Forum:Water - DirectX or OpenGL

From the RuneScape Wiki, the wiki for all things RuneScape
Jump to: navigation, search
Forums: Yew Grove > Water - DirectX or OpenGL
This page or section is an archive.
Please do not edit the contents of this page.
This thread was archived on 15 January 2012 by TyA.
Previous discussion about DirectX vs OpenGL is located here.
OpenGL (left), DirectX (right).

I'm starting this thread because there have been a few reverts/revertwars or reuploads about water detail in OpenGL vs water detail in DirectX. Examples of this are 1, 2, [[:File:Two Different Types of Water.png|3]], 4 and a couple more can be found in Ben's logs. I'd like to ask everyone to give their opinion about what water is better: DirectX water or OpenGL water.


Strong support DirectX - looks a LOT more realistic, and looks a lot better in almost every location. For very rare cases where it looks bad such as the Lum near Edgeville, use openGL (use common sense), but for every other situation use DirectX. JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 16:52, December 30, 2011 (UTC)

'This one looks ugly' is not common sense, it's personal opinion. Either pick OpenGL or DirectX and stick with it. bad_fetustalk 19:51, December 30, 2011 (UTC)

Strong support DirectX - As I've already gone into detailed discussion about this in the "revert wars", I'm going to give a simple answer here. In agreement with the above statement, DirectX water looks much better and should be the standard for files on this Wiki. Exnecross 16:55, December 30, 2011 (UTC)

Oppose DirectX - DirectX is the inferior graphics mode in general, not just in water. The main problem with DirectX water is that it FLOATS. It's just a texture floating above some blue fog, as thisimage proves. Adventurer's log Wahisietel (Talk) Quest map icon.png 16:59, December 30, 2011 (UTC)

(keep your signature on the same line as your comment please) Yes that is the foam effect the water has. From top view, you can't see it doing any harm, and you won't see that "floating" effect. Also, you may say directx has bugs, but OpenGL has bugs too (source). Bugs are everywhere, but that doesn't mean it is bad. Like I said, "For very rare cases where it looks bad such as the Lum near Edgeville, use openGL". For those low camera shots, "use common sense" like I said above and use opengl there. For all other shots, which don't show anything of the floating, use the superior DirectX water detail. JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 17:07, December 30, 2011 (UTC)

Strong support DirectX - I really really don't understand how one can think OpenGL water is better. It doesn't look as realistic as DirectX, nor do I see DirectX "floating". This thread is about water, and DirectX water is superior. That's all I have to say really. Added image for comparison at the top. sssSp7p.pngIjLCqFF.png 17:01, December 30, 2011 (UTC)

Rephrased - At the bottom of the thread. User_talk:Fswe1 Fswe1 Brassica Prime symbol.png 16:43, December 31, 2011 (UTC)
Oppose DirectX - Since Bot Nuke Day, many users (including myself) can no longer use DirectX, which makes taking shots of that water impossible for them. Moreover, it looks simply hideous. It's reasonable for large waters such as seas, but otherwise horrid. Look at river borders! And it has no texture whatsoever from an upward angle. All in all, it doesn't look any more realistic than OpenGL water, except when the water dominates the image. Now let's not start about the River Lum at Edgeville or the Baxtorian Waterfalls lake at the whirlpool... User_talk:Fswe1 Fswe1 Brassica Prime symbol.png 17:25, December 30, 2011 (UTC)

About not being able to use DirectX, let's use the same thing as with AA. If you have an image without AA, you don't upload it as new version for an AA image, but if there is no image, there is no problem with non-AA. If we'd apply the same to this situation, using DirectX is strongly advised, like using AA, but if you absolutely can't use DirectX, it's okay to use OpenGL. Just don't replace a DirectX image with an OpenGL image, like you shouldn't replace AA with non-AA. JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 17:37, December 30, 2011 (UTC)
PS: OpenGL's whirlpool is glitched as much as DirectX's. Your argument is invalid. JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 17:57, December 30, 2011 (UTC)
Because some users are unable to take appropriate pictures does not mean anything. That's silly. The rest of what you said is simply opinion stated falsely as fact. DirectX is much higher res, that much IS fact. Exnecross 17:30, December 30, 2011 (UTC)
IMO, DirectX is uglier and a lot less RuneScape'y. Also, I meant the lake itself, not the whirlpool. Take a look at Ben's gallery (CTRL+F and search "shallow" to see it). User_talk:Fswe1 Fswe1 Brassica Prime symbol.png 18:23, December 30, 2011 (UTC)
"Runescape'y"? Such as the blank, unmoving light blue sheet that used to cover all water? Or going even further back, classic water? Runescape as an online game continues to evolve, and that it should. Exnecross 18:42, December 30, 2011 (UTC)

