Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Gallium3D To Enter Mainline Mesa Code

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Gallium3D To Enter Mainline Mesa Code

    Phoronix: Gallium3D To Enter Mainline Mesa Code

    As we shared late last week, Mesa 7.3 is getting ready for release with the first release candidate having arrived. Mesa 7.3 will feature improved GLSL 1.20 support, support for the Graphics Execution Manager, and Direct Rendering Infrastructure 2 integration...

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=Njk4OA

  • #2
    So Jaunty ships WINE in main.. If Jaunty+1 shipped Gallium D3D instead of WINED3D, I'd be ecstatic. I can't wait to play Halo 2 on my Ubuntu Dell

    Comment


    • #3
      Does Gallium3d really have direct3d support on linux??

      Comment


      • #4
        It gives possibility of implementing it.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by ethana2 View Post
          So Jaunty ships WINE in main.. If Jaunty+1 shipped Gallium D3D instead of WINED3D, I'd be ecstatic. I can't wait to play Halo 2 on my Ubuntu Dell
          There is no reason to implement D3D in Gallium3D considering amount of work needed. WINE does its job well enough. Most of the apps already created for D3D will never be ported to Linux even if we'll have D3D compatible API due to devs stuck to M$ platform.
          Companies ready to take an effort of making OpenGL games get a huge slice of pie from Mac users, and Linux if they wish to (Blizzard is a good example). But Mac will never get D3D. No market - no cross-platform games.
          You can blame Khronos Group for their poor OpenGL 3.0 specs leaving free software far behind Windows in gaming world
          As for me, there is no game I can't live without on my Ubuntu. Someday You can realize it too.

          Comment


          • #6
            My opinion: Forget DirectX

            Current battle for PC gaming is over and MS won. But there will be next round soon, when Intel releases ray-tracing capable graphic cards to general public. Companies like Sony, Sun, Intel and Nintendo can create Java-based raytracing gaming platform with possibility to easily port game to PC (Windows/Linux), to OSX, to Playstation 4, even integrate gaming to consumer electronics, like TVs and Set-top-box. That would push DirectX to the corner. Other possibility is that these companies will, just like today, separately play catch-up with MS implementation of ray-tracing DX extensions. That would be great for MS, none of these companies alone is threat to them in the area of PC gaming.

            Comment


            • #7
              Doom

              PC gaming is Doomed. Even Microsoft doesn't support it anymore, now that they have Xbox. Fable II for example: just Xbox360.

              My interest in Gallium is better graphics drivers for Linux, because currently that is that area that sucks more today

              It's difficult to promote Linux to friends when even 2D performance sucks badly on most drivers..

              (ok, I admin, I'm really pissed of with intel drivers, which supposedly would have the best support on linux)

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by mirza View Post
                Current battle for PC gaming is over and MS won. But there will be next round soon, when Intel releases ray-tracing capable graphic cards to general public. Companies like Sony, Sun, Intel and Nintendo can create Java-based raytracing gaming platform with possibility to easily port game to PC (Windows/Linux), to OSX, to Playstation 4, even integrate gaming to consumer electronics, like TVs and Set-top-box. That would push DirectX to the corner. Other possibility is that these companies will, just like today, separately play catch-up with MS implementation of ray-tracing DX extensions. That would be great for MS, none of these companies alone is threat to them in the area of PC gaming.
                I got no clue where the hell that myth comes from, but ray tracing on future Intel CPUs won't change anything at all. Game developers will still use their graphics APIs (and the "normal game programming languages") just like today, but the "Intel" graphics driver will use a CPU instead of a GPU.
                Apart from that, raytracing with Direct3D is in development at the moment (so no wonderfull new era of platform independent graphics APIs), the situation will just get worse as the people behind OpenGL will just add that functionality using extensions, but I guess that discussion has been hold long enough now...

