Eski bir web tarayıcısı kullanıyorsunuz. Bu veya diğer siteleri görüntülemekte sorunlar yaşayabilirsiniz.. Tarayıcınızı güncellemeli veya alternatif bir tarayıcı kullanmalısınız.
[QUOTE = "sanane70, post: 2660977, member: 2103682"]
no, but it can be said that it is neither good nor bad, it usually shows up in 3d games, it offers higher performance and lower CPU usage.
[/ QUOTE]
thankyou for the response i appreciate it
Modern OpenGL is fine. When most people complain that it is a disaster, they mean the fact that, in general, functions have been added to the API over the years, but have not been removed, so there are many ways of doing things, only some of which are really advised.For example, you can still pass vertices to the GPU one at a time (immediate mode), but that has not been a good option for decades. But realistically everyone uses a subset of OpenGL, and it's fine if your app isn't limited by CPU or GPU performance.
The other thing that is a problem for OpenGL is that there is a bit of fragmentation in terms of how OpenGL is implemented on different graphics hardware. As a result, something can and does work on some hardware, and that doesn't guarantee that it works and works well on all hardware. Vulkan improves on this A) because it is lower level, so if you want to take responsibility for performance optimization you can do it, and B) because Vulkan has much better validation available. So even if something works out of spec on your workstation, the SDK will warn you if you're doing something that is not officially supported.
The trade-off, of course, is complexity. Vulkan allows you to do more, but you have to do more, so there is a lot more code to be written just to get a triangle on the screen.
If it started today, I'd probably learn a little bit of OpenGL just to get a high-level idea of how the graphics APIs work, and then get the serious work done on Vulkan.