Support Direct X - it does look better, and having a clear consensus on this will curb the childish arguing and edit warring shown over the past few days. Small recharge gem.png AnselaJonla Slayer-icon.png 17:28, December 30, 2011 (UTC)

Comment - May i point out that DirectX water is unfinished and still in development? This is evidenced by this statement "Other visual improvements under development include our new water shader.". That statement was made on the day of release of the new water. Instead of saying: We have updated water in DirectX mode, it says that it is UNDER DEVELOPMENT, with no actual indication that it was released, leaving me to think that it was released accidentally. The only time that you cannot see the issues with the DirectX water shore is from an overhead view. We hardly ever used overhead views. In most images that have been uploaded the glitchy shore is visible. Adventurer's log Wahisietel (Talk) Quest map icon.png 17:33, December 30, 2011 (UTC)

STRONG support DirectX - DirectX looks simply better. If it's in development and is still better, that's the way it is ;). It's just better, you've got to live with it. It's more realistic. And about the river borders etc. : Do they look more realistic at OpenGL. Can't see any problem with DirectX. (Even though, yes, the whirlpool looks eeh... well there's no whirlpool.) Use DirectX as a standard and OpenGL only if a DirectX image isn't there, or there's a major problem with the graphics, such as a non-appearing whirlpool. --Zorak plorak - Talk Hiscores 17:45, December 30, 2011 (UTC)

Support DirectX - It just looks more real to me. Hair 18:27, December 30, 2011 (UTC)

Comment - Lets see what the two most famous coastal areas in runescape have to say on the subject!


Port Sarim

Basically, anywhere with fishing spots is a DirectX No-no! Swamps are also a No-no! Adventurer's log Wahisietel (Talk) Quest map icon.png 19:05, December 30, 2011 (UTC)

To be honest, both of those look better in DirectX than OpenGL Exnecross 19:08, December 30, 2011 (UTC)
Fishing Spots aren't going to be all of our files you know. Hair 19:10, December 30, 2011 (UTC)

Either is fine but it should be judged on a case by case basis. Usually DirectX looks great in waters that have a big surface, but it starts to glitch and get some weird effects (on the edges) in waters with a small surface. In such cases, OpenGL is what I prefer. Like this example. Adult chameleon (automatic).png Anurin Talk · Sign! . 19:24, December 30, 2011 (UTC)

comment - I can't use DirectX since i'm not on a Windows computer. if DirectX does become preferred, will we still be able to upload images taken with OpenGL, or will it be banned? --Iiii I I I 19:37, December 30, 2011 (UTC)

I think this only applies when there is water. bad_fetustalk 19:51, December 30, 2011 (UTC)
Joey already said - it'd be like the outcome of the AA vs non-AA thread. DirectX would be preferred but not a hard requirement or anything like that. sssSp7p.pngIjLCqFF.png 19:52, December 30, 2011 (UTC)

DirectX - It simply looks better. bad_fetustalk 19:51, December 30, 2011 (UTC)

Support DirectX - It looks more realistic and detailed, not to mention more aesthetically pleasing. Smithing (talk | contribs) 19:58, December 30, 2011 (UTC)

First to upload decides, unless you get really strange things like the example ElfAnurin points out. This is a 'colour of the bikeshed' discussion; everyone has an opinion and you will never get everyone on 1 line behind one of the options. If one uploads it with either DirectX or OpenGL, just use that picture and don't wheelwar. Reuploading with a different engine while there aren't clear graphical glitches in the original image is imho an offence for which a user may be blocked. Sumurai8 20:41, December 30, 2011 (UTC)

