Where is video going – Direct3D or OpenGL

Beta or VHS?\n\nBlueray or HD DVD?

Direct3D or OpenGL?

For years now, Direct3D and OpenGL have coexisted, but things are changing, and it”s not clear where they are going to land.

Why do you need to be aware of the rivalry between Direct3D and OpenGL? Mainly so you can keep on top of hardware choices for your SolidWorks workstations.

What are Direct3D and OpenGL?

Direct3D (a subset of DirectX) is a graphics API (programming language) written by Microsoft, which drives 3D display. Direct3D is widely used by games.

OpenGL (GL = graphics language) is an open source graphics API which has traditionally been used for high-end graphics used in academia and engineering applications.

Most graphics cards support both to some extent, but graphics drivers that support the more advanced functions in OpenGL tend to be much more expensive, ostensibly due to lower volumes.

Most 3D CAD software uses OpenGL, however some softwares have changed sides of the aisle. Spaceclaim and Alibre are driven by Direct3D. Inventor”s hardware requirements specify DirectX or OpenGL. Spaceclaim only cites DirectX. The Alibre site does not specify directly. MoI (Moment Of Inspiration) claims “MoI displays gorgeous anti-aliased curves even on low-end “gaming” video cards.” Rhino still requires OpenGL.

Apple can”t bust in to CAD in a big way

Here”s a little contradiction for you. One of the main arguments against using Mac hardware for SolidWorks is their lack of support for the higher end OpenGL graphics, but Macs ONLY use OpenGL, and can”t use Direct3D (something about a little animosity between Microsoft and Apple upper management). So while SolidWorks is so married to Windows, they are also currently keeping Windows at arms length by using a decidedly non-Windows graphics engine. Still, Apple is unable to capitalize on this, and CAD companies are one by one bailing out of OpenGL and signing on with Direct3D.

Rhino is one of the exceptions. Rhino has recently ported to Mac, and has remained with OpenGL.

If SolidWorks makes the change to Direct3D, allowing users to use $200 video cards instead of $700+++ cards, while still enduring video related crashes, the hopes of porting SW to Mac are dead.

Vista and Direct3D team up to exclude Apple

Microsoft plays a shrewd game. The flashy Vista graphics, the Aero interface, is driven primarily by Direct3D. You might remember in the early days of Vista release, there was a huge flap about OpenGL compatibility and speed in Vista. It”s almost as if Microsoft is actively taunting Apple to capitalize on MS”s screw ups/weaknesses. Apple has gained market share since the release of Vista to be sure, but continues to be unable to seriously penetrate the technical computing field, at least the CAD side of it. Those SW users who have been willing to move to Mac for CAD have had to be willing to live with reduced OpenGL function sets and other sub-optimal arrangements. Apple has had a huge opportunity here, yet they have been unwilling or unable to capitalize.

HOOPS

I don”t fully understand this, but Hoops is a graphics system that runs on top of either Direct3D and/or OpenGL. From what I gather here, Hoops allows software developers to implement the Hoops API instead of exclusively or inclusively Direct3D and OpenGL, and then Hoops makes use of whatever hardware/driver capabilities are available. Hoops is developed by TechSoft, who have written a nice white paper explaining some of the issues around this topic. Obviously, they are trying to sell their Hoops software, but their tests show that DirectX is faster on Vista than OpenGL, which you would expect, since Microsoft is master of both.

SolidWorks uses Hoops, but to me it is unclear exactly how, unless it is as a buffer between SolidWorks and OpenGL or if Hoops has developed some additional capabilities not available in OpenGL. The SolidWorks System Requirements site does not list DirectX.

Dialectic

I just want to address this here because it does not deserve a post of its own. When people get argumentative, there are several paths they might take. I”m talking about life in general, but this applies to a couple topics in particular. First of all the PC vs Mac argument, and secondly lately is the Synchronous Technology argument. People get very passionate about these arguments and seem to leave their senses behind. They lose the ability to let reason guide their arguments. It seems to be with folks making these arguments that anyone who does not 100% agree with them is 100% opposed to them.

If you clear your mind before reading most of what I write on Mac vs PC, you see that I step back and forth, sometimes supporting one, and sometimes the other. This is not because I can”t make up my mind, or because I keep changing my mind, it is because when you look at the issue from different points of view, the issues look different. Think Picasso and Cubism. William Faulkner and The Sound And The Fury. Einstein and relativity. Stuff looks different from different points of view. In some posts I”m way in favor of a SW port to Mac or indeed any other OS just to get away from Microsoft. Yet I”m still labeled as a mac hater, which is not true at all, but people convince themselves of this for some reason.

Still, some facts surround the question. The first is that video is a problem with Mac because of a lack of complete OpenGL support. Another fact is that when configuring a Mac, you have limited options when compared to configuring say a Dell or an HP. Another fact is that you jeopardize your SolidWorks technical support by running on an unsupported system. Rabid Mac users seem blind to the facts, or willing to explain them away in some bizzare fashion. So by opposing strained logic, I become a mac hater.

The other example is the Synchronous Technology nonsense. At this time, almost everything that the public knows about ST has been given to us by marketing or by demo jocks. I was a demo jock for long enough to know that you can”t always believe what you see, and you certainly can”t believe what you hear. The only way to really know what is happening here is to hear from some real users at some future date when the software becomes available to real users. Everyone who posts about this stuff right now is speculating, unless they are copying and pasting press releases, in which case they aren”t offering anything new at all.

So am I against or for ST? It”s not a black and white issue. This is what gets me in trouble with people. I”m opinionated, but I”m opinionated about both sides of issues. It is important to me to at least try to see things from multiple points of view. For example, after reading a couple of short stories by Tolstoy, I decided I didn”t like Tolstoy. But in order to really explain why you don”t like something, you have to study it. So I read Anna Karenina, and War and Peace, and decided that short stories were just not Tolstoy”s thing, but that he was a wonderful writer.

So, I get annoyed when people label me black or white. I”m clearly neither and both. People are rarely so simple, but when some people argue about some topics, they want to make it a battle between right and wrong.

Again, am I for or against ST? I think the direct editing stuff is good and is going to be something positive that the industry will see more of, but I don”t think that direct editing and history based modeling are the next PB&J. I don”t know what to think of all of the automagic sounding feature recognition functions, but I”m instinctively skeptical of software thinking for me. Frankly, what I”m most optimistic about is the ability to add parametric relations to final geometry. THAT excites me, but it sounds like Spaceclaim was at least headed in this direction anyway with the dimensions that could be added to parts.

If you feel the desire to pidgeon-hole me, or indeed anyone at all, sit back and think if I expressed ideas on both sides of the issue, and try to see if there is any merit at all in the ideas. I welcome discussion, disagreement and argument, but I don”t have much patience for semi-religious zealotry. Blind dogmatism is almost always mistaken.