom3 is only locked at 60 FPS if you're using an emulator like Project64. Did you think I was just saying DirectX is faster than OpenGL on a single game that is locked at a constant 60 FPS for both? I'm not that stupid. Also, why isn't playing different games a good way to test which rendering engine is faster on my PC? What are you saying, that I'll get more accurate results if I test it with a single game? Your example of Doom3 is not a valid reason why this is a bad testing method, because if you're testing different games, you'll be testing games other than just Doom3. If you aren't testing different games, there's a probability that that's the only game you tried testing, and that you get 60 FPS for both rendering engines on Project64. The more games you test, the more accurate the results!

It's basically an argument of common sense. It's not that hard to understand: I'm using it, and I am the one witnessing OpenGL run slower. You aren't witnessing anything; you're just telling me that I'm testing the games wrong, making up assumptions.

 

[Doomulation]

Come on, for squall_leonhart OpenGL is faster, for you Iconoclast, DirectX is faster. Do we need to add anything else?
We can continue adding facts and arguing about OpenGL vs DirectX, but I doubt we're going to get to a conclusion about which API is faster than the other.
Considering all the factors, let's just say that the speed of them are about equal. A fair comparison is hard to make since you need to take into factors such as your system, your card, your drivers, game efficiency at the specified engine, etc, etc.

Let's just say they're about equal in speed.

 

[Iconoclast]

Come on, for squall_leonhart OpenGL is faster, for you Iconoclast, DirectX is faster. Do we need to add anything else?
We can continue adding facts and arguing about OpenGL vs DirectX, but I doubt we're going to get to a conclusion about which API is faster than the other.
Considering all the factors, let's just say that the speed of them are about equal. A fair comparison is hard to make since you need to take into factors such as your system, your card, your drivers, game efficiency at the specified engine, etc, etc.

Let's just say they're about equal in speed.

For the third time, already, I'm not saying one is better than the other. I know perfectly well they both have their own advantages and disadvantages. I'm only saying that OpenGL is not faster than DirectX on all PCs by giving my PC as a counterexample. What with all the assumptions....

 

[Doomulation]

For the third time, already, I'm not saying one is better than the other. I know perfectly well they both have their own advantages and disadvantages. I'm only saying that OpenGL is not faster than DirectX on all PCs by giving my PC as a counterexample. What with all the assumptions....

You're saying OpenGL is not faster... and squall_leonhart is saying it IS faster. You have different experiences and different results, so suck it up, will you? I'm not saying any of you are right or wrong, but clearly you have different results, so let's just say that the APIs are about equal each other. No fuss then.

 

[Iconoclast]

You're saying OpenGL is not faster... and squall_leonhart is saying it IS faster. You have different experiences and different results, so suck it up, will you? I'm not saying any of you are right or wrong, but clearly you have different results, so let's just say that the APIs are about equal each other. No fuss then.

No, I'm saying OpenGL may be usually faster than DirectX on most PCs, but there are factors that cause variation in this, and that the variables on my PC cause it to be faster using DirectX. Obviously, I have to repeat myself for a fourth time: Both rendering engines could be faster than the other, but I was only disproving to squall that OpenGL is not always faster than DirectX by using my PC as an example. Let me know if you need me to repeat a fifth time.

And where'd the "suck it up" come from? Did you see anything in my post that sounded I was, like, upset at you or anything? It's not that hard to understand: I agreed with you this whole time, and if you want to argue with me about agreeing with you, that's no reason to perceive as if I am *****ing about it or anything.

 

[Doomulation]

No, I'm saying OpenGL may be usually faster than DirectX on most PCs, but there are factors that cause variation in this, and that the variables on my PC cause it to be faster using DirectX. Obviously, I have to repeat myself for a fourth time: Both rendering engines could be faster than the other, but I was only disproving to squall that OpenGL is not always faster than DirectX by using my PC as an example. Let me know if you need me to repeat a fifth time.

To sum it up with a small amount of words:
Your PC: DirectX > OpenGL.
Squall's PC: OpenGL > DirectX.
Result: OpenGL <> (or != or whatever) DirectX (read: can be faster or slower).
Agreed? No more arguing about anything?

 

[Iconoclast]

Oh my ****ing GOD! This is the last time I am going to tell you:

I was agreeing with you this whole entire freaking time!

What part of that do you not understand?

 

[Doomulation]

I was agreeing with you this whole entire freaking time!

Oh my. Need a break, do we? The post was referring to squall as well, though is was aimed at your comment.
I read you the first time.

 

[Iconoclast]

Oh my. Need a break, do we? The post was referring to squall as well, though is was aimed at your comment.
I read you the first time.

How can it be aimed at my comment if I was agreeing with you?

Need a break? After telling you the same thing five times? I should think so.