Neutral - While I like DirectX for the water appearance in most cases, it doesn't always translate well in smaller areas, including it being Windows only and not Macintosh or Linux capable. OpenGL is fine if your GPU can handle it. As for me, I switch between OpenGL and DirectX frequently since the bot nuke due to constant frame delays depending on the day, go figure. Honestly, there should not be a requirement of one engine over the other. As stated earlier, large bodies of water look fine with DirectX, but smaller areas and places where something makes usage of the water (example above was given as the whirlpool) should be of the person uploading the file's decision. Changing for the sake of changing or applying this elsewhere shouldn't go further. It's asinine when this is one subject that will never get more than a rough consensus at best if it were applied outside of water (Bloom comes to mind). Ryan PM 21:21, December 30, 2011 (UTC)

Slight Support/Comment - I can run Runescape on both OpenGL and DirectX with maximum graphics settings and maintain 50fps. To be honest, I feel that DirectX is aesthetically more appealing. I feel that this applies to the water graphics in most cases especially the larger bodies of water. As such i would support a move to make most if not all images of water DirectX images as I believe consistency across the Wiki is important and that DirectX is the better option. However the discussion above has raised the issue of areas in the game where DirectX water looks, quite frankly broken. Could it be possible that in these instances an OpenGL image is used with a caption (or something else) linking to a Yew Grove thread demonstrating that a consensus is reached allowing the use of an OpenGL image over DirectX on a specific article? This may make image selection/development a longer process but would improve the quality of images on the Wiki overall. Just my two cents Raglough 03:16, December 31, 2011 (UTC)

Edit: Realised i forgot to specify which i support: DirectX. Raglough 11:44, January 1, 2012 (UTC)

Compromise - Use DirectX, but wait for Jagex to fix the issues with the edges first. Until then, use OpenGL unless you cannot see any of the issues with the water in the image. Adventurer's log Wahisietel (Talk) Quest map icon.png 10:20, December 31, 2011 (UTC)

I don't see the need to compromise, as the only opposers are you and Fswe. Why would we do something if we could also do what almost the entire community wants? Also, this compromise only works for you, as this compromise is basically "use OpenGL until me and Fswe also agree you should use DirectX". That is not how consensus works. JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 10:59, December 31, 2011 (UTC)
Um no. The compromise is wait until the issues with DirectX water are fixed. It shouldn't take too long should it? You talk like there are no issues with DirectX water.. Adventurer's log Wahisietel (Talk) Quest map icon.png 11:12, December 31, 2011 (UTC)
I should have been clearer. I prefer OpenGL because it can be used anytime, while DirectX only looks good for (most - not all) large waters. This, along with the fact that many users cannot even use DirectX, makes OpenGL a better option as standard water, not to fully prohibit DirectX, 'cept for the numerous examples we've seen already. So, fine, use DirectX if it looks nice, but please don't go replacing all images that have OpenGL water, that is useless, a waste of time and, as Samurai pointed out, offensive to the original uploader. OpenGL is good, and only in some cases (large bodies of water) should DirectX be preferred over it. I hope you get it now. =) User_talk:Fswe1 Fswe1 Brassica Prime symbol.png 16:43, December 31, 2011 (UTC)
If someone has a better version of an image, they should replace it. It's always offensive to the original uploader to replace their image, but, as you're not new in the image business, I'm sure you're aware of this. In this case, DirectX almost always (I have yet to see where it doesn't) look better, so it should be preferred as far as water goes. Same with AA/non-AA, same with SD/HD. I see no problems with DirectX so I see no reason to "wait until it's fixed", per Ryan. sssSp7p.pngIjLCqFF.png 17:19, December 31, 2011 (UTC)
Yes, because there is nothing wrong with any of the pictures in this gallery! They are all perfect aren't they? Adventurer's log Wahisietel (Talk) Quest map icon.png 17:27, December 31, 2011 (UTC)
Uhm... so - if the ONLY difference in the image is DirectX water instead of OpenGL, and the rest is exactly the same or worse, the image should be uploaded anyway? I think not, since DirectX is not an improvement on OpenGL, just a difference, due to the many, many glitches and uglinesses (is that a word?). User_talk:Fswe1 Fswe1 Brassica Prime symbol.png 17:48, December 31, 2011 (UTC)
"since DirectX is not an improvement on OpenGL" is just your opinion. Almost all other users on this thread disagree with you, so, like Exnecross said above, please don't let your opinion sound like a fact. JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 19:52, December 31, 2011 (UTC)
I am trying to be neutral, saying they are equal in quality ('cept for... well, you know), instead of claiming OpenGL to be better (which it is in my opinion for most cases, but yes, that's my opinion, so I'll leave it out). Anyway, whether the water is OpenGL or DirectX - it doesn't matter, unless DirectX looks especially horrible, for example in... well, you know (narrow pieces of water). I just don't want people to have a revert war over a water type when both look okay (that is, once again, in a large body of water) or re-upload versions of images just for the sake of the water. If one would, say, improve an angle or add a new building to the image and happens to have a different type of water then that's fine, just don't let the water be a factor (once again, unless DirectX is hideous). User_talk:Fswe1 Fswe1 Brassica Prime symbol.png 20:52, December 31, 2011 (UTC)
These images here and here look fine to me in DirectX. Besides that, the river here is wide enough to fall under 'large surface'. I don't think there is a need to make these images OpenGL. However there may be DirectX pictures on which the water does look odd or fishy (pun intended). In those cases it might be better to upload an OpenGL version.. Perhaps a discussion should be opened on the file's talk page to exchange opinions about the matter. Imo media that contains OpenGL water should may only be replaced by DirectX, if certain glitches don't appear. Well this is confusing.. perhaps we need some small cut-outs of 'water glitch' images to be added to the Image Policy? Adult chameleon (automatic).png Anurin Talk · Sign! . 17:00, January 1, 2012 (UTC)