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by NeoBrain View Post
                  Game developers will still use their graphics APIs
                  Of course we will use some API, but drawing scene with ray-tracing is completely different then current rendering. Currently, there is lot of work CPU must do to paint image that "feels" realistic. Thats why we really need C/C++ right now. In ray-tracing, you just setup a scene, no object simplification (removing points) is needed, no tricks for shadows, no calculating parts of scene that you can/can't see (reducing scene size for faster rendering) etc. You can just send massive scene to GPU and use CPU only to re-arrange objects there. That would greatly simplify code for graphical part of the game. Still, AI and physics must be done on the CPU, but Java (or .NET in case of MS) can do that, I am pretty sure. Benefits are obvious (debugging multithreaded app is one clear example).

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by chelobaka View Post
                    You can blame Khronos Group for their poor OpenGL 3.0 specs leaving free software far behind Windows in gaming world
                    Look at the membership of Khronos. You won't find many game or FOSS proponents on that list.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by chelobaka View Post
                      There is no reason to implement D3D in Gallium3D considering amount of work needed. WINE does its job well enough. Most of the apps already created for D3D will never be ported to Linux even if we'll have D3D compatible API due to devs stuck to M$ platform.
                      I'm talking about implementing a Direct3D API that WINE can just pass D3D to instead of having the WINE folks try to reimplemented it in OpenGL, so they can focus on the actual win32 API. What we have now is NOT okay, it's buggy as heck and there's a performance hit from translation and poor optimization that gallium should eliminate. I'm thinking it'll be a ton easier to code it with gallium than it would be to do it in GLSL.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Rumors have it intel is going to try to push it's own API

                        http://www.fudzilla.com/index.php?op...11361&Itemid=1

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by mirza View Post
                          Of course we will use some API, but drawing scene with ray-tracing is completely different then current rendering. Currently, there is lot of work CPU must do to paint image that "feels" realistic. Thats why we really need C/C++ right now. In ray-tracing, you just setup a scene, no object simplification (removing points) is needed, no tricks for shadows, no calculating parts of scene that you can/can't see (reducing scene size for faster rendering) etc. You can just send massive scene to GPU and use CPU only to re-arrange objects there. That would greatly simplify code for graphical part of the game. Still, AI and physics must be done on the CPU, but Java (or .NET in case of MS) can do that, I am pretty sure. Benefits are obvious (debugging multithreaded app is one clear example).
                          Yeah, that's why I was pointing to the release of DirectX 11 (or 11.1?) which will support ray tracing (or, which at least is said to support it).

                          However, I doubt that game developers will really accept Intel's own API (if it's really creating an own one) if they don't do something to keep up backwards compatibility. On the other hand, you can't really implement a backwards compatible ray tracer on current systems as that would simpley screw up the whole API ;D

                          Look how the company (now NVIDIA ofc) behind PhysX handled the new API: they provided a general set of functions to do some drawing stuff which made use of PhysX technology if available but also provided a fallback mechanism with "conservative" methods. Thus, quite a few developers adopted it as there was no risk in losing support for older hardware.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by ethana2 View Post
                            I'm talking about implementing a Direct3D API that WINE can just pass D3D to instead of having the WINE folks try to reimplemented it in OpenGL, so they can focus on the actual win32 API.
                            The problem with implementing DirectX is figuring out what DX is supposed to do. It's poorly documented, and the internals are unknown to anyone but a few black voodoo priests at microsoft. A black-box-implementation will always be flawed, no matter if it's built on top of OGL or G3D.

                            There are also versions of Wine for Mac, *BSD and possibly others. OGL is available on all of those, G3D isn't. Even if there was a DX implementation on top of G3D on Linux, the DX->OGL wrapper in Wine would have to be maintained. Adding G3D-support does not simplify maintenance, it adds additional code.


                            Still, having a DX API on top of G3D might be good for the few companies trying to port their games, but most of them use engines with an OGL backend anyway (UT/iD). And there might be some performance improvements in Wine.
                            If you compare that to the work of a DX-implementation on G3D, it's hardly worth it.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by deanjo View Post
                              Rumors have it intel is going to try to push it's own API

                              http://www.fudzilla.com/index.php?op...11361&Itemid=1
                              That doesn't make much sense to me. From what I've read, the idea behind Larrabee is that, while DirectX and OpenGL will be supported through software libraries, developers will eventually program for it directly since it's x86, so making a brand new API would be a waste of effort.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X