If you read me the first time, you wouldn't have argued with someone who was actually agreeing with you. You and I know that that just doesn't make any sense. You were either trying to get my goat or you are probably just argumentative like this all the time.

 

[Doomulation]

One who doesn't need a rest does not keep biting back
I rest my case.

 

[Iconoclast]

One who doesn't need a rest does not keep biting back
I rest my case.

That means you needed a rest, or else you wouldn't have rested your case. I assume, by 'biting', you meant replying and arguing, since that's the most 'biting' I ever got to you. You are the one who kept biting back at someone who was agreeing with you. You kept complaining about us arguing, while I was just trying to show you the light. Compared to showing paranoia to me and squall's debate and comments like suck it up, I never said anything biting to you, so speak to yourself. The "OMFG" post I made wasn't biting at all; it was a final attempt to make things clear to you. Glad to see a form of emotion succeeded where simple English failed to catch your attention.

If you're going to be argumentative, like me, at least be good at it. You probably finally realized it was wrong of you to argue with someone who was agreeing with you, so by "rest your case," you probably meant more like, 'resigned'.

 

[squall_leonhart]

who cares,... using project64 to validate himself.. shows iconoclaust has no idea about wtf i was saying. and so has no idea about API performance.

Doom3 isn't even on project64, and i was not referring to project64 in anyway

the opengl plugins for project64 all suck, if they had been further developed they would pwn d3d as opengl has better framebetter performance, then direct3d.

theres no way in hell you'd get more performance in Direct3d in a cross api game such as UT GOTYE, and anyway, the entire argument was based on the original fact that Nvidia is faster at opengl,.. while ati is faster at Direct3D.

now,.. lets get the hell over this, as this is not the thread for this discussion.

if we wish to keep going, we should do it on the IRC channel. so as not to spam the forum with useless bullcrap like this,...

 

[Iconoclast]

It doesn't matter what emulator you are using; that doesn't affect whether DirectX is faster than OpenGL or not. You just can't accept that DirectX is faster on my PC than OpenGL. OpenGL may be faster for other NVidia cards, it may not, but I'm only saying, it ain't on mine. What is there to understand about that? What is there to not make sense? Will you just accept it that you might actually be wrong, for once? I am the witness of what's faster on this PC, not you. To think that I am wrong and can't tell which is faster when I'm the one using it and not you is...extremely stubborn.

Yeah, let's all get on IRC or MSN or whatever and stop posting here so you get the last word in this thread, right? I'll never stop this argument until you accept it: Some systems are faster with OpenGL, some aren't, even if they have the same video card.

 

[X-Fi6]

It not only has to do with hardware but also the hardware's drivers.

After installing the Omega Drivers on my ATi card I found that OpenGL performed MUCH more nicely than before--so much better than it was indeed faster and clearer than Direct3d.

You see? OpenGL and Direct3d both vary GREATLY on different computers and it doesn't matter which one you choose. If you find that OpenGL is CRAP on your computer, use Jabo's. If you find that Direct3d is crap on your computer, use Glide64. If you find that both are about the same, Jabo's future plugin for PJ64 1.7 will have a LOT of features so you should go with that.

There's nothing more to it--nothing to argue about.

Now let's stop this whining over OpenGL and Direct3d that I started that I had no idea would ever become something as a giant 3-page argument.

==============================

Anyways, another thing I'm suggesting that should be added to PJ64 1.7 is emulation slowdown (unless PJ64 already has it).

 

[squall_leonhart]

catch up mate, im not talking about emulation, im talking about the API itself.

ICONOCLAUST CATH THE F UP

im not talking about emulators, open your damn eyes.

Opengl is faster then D3D, and i can prove it on any system i put together, its not my fault you dunno how to set your machine up.

there is no system change that determines how fast opengl is, unless your using a old Athlon thunderbird cpu with no SSE support. then your screwed.

i can reproduce Opengl's superior performance, on a MX440 all the way up to a 7900GT on a variety of different system setups.

Opengl is always faster where setup properly. and When your thinking opengl, you don't need to High FPS, as opengl runs faster then D3D at low fps as well,.. actually opengl is a smoother API in all scenarios.

for instance. i can run Unreal Tournament in 8xAA with no performance hit (but definitely much better quality) at 100fps,.. while in direct3D, the fps are more like 45.

the reason for this is becoz nvidia are better at Opengl renderings then Direc3d, and this was showcased on the FX series,.. and i don't say this from my own experience, the general consensus is, is that Opengl runs faster then D3D on nvidia cards.. and for anyone that it doesn't, there is underlying system bottlenecks.

anyways, who cares... i already said myself that rice video in opengl runs like crap so theres one example of poor opengl implementation.

btw.. emulation slowdown?

i couldn't care less about that.

being able to set an fields per second limit so that you can run pal games at 60fps would be better...

 

[Iconoclast]

catch up mate, im not talking about emulation, im talking about the API itself.