Comment - Battleben, all three graphic modes have issues. Software doesn't support hardware accelerated options, OpenGL isn't configured to produce the so-called "fog" effect and DirectX can't use bloom with AA. There is no "bug" as this is what Jagex intended. Unless you can provide a source that says otherwise, I find that point mute. If you're going to not take screen captures with the "foggy" water then fine. However, don't think for a second that this should be continued into a damn revert war because someone didn't use your preferred visual mode. I'll use this quote for the third time in a thread here on the Yew Grove as this is what the replies to this and previous discussions make me see:

So the next time some asshole says to you, 'I have a right to my opinion,' you say, 'Oh yeah? Well, I have a right to my opinion, and my opinion is that you have no right to your opinion.' Then shoot the fuck and walk away!
George Carlin It's Bad for Ya

Ultimatums, as this comprise is against the greater majority in support of DirectX, are not in the cards. Learn to either not argue with everyone or keep it to yourself, the wiki was never meant to cater to a single individual. Ryan PM 13:05, December 31, 2011 (UTC)

Foggy water? What are you talking about? I'm referring to the fact that DirectX water does not align with the shore correctly. I'm sure Jagex intend to fix this in the future, as it is clearly just a bug. Look, i'm aware that DirectX water DOES look nice, especially if you ignore the edges of it, but before converting all our images of OpenGL water to DirectX i think we should wait for jagex to fix the issues with it first! Adventurer's log Wahisietel (Talk) Quest map icon.png 13:20, December 31, 2011 (UTC)
I hope you will read the entire comment people post next time before responding. Let me quote something Ryan said above which you didn't reply to at all: "There is no "bug" as this is what Jagex intended. Unless you can provide a source that says otherwise, I find that point mute.". JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 19:52, December 31, 2011 (UTC)
Why the hell would jagex intend for water to look like that!? Anyway, is this an okay source?Directxwater2.png Adventurer's log Wahisietel (Talk) Quest map icon.png 20:00, December 31, 2011 (UTC)
..No. sssSp7p.pngIjLCqFF.png 23:20, December 31, 2011 (UTC)

Support DirectX - Per above. --クールネシトーク 17:22, December 31, 2011 (UTC)

Support DirectX - OpenGL just looks like a blue blob with white plasma-like lines. DirectX is more "impacting" and has a richer blue. CENSORED 04:28, January 11, 2012 (UTC) 22:14, December 31, 2011 (UTC)

