Apple endorses OpenAL

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2004-03-30 12:59am

Long considered the spitting grounds of 3-D audio APIs (much like DirectX used to be in the world of 3-D graphics APIs), the OpenAL team has just received a large commit to their Mac OS X source tree from Apple. Maybe OpenAL can finally take off.

The OpenAL Website wrote:March 24, 2004 -- GDC News: Apple is now officially endorsing OpenAL and has provided a new branch of Mac OS X code which is now in CVS (install Apple's latest CoreAudio SDK before compiling).

The Kernel · Post by **The Kernel** » 2004-03-30 02:32am

Maybe, but it won't truly take off until we get Windows support, which the hardware manufacturers have been dragging their feet on.

I'm curious though, what sort of sound hardware does Apple ship these days? Is it powerful enough to handle OpenAL decode in hardware?

Arthur_Tuxedo · Post by **Arthur_Tuxedo** » 2004-03-30 02:33am

For those of us not in the know, but not quite curious enough to check out the website, what exactly is OpenAL?

The Kernel · Post by **The Kernel** » 2004-03-30 02:36am

Arthur_Tuxedo wrote:For those of us not in the know, but not quite curious enough to check out the website, what exactly is OpenAL?

From the OpenAL website:

OpenAL is a cross-platform 3D audio API appropriate for use with gaming applications and many other types of audio applications.

Happy you lazy fuck?

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2004-03-30 03:49am

The Kernel wrote:Maybe, but it won't truly take off until we get Windows support, which the hardware manufacturers have been dragging their feet on.

Of course. They've got EAX, after all. But Mac OS X has been pretty much languishing in the audio department for some time, due in part to Apple dragging their feet with getting QuickTime up to snuff and a host of other things. For games, there is literally no positional audio for OS X. At all. That's because OpenAL (which Unreal Tournament on OS X used, I believe) happens to suck at the moment, and the alternative (CoreAudio), happens to be an utter bitch to write for, but apparently it can do leaps and bounds if you know it. Too bad Apple's CoreAudio documentation sucks, or so I'm told.

Last year when I talked with one of the guys working at M-Audio, he said that they were trying to get Apple to give its blessing to a surround API. They were, naturally, pushing for Circle Surround Sound II, which is what the Revolution 7.1 uses for simulated surround effects.

I'm curious though, what sort of sound hardware does Apple ship these days? Is it powerful enough to handle OpenAL decode in hardware?

For better or worse, Apple seems to have gone the S/PDIF route and kicked analog surround audio output to the curb. They support sending an AC3 stream through a digital output, but not decoding it into more than 2 channels through analog ports, even if you have a sound card in your system which allows for it, like the Revolution. The G5's ship standard with a S/PDIF port that can hook into any receiver with a digital input, but as for actual sound work, it's all done on the CPU.

Arthur_Tuxedo · Post by **Arthur_Tuxedo** » 2004-03-30 01:05pm

The Kernel wrote:Happy you lazy fuck?

Like a hog in shit

Slartibartfast · Post by **Slartibartfast** » 2004-03-30 01:16pm

In other words, it's the OpenGL of sound.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2004-03-30 02:12pm

Slartibartfast wrote:In other words, it's the OpenGL of sound.

That's what it wants to be. It's nowhere near as mature, however. And the OpenGL committee needs to get off its ass and ratify 2.0 already.

Slartibartfast · Post by **Slartibartfast** » 2004-03-30 02:22pm

Yeah I agree. About improving OpenGL and all that.

Down with DirectX!

(as a side note, for some reason my GeForce2 card messes up Half-Life when I choose DirectX but renders fine with OpenGL. Same with 3D studio Max)

The Kernel · Post by **The Kernel** » 2004-03-30 03:05pm

Slartibartfast wrote:Yeah I agree. About improving OpenGL and all that.

Down with DirectX!

(as a side note, for some reason my GeForce2 card messes up Half-Life when I choose DirectX but renders fine with OpenGL. Same with 3D studio Max)

There's nothing inherently wrong with DirectX, aside from the fact that input for future revisions isn't handled as fairly as it should. If it was a terrible API then more developers would use OpenGL for games; the reason they don't is that its extentions for hardware specific features make it needlessly complex to develop with (at least until OpenGL 2.0 is ratified).

