Xela wrote:Controversy regarding M$ practices is well known. One would see them as "inconceivable" and another as "strictly business". I wanted to put this in some kind of general perspective and fish out the most prominent features of each iteration of D3D. All's found here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct3D
although I heavily disagree with the well known part, I would say that the rework of the api was one of the most important steps for microsoft, it made it as easy as opengl and in many areas alot easier.
also d3d advances progressively in a nice way... I can't say the same about opengl* >.>
I am not sure what you mean by general but like I said before, most of the stuff added to an api is old stuff, like shaders is an old concept(I believe it was somewhere in the 80s with renderman a program made by pixar)
it is all about standards**, nothing else
if you want a general picture you should really look at the history of siggraph or computer graphics in general, that way you will know when how and why the algorithms and structures for dx3d or ogl where chosen
I don't see how you can research dx3d history and specially its impact on the graphics*** and games without getting into the whole war thing
*
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenGL - lagging behind because it never decided on a standard
**
http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=8556(please forgive the title) - an interesting article about the "battle for the standard" I remember it quite well I must say - it tells you when dx3d really took off and why
*** Opengl is preferred by professionals graphic developers because of its openness and because most don't use microsoft windows for anything serious.
game graphics are reimplementation of algorithms used in professional computer graphics(movies-science) for real-time use in customer equipment.
--
After a little reasearch I learned that what I called "battle for the standard" is considered the "API wars" by many