Use Both - For narrow pathways, use OpenGL, and for large lakes and such, use DirectX. Problem solved. CENSORED 04:28, January 11, 2012 (UTC)

Support DirectX - I don't know why Jagex's water shader is so far from perfect, as well as why they didn't do the same for water with OpenGL (you can make very nice water with OpenGL, just take a look at the 0AD project). However, in the majority of instances, DirectX's water looks better than OpenGL. This may change in the future, and of course, as some pointed out, there's instances where the DirectX water looks terrible, but for the most part, Use common sense to pick the image. As for the spout that it's an offense to the original uploader to reupload an image, I must disagree. Graphics become outdated all the time, so we replace them. Sometimes the angle can be improved a bit, so we replace it. Or perhaps the image could be taken larger, or without a obscuring object, etc. There's loads of times images could be improved, and it doesn't mean the original image was bad (though it could be), simply that the new one is better. Hofmic Talk 00:01, January 1, 2012 (UTC)

Comment - To clarify some more - I do not think at all that DirectX should be preferred over OpenGL, but that both are equally fine, to avoid revert wars. So if anyone uploads the exact same picture of something, but with different water, then they are ogres. If one were to, say, update a building in the picture or improve the angle and happen to have different water settings, it shouldn't be reverted or retaken (unless it is a case where DirectX looks horrible, that is in a narrow body of water). Please don't revert back to DirectX or OpenGL because you think one of them is better, I'd just like to have both waters be exactly as good as the other. User_talk:Fswe1 Fswe1 Brassica Prime symbol.png 17:43, January 1, 2012 (UTC)

To use the images at the top of the thread:
Top image: Either version is fine. If one is uploaded, the other should not be, as both types of water are equally good.
Bottom image: Use the OpenGL version, since this is one case where DirectX looks horrid. User_talk:Fswe1 Fswe1 Brassica Prime symbol.png 17:45, January 1, 2012 (UTC)

Comment - Aware that this has not technically passed yet, it looks like there's near-unanimous support for using DirectX, with there being only one opposer. Thus, I'd like to request that File:Dominion_tower_bridge.png and File:Baxtorian Falls.png be reverted back to their DirectX version. The latter is still protected and was even reverted while this thread was showing a majority. It's been three days without comment, and the majority of those who care have given their two bits, with the result being quite plain to see, so let's clean up those images that are victims of this mess. Hofmic Talk 01:27, January 4, 2012 (UTC)

I disagree. As I've stated before, I think the water should not be a factor. When looking at which version of these two images is better, look at the angle, the quality, the AA, etc., but not the water, since DirectX is not better or worse than OpenGL and vice versa, only for small rivers etc. should OpenGL be used exclusively. User_talk:Fswe1 Fswe1 Brassica Prime symbol.png 07:23, January 4, 2012 (UTC)
I think we could as well wait the 2 more days until this is closed before reverting those, just in case it will start a revertwar otherwise. JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 13:03, January 4, 2012 (UTC)
Have you looked at the first image, though? It's almost twice the resolution and as good an angle. It was the victim of a revert war, though, and thus, the current image is less than half the width. Oh, and the water looks better, at least at the angle the image is at. Hofmic Talk 06:56, January 5, 2012 (UTC)

Support DirectX - Water detail is fine, don't see why theres a debate just on this because two users (specifically Ben) strongly oppose it. --Recent uploads SpineTalkGuest book 13:32, January 4, 2012 (UTC)

Please read my posts, Spine. I don't oppose DirectX - I oppose DirectX being preferred over OpenGL or vice versa, as they should be considered equal in quality. User_talk:Fswe1 Fswe1 Brassica Prime symbol.png 18:40, January 4, 2012 (UTC)
So, spine is right. You do oppose DirectX being the standard. JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 18:43, January 4, 2012 (UTC)
I oppose having any standard at all. OpenGL and DirectX can both be used anytime. Whatever setting the uploader happens to have will be in the image. (unless it is a River Lum-ish case) User_talk:Fswe1 Fswe1 Brassica Prime symbol.png 19:07, January 4, 2012 (UTC)