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2004-03-30 04:13pm

The Kernel wrote:There's nothing inherently wrong with DirectX, aside from the fact that input for future revisions isn't handled as fairly as it should. If it was a terrible API then more developers would use OpenGL for games; the reason they don't is that its extentions for hardware specific features make it needlessly complex to develop with (at least until OpenGL 2.0 is ratified).

It's a great API, but it's also locked into Windows, making games far more difficult to port. That's why Linux and Mac users hate it, and that's why Microsoft is basically Public Enemy Number 1 when it comes to cross-platform gaming. Following closely is Public Enemy Number 2, the OpenGL committee, who have let Microsoft surpass their specifications and failed to provide a standard which is viable. Unfortunately for the OpenGL committee, not every game house is run by someone like John Carmack, who just extends OpenGL himself to do what he needs it to.

Indeed, some are even as insipid and asinine as Valve, who expect Linux users to serve up their games, but don't even have the courtesy to provide a client for them to actually play them.

The Kernel · Post by **The Kernel** » 2004-03-30 04:26pm

Durandal wrote: It's a great API, but it's also locked into Windows, making games far more difficult to port. That's why Linux and Mac users hate it, and that's why Microsoft is basically Public Enemy Number 1 when it comes to cross-platform gaming. Following closely is Public Enemy Number 2, the OpenGL committee, who have let Microsoft surpass their specifications and failed to provide a standard which is viable. Unfortunately for the OpenGL committee, not every game house is run by someone like John Carmack, who just extends OpenGL himself to do what he needs it to.

DirectX isn't as locked into Windows as you might think. Development platforms for the Xbox2 (read: dual G5 towers with next-gen ATI cards) are availibile running a variant of DirectX. Obviously Microsoft already has a working PowerPC version of the DirectX API, but they are loathe to actually release it for development purposes outside of the Xbox.

Indeed, some are even as insipid and asinine as Valve, who expect Linux users to serve up their games, but don't even have the courtesy to provide a client for them to actually play them.

Ugh, yeah, I had forgotten about that. For fuck's sake, you'd think a company like Valve who goes through all the trouble of a server version of their games could at least do a STEAM version of the client.

I think Blizzard has the right idea though; every single one of their games is Mac compatible on the same CD as the PC .exe with shared assets. THAT is the way to handle things, and build up a loyal multi-platform following.

Praxis · Post by **Praxis** » 2004-03-30 04:32pm

I HATE DirectX...hope the dang thing burns and dies.

It has got to be the buggiest graphics system around. The dang thing crashes my games constantly.

Only the latest DirectX versions actually meet/surpass OpenGL's capabilities- previous versions were 100% crap. The newest versions are buggy and hard to port, but have pretty graphics.

Why can't designers use OpenGL more...games like Elite Force and JK2 and Quake all run on Windows, while still using the OpenGL subsystem, and those games were all quickly ported to Mac and Linux (well at least Mac anyway, I don't think Jedi Knight 2 was ever ported to Linux).

Crazy_Vasey · Post by **Crazy_Vasey** » 2004-03-30 04:33pm

It doesn't help that the OpenGL DLL for windows never, ever gets updated meaning that you can't even use the latest 1.x versions of OpenGL. Anything that's been added since 1.1 has to be accessed via extensions. Guess who's responsible for the OpenGL DLL? Microsoft. Knackered there I think.

Really 1.5 isn't that bad compared to D3D. I'm not sure if GLSL is part of 1.5 or the bound to be upcoming 1.6 but there won't that much between them when it is part of the spec. I can't say I have intimate knowledge of either API (only spent a little time playing around with OpenGL) but I can't think of anything major. Well outside of helper functions like in D3DX anyway.

The Kernel · Post by **The Kernel** » 2004-03-30 04:40pm

Praxis wrote:I HATE DirectX...hope the dang thing burns and dies.

It has got to be the buggiest graphics system around. The dang thing crashes my games constantly.

Only the latest DirectX versions actually meet/surpass OpenGL's capabilities- previous versions were 100% crap. The newest versions are buggy and hard to port, but have pretty graphics.

You are so ignorant, I don't even know where to begin.

First, your games crashing is NOT necessarily dependent on the API, but on buggy code written by lazy developers. The fact that the Quake III engine is relatively stable is a testiment to id Software's programing abilities, not the strength of the OpenGL API.

