|
Replies:
8
-
Last Post:
Apr 7, 2008 7:25 AM
by: peterkirn
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Java3d or JOGL?
Posted:
Mar 28, 2008 12:55 AM
|
|
|
Hi, I'm completely new to 3d programming! I'm a bit confused right now.. I've hear good things from someone I know who used JOGL to make a maze game. It seems like JOGL and Java3d are different, and I was wondering which is the preferred method to creating a 3d game.
Well, I'm not really asking which is the "better" method.. I'm not sure what I'm asking, actually. It's just there are two ways of going about creating a game, but I'm not sure which one to take. What does JOGL offer that Java3D doesn't? Is Java3D easier since it's more about "scene graphs"?
The game I have in mind is a simple FPS game in either the third person or first person.
Thanks!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Java3d or JOGL?
Posted:
Mar 28, 2008 3:51 AM
in response to: xboxdisc
|
|
|
Hi xboxdisc,
both apis are quite different (it is like comparing Java2d with Swing). JOGL is a low level binding to the OpenGL API (with small utility APIs). Java3d approaches the problem from a much higher level and abstracts a lot of stuff.
It always depends how simple your FPS should be. Normally you would not start writing a game without a 3d engine (containing a specialized scene graph and other stuff).
I recommend to you to browse through the demos of the http://www.jmonkeyengine.com/ and also download the https://netbeans-opengl-pack.dev.java.net/ and go trough the JOGL demos. This should give you a good overview over both APIs and also help to decide what you like more.
(IMO Java3d is not the best api for games but decide yourself)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Java3d or JOGL?
Posted:
Mar 29, 2008 11:23 AM
in response to: mbien
|
|
|
I second the JMonkey option if you are in deed looking for gaming graphics.
And of course JOGL if you want to go lower level/ more control.
Unfortunately, Java3D has basically moved into end-life cycle but it had a great run.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Java3d or JOGL?
Posted:
Mar 29, 2008 1:20 PM
in response to: shawnkendall
|
|
|
> Unfortunately, Java3D has basically moved into
> end-life cycle but it had a great run.
don't say that - it is already the second time when it is on hold  additionally to that it has been open sourced recently.
But I think we agree that the JMonkeyEngine it is far more advanced as Java3d. (beside the fact that both have completely different target groups)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Java3d or JOGL?
Posted:
Mar 31, 2008 6:13 AM
in response to: mbien
|
|
|
Just look at the featured projects and demos here:
https://java3d.dev.java.net/ and here: https://jogl.dev.java.net/
The answer is self-evident.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: interest-unsubscribe@java3d.dev.java.net
For additional commands, e-mail: interest-help@java3d.dev.java.net
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Java3d or JOGL?
Posted:
Mar 31, 2008 7:53 AM
in response to: Dmitri Darine
|
|
|
It had been a while since I actually looked at JOGL demos - thanks for posting that!
I suppose many of us are considering options at this point (not that I'm really concerned about continuing to use Java 3D). How would you account for the disparity between JOGL and J3D? Somehow, I can't imagine it's performance. Ease of use? Documentation/community knowledge?
Bill
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Java3d or JOGL?
Posted:
Apr 7, 2008 7:22 AM
in response to: weiland
|
|
|
Well, if it were ease of use, Java3D would easily win out over JOGL, right?
Here's an excellent case study:
http://processing.org
Processing provides both JOGL and Java3D (which it calls P3D). Its OPENGL mode is significantly more work -- it isn't supported for browser deployment by default (in Processing, that is), it causes various issues with IDEs and building, and really taking advantage of OpenGL's capabilities requires writing some nastier-looking code.
But OpenGL is, in my anecdotal experience, the vastly-preferred alternative. Why? Because Processing is used by artists, and artists want stuff to look good. The JOGL mode tends to perform better, look better, and has more graphical capabilities -- and you can do things like write in OpenGL code directly for use with shaders, blend modes, and the like. And these are artists who are often new to OpenGL.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Java3d or JOGL?
Posted:
Mar 29, 2008 8:18 PM
in response to: xboxdisc
|
|
|
Thanks guys! I've been playing with jME since yesterday, and it's great. It's so awesome! I just loaded one of my own models!
Thanks again. This was really, really helpful!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Java3d or JOGL?
Posted:
Apr 7, 2008 7:25 AM
in response to: xboxdisc
|
|
|
Yeah, I'm really loving jME, too!
The main advantages of Java3D had been:
* a scene graph for easier programming
* the ability to work within a browser
... but the latter is now possible via jME (along with lots of other helpful features and documentation you get), and the former works well, too.
I will say, I just noticed this tutorial / sample code on the JOGL site, though:
http://jsolutions.se/DukeBeanEm/
Ugly as that screenshot is, this could be a great way of brushing up on basic JOGL techniques and learning how to make very quick prototypes, both of which are useful to jME.
|
|
|
|
|
java.net RSS