Useless Discussion - What you still don't realize is that OpenGL water is BEING PHASED OUT, Jagex themselves said it, OpenGL Water remains until their game engine is coded so OpenGL can use the new water shader as I'm sure they rushed to release it since it was finished in Direct X first, thus this discussion is useless, because want it or not, the old water is getting removed and we'll have to update the pictures anyways.   Thunderous My WallpapersYk'Lagor the Thunderous.png 19:18, January 4, 2012 (UTC)

Where did they say that? sssSp7p.pngIjLCqFF.png 19:22, January 4, 2012 (UTC)
Sorry I miss-read the news, anyways heres the quote on the 25 October update "Other visual improvements under development include our new water shader." Unless you are a 5 year old which still thinks what daddy says is what it is and have some logic, you'll know this is what happened here, if they dint then we would still have the old Barrows armour in say, Software mode, question would be, WHY? Obviously they haven't finished it yet, keywords: logic.   Thunderous My WallpapersYk'Lagor the Thunderous.png 19:31, January 4, 2012 (UTC)
Exactly! They haven't finished it yet! THATS WHAT I HAVE BEEN TRYING TO SAY THIS WHOLE TIME X_X. It's still in development, which is why it has so many problems! I'm sure many of the supports would change their mind once they realize just easy to spot the issues with it are.. Adventurer's log Wahisietel (Talk) Quest map icon.png 20:14, January 4, 2012 (UTC)
No it's not. What you are saying is "the water is bad because it's under development". What Scion is saying is "The OpenGL water is outdated so it should all be replaced by better water some time anyway". There's a difference there. JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 21:36, January 4, 2012 (UTC)
Doesn't mean I Oppose Direct X, it just means this discussion is useless, there waesn't a discussion when Jagex updated the trees, nobody said "amg not all the tress have been updated keep the old", no, I'm just saying theres no need to discuss something as ridicously trivial as this and have all the old water images be smited off the Wiki since they are officially OUTDATED and OLD. Ty :)   Thunderous My WallpapersYk'Lagor the Thunderous.png 20:19, January 4, 2012 (UTC)
While I'm not so sure about making assumptions about whether or not OpenGL mode will get the water shader in time (personally, I expect it will, but we don't have a clear quote stating that), I think that updating the water in one renderer shows that it's meant to be the successor. As for the argument that there's issues, which Ben points out once more, I think our editors are more than capable of using common sense when we get images like the river lum. Hofmic Talk 06:56, January 5, 2012 (UTC)

Strong Support DirectX - Whenever available. Obviously common sense will mean we can use OpenGL if someone doesn't have DirectX, but don't "update" an image to OpenGL. Chicken7 >talk 13:33, January 6, 2012 (UTC)

And don't update an image to DirectX, just for the water, please. User_talk:Fswe1 Fswe1 Brassica Prime symbol.png 17:57, January 6, 2012 (UTC)
Dear Fswe mister. The above users, except for ben and you, think OpenGL images should be improved with DirectX images, in the same way as with AA. Please stop asking everyone seperately to do something else than what the current consensus is. JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 21:22, January 6, 2012 (UTC)
To be honest, the only time I think the DirectX water becomes odd is when it applies to the TzHaar areas. Black lava is odd, but the water is alright in large areas. Ryan PM 23:00, January 6, 2012 (UTC)
I, and apparently the majority of editors, must disagree with you, Fswe. It seems most of us consider DirectX to be an improvement over OpenGL (with exceptions, and we're more than capable of using common sense when those occur). Updating an image just for the water is no different than updating an image if they change the model. Or when the new style of hitpoints was released. Or when... you get the point. Hofmic Talk 01:00, January 7, 2012 (UTC)
If you think so, so be it. But wait... water? TzHaar? User_talk:Fswe1 Fswe1 Brassica Prime symbol.png 08:10, January 7, 2012 (UTC)

Useless discussion, but weak support OpenGL - Not all computers can use DirectX, but per ScionCrush. Smuff [The cake is a lie] 02:24, January 8, 2012 (UTC)

Scion didn't support OpenGL. sssSp7p.pngIjLCqFF.png 20:06, January 8, 2012 (UTC)
Notice I used the word "but." I was referencing the "this topic is redundant" bit, and only stuck the OpenGL bit at the end. Smuff [The cake is a lie] 21:17, January 8, 2012 (UTC)

Comment - I've been holding off commenting on this until now, but I thought I would share my response to some responses above, even if they have already been dismissed. But before that, I'm just going to say that I strong support using DirectX water whenever possible, but however, if an area of water is particularly glitchy in a way that it somewhat-significantly subtracts from the image, OpenGL can be used instead given that it significantly improves the water.

