While I can't vote for the team, tell me, what possible advantage is there to use DX over OGL for Windows?
i could be seriously wrong, please correct me if i am, most video hardware is targeted towards Microsoft's API which makes more sense in my head as the most desirable approach
Wrong, and right. =]
Video hardware is targeted more to DX then OGL, only because the market is. Realisticly, there is little difference between the two. AFAIK OGL has some functions DX doesn't, and DX has some stuff OGL doesn't. They both do 2D very well, both are very fast.
This may make things easier when making a cross-platform library but it shouldn't take long to add DirectX specific rendering functions and in turn see a better end result for the PC user.
Wrong and Wrong. It could take considerable time to add DX Rendering to it. Not only do you first have to learn all about DX (I don't know how much Gyro knows about it), but then you have to program it in, debug it, and alter it when you alter the rest of the code.
There are quite a lot of OGL games on windows (IE Doom 3). Did you know Doom 3 was OGL? There are plenty of others but I'd have to search them up.
So, to state all that matters.
OGL and DX are fast, very fast. ES wont be choking either pipeline soon.
OGL and DX do 2D very well.
OGL is cross platform, DX is not.
I'm sorry, but what reason does the team have to add DX to their platform? What do they gain? Myself, I wouldn't ever think about learning DX simply because OGL is cross platform, and I highly doubt I'll need anything else in the short term. DX apparently has a better SDK, but that point is moot because LibGyro already supports OGL.
I'm pretty sure you'll get a similar response from anyone else who actually knows about this stuff, and probably the same response GyroVorbis would say.
