Hello,
I played around with OpenGL in N2002 last night, and I found the
only notable difference to be that frame rates seem more
"constant" with OpenGL: Usually locked solid around 50fps at
Bristol, while Direct3D varies a bit more, say between 56 and
40 when it gets really busy.
Is this observation correct or are there other advantages /
disadvantages to using OpenGL over DirectX?
Thanks in advance for your thoughts,
Uwe
--
mail replies to Uwe at schuerkamp dot de ( yahoo address is spambox)
Uwe Schuerkamp //////////////////////////// http://www.schuerkamp.de/
Herford, Germany \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ (52.0N/8.5E)
GPG Fingerprint: 2E 13 20 22 9A 3F 63 7F 67 6F E9 B1 A8 36 A4 61
On Wed, 21 Aug 2002 09:05:49 +0200, Uwe Schuerkamp
<[email hidden]> wrote:
>Is this observation correct or are there other advantages /
>disadvantages to using OpenGL over DirectX?
Well... depends on the graphics card I guess. I had better framerates
in D3D with my TNT2, but now with a GF2MX400 OpenGL runs better.
--
- Igor -
"Uwe Schuerkamp" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
> Hello,
>
> I see a drop-off in both rasterizers, but I start about 10 fps higher
with Opengl.
dave henrie
Sounds to me like you have Vsync still on for OpenGL. I'll get about the
same range in OpenGL and D3D. Just OpenGL is higer than D3D. D3D runs
around 20-50 while OpenGL is 40-70.
MadDAWG
Uwe....
This has been debated and tested.....pretty much to death.....around here.
I was a staunch D3D guy.....but did a set of tests and benchmarks in N2K2
about three months ago. Its not pretty much a given....if you have an Nv
video card, especially the newer ones....OGL is it. However, you won't see
the complete advantages of OGL if you don't have "ALL" your system settings
and ini tweaks set properly (and many people do not).
Check it out.......
www.pabst-racing.com/webscreens/tweaks.xls
Regards,
Tom
"Uwe Schuerkamp" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