Firstly, there's the argument that people on Macs and some people who experience technical difficulties on Windows cannot use DirectX. However, just because you can't use DirectX, does that mean that other people that can shouldn't be allowed to? Hell no. That's a terrible argument. Tied in with that, there is the concern that people who cannot use DirectX will somehow be unable to upload pictures with water in them. I also see this as untrue. Something is better than nothing, and uploading OpenGL water is fine. Just don't freak out if someone updates it with DirectX. Also, the "runescape-y" argument is ridiculous.

Then there's the argument that DirectX water is still under development, and for some reason that means we shouldn't capture it in images. I don't really understand that argument. Yes, some areas do look particularly glitchy and can be improved with OpenGl, see above.

Then there's the argument that Ben brought up about how Catherby and Port Sarim look bad with DirectX water... or something. I personally think they look much better with DirectX. Oh, and by the way, since when is Port Sarim a swamp?

First to upload decides? Lolwut? Do I even need to explain what is wrong with that? "Oh hey I was the first one to upload this image and I used OpenGL and I prefer OpenGL over DirectX and that means that OpenGL is automatically the correct water to be used in this image and I can freely revert anyone who uses DirectX!" That will lead to horrendous inconsistencies. That method is also excessively bureaucratic. Let's just have one wiki-wide guideline for this, and not different rules for different images.

In regards to that chat screenie from Ben, I genuinely don't see any where in that picture where he says that they don't plan to improve DirectX water. He says "That's what I was thinking" which I have no clue what it's in response to. And then he says "Fuck water". "Fuck water". Do you honestly think that a random message being sent to a jmod who's probably sleep deprived in-game about water and their response being "Fuck water" is adequate evidence in this discussion?

"It's still in development, which is why it has so many problems!" That is an opinion, Ben.

One last thing. To the people who say this discussion is pointless, I disagree. If something is so controversial that edit wars are happening over it on multiple occurrences, then that's something that needs to be discussed in the Yew Grove. If it wasn't brought here, then people would continue to edit war over it, and some users might have ended up receiving blocks, even. I wholeheartedly believe that bringing this to the Yew Grove was the right decision.

Oh sorry. It appears I wrote a text wall. My bad. Matt (t) 09:46, January 10, 2012 (UTC)

Useless discussion - What Scion said. (And is this really the most useful thing we have to discuss?) --LiquidTalk 06:50, January 11, 2012 (UTC)

For the record, I prefer DirectX, but I wouldn't care if OpenGL was used. --LiquidTalk 06:51, January 11, 2012 (UTC)

Request for closure - I think everything that needs to be said has been said, and more discussion is not needed. JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 14:37, January 12, 2012 (UTC)

Seconded. I doubt we'll ever come to a conclusion that pleases everyone and we've already established a rule not to kill people uploading OpenGL images or kill people uploading OpenGL water when DirectX is glitchy. User_talk:Fswe1 Fswe1 Brassica Prime symbol.png 14:42, January 12, 2012 (UTC)

This request for closure is complete A user has requested closure for Water - DirectX or OpenGL. Request complete. The reason given was: Request by Joeytje50

--クールネシトーク 14:47, January 12, 2012 (UTC)

I myself prefer OpenGL, DirectX looks out of place n' stuff. But really, I consider this discussion and issue arbitrary - it doesn't really matter what the water looks like so long as the image is clear. Unless you're going for a featured image. Not that I'm trying to re-open discussion or anything, go ahead and close this. -- Cycloneblaze (user - talk - contribs) 17:27, January 15, 2012 (UTC)

Closed - DirectX will be the preferred mode for water images, but common sense should be used to determine if an image would be better taken in OpenGL. svco4bY.png3Gf5N2F.png 17:46, January 15, 2012 (UTC)