Oh, and you little remark about previous versions of DirectX being crap? Total bullshit. Even DirectX 7.0 has plenty of features that have yet to be implemented in OpenGL. Maybe I should also mention that unlike OpenGL, DirectX is a full game API (it has API's for input, sound, etc) while OpenGL is pure graphics.

Why can't designers use OpenGL more...games like Elite Force and JK2 and Quake all run on Windows, while still using the OpenGL subsystem, and those games were all quickly ported to Mac and Linux (well at least Mac anyway, I don't think Jedi Knight 2 was ever ported to Linux).

That's because an existing port of the Quake III engine for Linux has existed for years. Ports are much easier if someone else has already done most of the work for you.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2004-03-30 11:51pm

The Kernel wrote:DirectX isn't as locked into Windows as you might think. Development platforms for the Xbox2 (read: dual G5 towers with next-gen ATI cards) are availibile running a variant of DirectX. Obviously Microsoft already has a working PowerPC version of the DirectX API, but they are loathe to actually release it for development purposes outside of the Xbox.

Which doesn't exactly make it very "available," does it? The fact that Microsoft has a working PowerPC version of DirectX doesn't change anything. They're almost certainly running a stripped-down PowerPC version of Windows NT, and that is the platform that PowerPC DirectX will be available on, not Mac OS X, and certainly not Linux.

When I said "locked in," I didn't mean it in a technical sense.

Ugh, yeah, I had forgotten about that. For fuck's sake, you'd think a company like Valve who goes through all the trouble of a server version of their games could at least do a STEAM version of the client.

Writing a server for Half-Life doesn't involve any work with the graphics or sound engines. All the server has to know how to do is receive data on the correct port, interpret it correctly, and then shuffle it back out. The Half-Life server for Linux is just a command line binary.

I think Blizzard has the right idea though; every single one of their games is Mac compatible on the same CD as the PC .exe with shared assets. THAT is the way to handle things, and build up a loyal multi-platform following.

Blizzard's doing a lot of things right. You'll also notice that Warcraft 3 used OpenGL, not DirectX.

On the other hand, companies like Valve and both ATi and nVidia are having a veritable marketing orgasm over the buzzword credibility that "DirectX 9 Compliance" and "Latest DirectX Features" give them.

What exactly can Direct3D do that OpenGL can't, though? I know that DirectX is attractive because it's video, audio and input all in one package, but what exactly does Direct3D enable people to do than OpenGL does not?

The Kernel · Post by **The Kernel** » 2004-03-31 12:04am

Durandal wrote: Which doesn't exactly make it very "available," does it? The fact that Microsoft has a working PowerPC version of DirectX doesn't change anything. They're almost certainly running a stripped-down PowerPC version of Windows NT, and that is the platform that PowerPC DirectX will be available on, not Mac OS X, and certainly not Linux.

What I meant was that if Microsoft wanted, they could release a version of DirectX for the Mac platform. Don't laugh, this might have certain benefits from their perspective, and I think the only thing holding them back isn't malice, but the resources they would have to sink into supporting a development API on another platform.

If anything, I would think that Apple would be the ones most against this sort of arrangement. Can you see Apple allowing Microsoft to provide the standard graphics API for them? I'm not sure the famous pride of Apple or their users could take it.

Writing a server for Half-Life doesn't involve any work with the graphics or sound engines. All the server has to know how to do is receive data on the correct port, interpret it correctly, and then shuffle it back out. The Half-Life server for Linux is just a command line binary.

I'm aware of that, I just think that if Valve is going to recognize Linux to the extent that they will develop the server , they might as well go one step further and do a client. Valve is still a very influential developer and their support would mean a great deal to Linux/OSX. At this point they could consider it an investment towards rebuilding some of the good will they've trashed over the last six months.

Blizzard's doing a lot of things right. You'll also notice that Warcraft 3 used OpenGL, not DirectX.

On the other hand, companies like Valve and both ATi and nVidia are having a veritable marketing orgasm over the buzzword credibility that "DirectX 9 Compliance" and "Latest DirectX Features" give them.

nVidia and ATI have been very good about supporting OpenGL (both sides drivers are excellent) but they go where the market takes them and right now that is DirectX. From a developers perspective, I guess in makes more sense to go with an API that is as well documented and supported as DirectX and has all the features they want in one package.

