Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Developers Voice Concerns About OpenGL 4.1 State Tracker

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

  • Developers Voice Concerns About OpenGL 4.1 State Tracker

    Phoronix: Developers Voice Concerns About OpenGL 4.1 State Tracker

    To no surprise, when mentioning an OpenGL 4.1 state tracker for Gallium3D being proposed as a Google Summer of Code project on Sunday morning, there has been a lot of interest in this work via the Phoronix Forums and several responses from key Mesa developers on the project's mailing list. The consensus among these core developers have been that this project is far too large to be completed over the course of a single summer and that it may not be wise essentially throwing out the Mesa code-base, as proposed by the Belgian student...

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

  • #2
    I -- and most other tech-oriented games devs I've spoken to -- are totally cool with stripping the compatibility profile. All that crap is garbage. Yes, it means rewriting some small portion of a larger app to port. So does moving from DirectX 9 to DirectX 10.

    This is a good thing. The baggage is _confusing_ for developers. Almost nobody knows how the new versions of OpenGL actually work. I've been working on an OGL3 tutorial for a few months, and it's crazy how little documentation there is and how many people are still mixing in old OGL2 functions.

    Plus the old stuff is slow. The matrix stack alone is a source of inefficiency and confusion.

    Burn that stuff with fire.

    The games industry devs -- and many other graphics professionals -- wante Khronos to totally break the API/ABI for OpenGL 3 anyway. We're still upset and disappointed that the CAD wienies got their way and retarded OpenGL's progress by years, and pretty much sealed the fate of Direct3D being the overwhelmingly superior API (which just unfortunately is not cross platform).

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by elanthis View Post

      The games industry devs -- and many other graphics professionals -- wante Khronos to totally break the API/ABI for OpenGL 3 anyway. We're still upset and disappointed that the CAD wienies got their way and retarded OpenGL's progress by years, and pretty much sealed the fate of Direct3D being the overwhelmingly superior API (which just unfortunately is not cross platform).
      Let me disagree. This is the only thing that has kept OpenGL alive. Had DirectX been cross-platform from its ninth version forward, OpenGL would've been long dead.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by WillyThePimp View Post
        Let me disagree. This is the only thing that has kept OpenGL alive. Had DirectX been cross-platform from its ninth version forward, OpenGL would've been long dead.
        Except that if dx9 was to be cross platform than no living soul on this planet would have scared about OpenGL anyway, which takes us back to: There is no good cross platform graphics lib whatsoever at this point in time, untill some student actualy has to stand up to fix the pile of crap, with all due massive respect for the Gallium devs that need to put up with fixing the crap that the industry has thrown at them and the entire GUI ecosystem as a result.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by elanthis View Post
          Burn that stuff with fire.
          Agreed, but that's a problem for Khronos and the ARB, not something that can really be fixed by creating a restricted implementation.

          Comment


          • #6
            I don't see a problem with the old API lingering around as optional baggage. Create a GL3 context without compatibility extension, and there you have your cleaned up API. What we really need to burn are all the tutorials that were written 10 years ago.

            Comment


            • #7
              bring it on

              I am trying to learn OpenGL from scratch and my last exposure was in the 1.5 version days. It is freaking hard to find a good tutorial that does not use (or even mention) the old immediate mode rendering.

              Actualy the Khronos idea was to deprecate the compatibility stuff and leave it to the driver implementation to decide when to hack it away. I am all for doing it on an independent way like this one and see if there's an actual improvement. Smaller codebase, less unused stuff, more performance.

              Look at MESA. Trying to implement all of the OGL legacy and new parts takes lot of time. Starting from scratch does not look that bad to me.

              Comment


              • #8
                He seems quite passionate and motivated to develop an OpenGL 4.1 Core state tracker for Gallium3D this summer, so that at least a subset of the specification will work
                So he is going to develop OpenGL state tracker? ... from scratch? ... over summer? ... all alone? Is he some kind of superhero from outer space? How come I've never seen his BIG achievements before? Why it's taking so long time for team of skilled developers like: Alex Deucher, Dave Airlie, Marek Olk, Brian Paul etc. to write OpenGL 3 state tracker when one inexperienced student from Belgium could do it alone and probably overnight ? Maybe he was on a trip to Holland recently and overdosed ?

                To be serious: I think that when someone says BIG words, he should have THICK portfolio behind his back. I think that words of Denis aren't credible and are only nutrition for dreamers.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by NSLW View Post
                  So he is going to develop OpenGL state tracker? ... from scratch? ... over summer? ... all alone? Is he some kind of superhero from outer space? How come I've never seen his BIG achievements before? Why it's taking so long time for team of skilled developers like: Alex Deucher, Dave Airlie, Marek Olk, Brian Paul etc. to write OpenGL 3 state tracker when one inexperienced student from Belgium could do it alone and probably overnight ? Maybe he was on a trip to Holland recently and overdosed ?

                  To be serious: I think that when someone says BIG words, he should have THICK portfolio behind his back. I think that words of Denis aren't credible and are only nutrition for dreamers.