ICONOCLAUST CATH THE F UP

You are more behind than I thought. Dude, I was talking about OpenGL not always being faster than DirectX. I don't know where you made that up.

im not talking about emulators, open your damn eyes.

You said I was using Project64 as an excuse for DirectX seeming faster. I was only defending myself by saying that the emulator actually doesn't matter. Open your eyes, man.

Opengl is faster then D3D, and i can prove it on any system i put together, its not my fault you dunno how to set your machine up.

How you put your system together isn't an excuse. Just because all of the systems you put together so happen to run OpenGL faster than DirectX doesn't mean that applies with all the computers in the world. So presumptious, you are. You can't "set a computer up" so that one rendering engine runs one faster than the other; what matters on which is faster is your video card and your hardware. If you can blame the fact that DirectX is faster than OpenGL on my machine by blaming the way I set it up, which doesn't matter as long as it works, then I can blame you for setting up your PC wrong so that OpenGL runs faster. Quit making up excuses.

i can reproduce Opengl's superior performance, on a MX440 all the way up to a 7900GT on a variety of different system setups.

You could, if you knew how to set all those up.

Opengl is always faster where setup properly. and When your thinking opengl, you don't need to High FPS, as opengl runs faster then D3D at low fps as well,.. actually opengl is a smoother API in all scenarios.

DirectX is faster on mine, and my PC was repaired at a hardware store and setup properly. Besides, how you set it up...doesn't matter! As long as the damn thing runs, the only thing affecting emulation speed is RAM, your video card, your hardware, but not how you set your PC up or the structure of it. You really are an API expert.

for instance. i can run Unreal Tournament in 8xAA with no performance hit (but definitely much better quality) at 100fps,.. while in direct3D, the fps are more like 45.

DirectX is 250 FPS over here on Super Mario 64, while OpenGL is about 70 to maybe 100. On an FX 5200? Face it, dude. You're making up excuses, like the way I 'set it up', to try and hide the fact that you are wrong and that OpenGL is not always faster than DirectX (or vice versa).

the reason for this is becoz nvidia are better at Opengl renderings then Direc3d, and this was showcased on the FX series,.. and i don't say this from my own experience, the general consensus is, is that Opengl runs faster then D3D on nvidia cards.. and for anyone that it doesn't, there is underlying system bottlenecks.

I think you mean, for anyone who doesn't have OpenGL running faster, they use computers that you don't use.

anyways, who cares...

You definitely do.

btw.. emulation slowdown? i couldn't care less about that. being able to set an fields per second limit so that you can run pal games at 60fps would be better...

Emulation slowdown means decrease of speed, which affects PAL as well. If a game had a slowdown issue, it could drop down to 20 FPS depending on the game. You would rather have PAL running at 60 FPS rather than getting rid of the slowdown issue which could make it run slower than 60 frames per second? You have to get rid of the slowdown issue, first!

It's common sense, dude, learn it....

 

[squall_leonhart]

your a frigging retard... piss off..

your basing your experiences off plugins that aren't properly developed, so untill they are, go and play some real opengl games.

Opengl is faster in
Visual boy Advance (also doesn't have the upper screen redraw ripple)
EPSXE + Petes OGL 2.0 plugin (really demonstrates opengl 2.0's faster framebuffer rendering)
SNES9K/9W

basically any emulator that has been properly developed... you can't claim that opengl is slower for you just becoz it is in project64

the D3D plugins have been developed alot further and have more features.

your comparison is void in this sense.

 

[squall_leonhart]

apologies agozer.. sorry for snapping like that ... have'nt slept.... dreaming that im dreaming that im dreaming is really creepy and i haven't slept properly for 2 days...

 

[Iconoclast]

your basing your experiences off plugins that aren't properly developed, so untill they are, go and play some real opengl games.

Oh, really? And how do you even know which OpenGL plugins I'm using? Again, enough of the accusations and excuses; they're not good for arguments.

basically any emulator that has been properly developed... you can't claim that opengl is slower for you just becoz it is in project64

I thought you said you weren't talking about emulators, or even emulation.Maybe the reason I'm so annoying is because I'm pointing out your own arrogance and argumental flaws. Get used to it. Not only does the N64 emulator not matter for which rendering engine is faster (the plugin does), but for the heck of it, I tried it on 1964, Mupen64, and Nemu64 right now. I also tried emulating it on a couple of those emulators you listed OpenGL being faster for. All the same result: DirectX is faster.

the D3D plugins have been developed alot further and have more features.

Oh, and weren't you just saying from before that OpenGL is the one that pwns? And if you even knew anything about API, you'd know that it's called DirectX, not Direct3D. Jabo's Direct3D uses DirectX, not Direct3D. That's just the name, dude.

your comparison is void in this sense.

Oh, and you're one to talk. Speak for yourself. Your comparison is entirely based on excuses and ignoring the fact that you're wrong.