What exactly can Direct3D do that OpenGL can't, though? I know that DirectX is attractive because it's video, audio and input all in one package, but what exactly does Direct3D enable people to do than OpenGL does not?

It has the documentation and support of Microsoft. Don't laugh, this is actually a serious business since Microsoft knows that another API could come along and scoop up their control of the graphics market fairly easily if it were backed by the right people. Given that, Micrsoft has an uncanny ability to actually do a good job when there is serious competition at stake. DirectX is extremely well maintained by Microsoft and they make sure to keep developers happy by giving them an enormous amount of input in DirectX's future, as well as providing them with plenty of development resources.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2004-03-31 12:37am

The Kernel wrote:What I meant was that if Microsoft wanted, they could release a version of DirectX for the Mac platform. Don't laugh, this might have certain benefits from their perspective, and I think the only thing holding them back isn't malice, but the resources they would have to sink into supporting a development API on another platform.

Apple could port Mac OS X to x86, as well. In fact, there are rumors that they maintain a feature-complete version in-house, just in case. That doesn't mean that Mac OS X is available for x86 ... well Darwin is, but not Aqua.

If anything, I would think that Apple would be the ones most against this sort of arrangement. Can you see Apple allowing Microsoft to provide the standard graphics API for them? I'm not sure the famous pride of Apple or their users could take it.

It's not simple pride on Apple's part. Apple's strategy has turned to a combination of open standards, open source software and proprietary technology. Their operating system's kernel is open source, they've thrown their weight behind MPEG-4 as the future and OpenGL basically handles every GUI task in their OS.

I'm aware of that, I just think that if Valve is going to recognize Linux to the extent that they will develop the server , they might as well go one step further and do a client. Valve is still a very influential developer and their support would mean a great deal to Linux/OSX. At this point they could consider it an investment towards rebuilding some of the good will they've trashed over the last six months.

They'd also have to port all their DirectX-specific code to OpenGL. This is certainly not a small task, especially when the game is as heavily reliant upon DirectX as Half-Life 2 is.

It has the documentation and support of Microsoft. Don't laugh, this is actually a serious business since Microsoft knows that another API could come along and scoop up their control of the graphics market fairly easily if it were backed by the right people. Given that, Micrsoft has an uncanny ability to actually do a good job when there is serious competition at stake. DirectX is extremely well maintained by Microsoft and they make sure to keep developers happy by giving them an enormous amount of input in DirectX's future, as well as providing them with plenty of development resources.

When you count money by the suitcase rather than the dollar, you can afford good documentation.

Praxis · Post by **Praxis** » 2004-03-31 02:47am

The Kernel wrote: You are so ignorant, I don't even know where to begin.

First, your games crashing is NOT necessarily dependent on the API, but on buggy code written by lazy developers. The fact that the Quake III engine is relatively stable is a testiment to id Software's programing abilities, not the strength of the OpenGL API.

Possibly, but I seem to have constant problems with DirectX.

Oh, and you little remark about previous versions of DirectX being crap? Total bullshit. Even DirectX 7.0 has plenty of features that have yet to be implemented in OpenGL. Maybe I should also mention that unlike OpenGL, DirectX is a full game API (it has API's for input, sound, etc) while OpenGL is pure graphics.

Dude...I never said 7.0 was terrible. I said that the EARLY versions were. I'm not the only one who think so- to quote Mike Wong:

"Instead of using the widely accepted and robust cross-platform OpenGL standard, they created the inferior Direct3D API. A half-dozen iterations of DirectX failed to equal OpenGL's feature set (update: recent versions of DirectX have finally surpassed OpenGL's feature set, but they've done so by adding very specific features found in certain newer cards, which is quite typical since DirectX is less abstract than OpenGL.)"

That's because an existing port of the Quake III engine for Linux has existed for years. Ports are much easier if someone else has already done most of the work for you.

And yet, when I run Jedi Knight 2 in Windows, it says "Initializing OpenGL"...

The Kernel · Post by **The Kernel** » 2004-03-31 07:02am

Praxis wrote: Possibly, but I seem to have constant problems with DirectX.

Since the VAST majority of Windows games are DirectX, that means very little.