                  I'm sure Linus was met with the same skepticism when he announced development of linux.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by deanjo View Post
                    I'm sure Linus was met with the same skepticism when he announced development of linux.
                    linus announcement circa 1991:

                    Hello everybody out there using minix -

                    Im doing a (free) operating system (just a hobby, wont be big and
                    professional like gnu) for 386(486) AT clones
                    . This has been brewing
                    since april, and is starting to get ready. Id like any feedback on
                    things people like/dislike in minix, as my OS resembles it somewhat
                    (same physical layout of the file-system (due to practical reasons)
                    among other things).

                    Ive currently ported bash(1.08) and gcc(1.40), and things seem to work.
                    This implies that Ill get something practical within a few months, and
                    Id like to know what features most people would want. Any suggestions
                    are welcome, but I wont promise Ill implement them :-)

                    Linus (torvalds@kruuna.helsinki.fi)

                    PS. Yes its free of any minix code, and it has a multi-threaded fs.
                    It is NOT protable (uses 386 task switching etc), and it probably never
                    will support anything other than AT-harddisks, as thats all I have :-(
                    .
                    i don't thing this was as ambitious as this.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by NSLW View Post
                      So he is going to develop OpenGL state tracker? ... from scratch? ... over summer? ... all alone? Is he some kind of superhero from outer space? How come I've never seen his BIG achievements before? Why it's taking so long time for team of skilled developers like: Alex Deucher, Dave Airlie, Marek Olk, Brian Paul etc. to write OpenGL 3 state tracker when one inexperienced student from Belgium could do it alone and probably overnight ? Maybe he was on a trip to Holland recently and overdosed ?

                      To be serious: I think that when someone says BIG words, he should have THICK portfolio behind his back. I think that words of Denis aren't credible and are only nutrition for dreamers.
                      That's because a pure OpenGL 3 state tracker (software only) is considerably simpler than Open GL 1-1.5 and 2-2.1 + extensions plus all the needed changes to Mesa, which is sometimes not easy to update for yet newer extensions.

                      Still, it's extremely ambitious. Best of luck, and hopefully some of his work can be re-used if it doesn't work.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Somebody needs to shake khronos awake.
                        Tell the ARB what version numbers are for.

                        I mean If I make libs that implement an api I do the following.

                        Start with lib<api name><api major version>.
                        This way I can install multiple versions of the same api in one directory.
                        Use multiple versions of library in one project without confusion.
                        (doing use for one major version and writing the fully qualified name for the others)

                        This is easy but you have to be consistent with keeping the version numbers to distinguish things. This isn't very complicated and much simpler to implement robustly than adding profiles and other special things.

                        This way compatibility can be broken while old apps can still function.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          plonoma: indeed, and that was initially the plan with OpenGL 3.0, then it was a year late together with total radio silence and out came a release that merely added a few features to 2 decades old base.

                          IMHO, I would actually turn things around (if I had infinite time at hand, cared enough and knew its 100% possible) - write a wrapper that runs on a clean core OpenGL 3/4 and provides all the legacy crap for apps that need it.
                          That way driver developers (FOSS and companies alike) just need to write a way simpler core OpenGL 3/4 driver. Quite possible apps using the legacy stuff would run a bit slower through the wrapper, but who cares... and if a new OpenGL 5.0 comes around with changes that break compatibility, just use this as base for the wrapper. ie. there is always just 1 or 2 clean and simple versions to write drivers for.

                          If thats done then driver-writers wont hesitate to switch to the latest core OpenGL ASAP!

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by NSLW View Post
                            So he is going to develop OpenGL state tracker? ... from scratch? ... over summer? ... all alone?
                            Let me illustrate how this sounds to me:
                            So he is going to build a device that can make people fly? ... in the heavens? ... without God's help? ... all alone?

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by elanthis View Post
                              I -- and most other tech-oriented games devs I've spoken to -- are totally cool with stripping the compatibility profile. All that crap is garbage. Yes, it means rewriting some small portion of a larger app to port. So does moving from DirectX 9 to DirectX 10.

                              This is a good thing. The baggage is _confusing_ for developers. Almost nobody knows how the new versions of OpenGL actually work. I've been working on an OGL3 tutorial for a few months, and it's crazy how little documentation there is and how many people are still mixing in old OGL2 functions.

                              Plus the old stuff is slow. The matrix stack alone is a source of inefficiency and confusion.

                              Burn that stuff with fire.

                              The games industry devs -- and many other graphics professionals -- wante Khronos to totally break the API/ABI for OpenGL 3 anyway. We're still upset and disappointed that the CAD wienies got their way and retarded OpenGL's progress by years, and pretty much sealed the fate of Direct3D being the overwhelmingly superior API (which just unfortunately is not cross platform).
                              I agree with your point that the old features should be burned with fire. But they still exist and we can't ignore that. No matter what game devs or tech folks say, they only care about themselves and yeah, they don't really need any of this crap. But there still are tons of apps which are using deprecated features, and like or not, drivers must support them all. This is not only about future apps, it's especially about existing apps people use now. I wouldn't be surprised if 100% of the GL apps in the PTS used deprecated features.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X