Dude...I never said 7.0 was terrible. I said that the EARLY versions were.

Well, it's difficult to say how early you are speaking of. DirectX 7.0 dates back to the first on-chip T&L engines, so I though it was a decent place to start (especially being nearly 5 years old now).

I'm not the only one who think so- to quote Mike Wong:

"Instead of using the widely accepted and robust cross-platform OpenGL standard, they created the inferior Direct3D API. A half-dozen iterations of DirectX failed to equal OpenGL's feature set (update: recent versions of DirectX have finally surpassed OpenGL's feature set, but they've done so by adding very specific features found in certain newer cards, which is quite typical since DirectX is less abstract than OpenGL.)"

Mike has a serious problem with Microsoft, which might cloud his judgement a bit on his view of DirectX. Although DirectX in its early iterations were inferior (being brand new, this is hardly surprising) DirectX surpassed OpenGL in capabilities years ago and today is one of the most heavily revised parts of Windows.

Besides, Mike makes it sound as though DirectX's hardware specific support is a weakness, when it really isn't anymore. There are all of TWO GPU makers today, and they both decide what features go into future revisions of DirectX. Due to the enormous barriers to entry, a new major player on the scene at this point isn't likely, and even if one should appear, they would no doubt have say in DirectX's design path if their market share warranted it.

And yet, when I run Jedi Knight 2 in Windows, it says "Initializing OpenGL"...

...So?

Xon · Post by **Xon** » 2004-03-31 07:51am

Durandal wrote:When you count money by the suitcase rather than the dollar, you can afford good documentation.

Good documentation will make or break software targeting developers.

Also I dont think MS would count the money via suitcase. A suitcase can only hold a few million dollars, and with net assets worth in the probable triple digit billions, with ~52 billion warchest, I think you need to deal in larger chunks than single digit millions

Also Praxis it sounds like you have fucked drivers. Try seeing what DirectX is like on someone elses computer(with the same game), I've never had any problems with DirectX.

phongn · Post by **phongn** » 2004-03-31 11:04am

The Kernel wrote:Besides, Mike makes it sound as though DirectX's hardware specific support is a weakness, when it really isn't anymore. There are all of TWO GPU makers today, and they both decide what features go into future revisions of DirectX. Due to the enormous barriers to entry, a new major player on the scene at this point isn't likely, and even if one should appear, they would no doubt have say in DirectX's design path if their market share warranted it.

Well, Matrox and 3DLabs still are around

Xon · Post by **Xon** » 2004-03-31 11:38am

phongn wrote:
The Kernel wrote:Besides, Mike makes it sound as though DirectX's hardware specific support is a weakness, when it really isn't anymore. There are all of TWO GPU makers today, and they both decide what features go into future revisions of DirectX. Due to the enormous barriers to entry, a new major player on the scene at this point isn't likely, and even if one should appear, they would no doubt have say in DirectX's design path if their market share warranted it.
Well, Matrox and 3DLabs still are around

I think he was talking about major GPU makers.

Anyway, I want a graphics card which will handle the proposed DirectX 10 specs. It calls for graphics cards finally getting virtual memory + a more general purpose processor.

There is one advantage of a pro-developer driving the feature set. It generally means its easy to develop for.

Vohu Manah · Post by **Vohu Manah** » 2004-03-31 01:20pm

If I recall correctly, the Mac version of Wipeout 2097 used MacDX, a "DirectX for the Mac" written by Coderus. Supposedly it made the porting process easier (took an insanely short time to port the game over). Not sure what games have used it since though, nor am I sure it's updated to handle DX9 games.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2004-03-31 02:30pm

Vohu Manah wrote:If I recall correctly, the Mac version of Wipeout 2097 used MacDX, a "DirectX for the Mac" written by Coderus. Supposedly it made the porting process easier (took an insanely short time to port the game over). Not sure what games have used it since though, nor am I sure it's updated to handle DX9 games.

Yeah, but it's DirectX 7. These guys have a noble goal, but they're always going to be playing catch-up with Microsoft. Porting houses like Westlake Studios already have internal libraries for converting DirectX calls to OpenGL, and Apple's OpenGL implementation is far more optimized for OS X than MacDX could ever be. Hell, Carmack said that Apple had the best OpenGL implementation around.