Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

OpenGL 4.3, OpenGL ES 3.0 Specifications Unveiled

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

  • OpenGL 4.3, OpenGL ES 3.0 Specifications Unveiled

    Phoronix: OpenGL 4.3, OpenGL ES 3.0 Specifications Unveiled

    Just as I reported last week would happen at SIGGRAPH and in late May first talked about OpenGL ES 3.0, today at the first day of SIGGRAPH LA 2012 the Khronos Group announced the release of the OpenGL 4.3 and OpenGL ES 3.0 graphics API specifications...

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=MTE1NTA

  • #2
    Originally posted by phoronix View Post
    Just as I reported last week would happen at SIGGRAPH
    Speculative reporting isn't really reporting. When you're taking a guess, even an educated guess, it's speculation not reporting. Please don't try to pass it off as anything else; it tends to discredit when you actually report on other stories. Basically it shows you not knowing the difference between a report and speculation. BTW, you're free to speculate on things as much as you like, but you really need to work on not passing it off as reporting and call it what it is.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by losinggeneration View Post
      Speculative reporting isn't really reporting. When you're taking a guess, even an educated guess, it's speculation not reporting. Please don't try to pass it off as anything else; it tends to discredit when you actually report on other stories. Basically it shows you not knowing the difference between a report and speculation. BTW, you're free to speculate on things as much as you like, but you really need to work on not passing it off as reporting and call it what it is.
      Maybe he had inside sources?

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Fazer View Post
        Maybe he had inside sources?
        Possibly, but based on a quote from the other story
        On Wednesday, 8 August, there will be a Khronos news conference to "Join us for great news about Khronos APIs!" This will most likely be where OpenGL 4.3 and OpenGL ES 3.0 will be introduced.
        I'd say most likely not since he does not mention any inside sources for this conjecture.

        Comment


        • #5
          Oh come on guys. If we are really strict you might be right but who cares? Let's not kill this thread right from the start.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by d2kx View Post
            Oh come on guys. If we are really strict you might be right but who cares? Let's not kill this thread right from the start.
            Someone who wants to be a credible source should care, but I digress, as for the topic at hand, I think it's great that OpenGL 4.3 is out as well as the long awaited OpenGL ES 3.0.

            Comment


            • #7
              And I still don't, after all these years, quite get it how there can be an "OpenGL" specification without a free implementation of it? I know it's always been this way, but I've never quite understood..

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by M1kkko View Post
                And I still don't, after all these years, quite get it how there can be an "OpenGL" specification without a free implementation of it? I know it's always been this way, but I've never quite understood..
                Because the "Open" doesn't refer to free software - it means it is open to any company willing to invest enough to join, rather than being strictly controlled by a single company like Direct3D is. (though of course even D3D brings in the manufacturers)

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by smitty3268 View Post
                  Because the "Open" doesn't refer to free software - it means it is open to any company willing to invest enough to join, rather than being strictly controlled by a single company like Direct3D is. (though of course even D3D brings in the manufacturers)
                  Yes, but it would make sense for an "open" standard to have a reference implementation which you could use as a gold standard for correctness.

                  This is not always the case, but I find it strange.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by pingufunkybeat View Post
                    Yes, but it would make sense for an "open" standard to have a reference implementation which you could use as a gold standard for correctness.

                    This is not always the case, but I find it strange.
                    That's what I had in mind. The current situation is, "you can use OpenGL, but only with proprietary drivers".

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by pingufunkybeat View Post
                      Yes, but it would make sense for an "open" standard to have a reference implementation which you could use as a gold standard for correctness.

                      This is not always the case, but I find it strange.
                      While a reference implementation would be nice, in this case it's not practical since it depends on hardware. C++ is another example where a reference implementation would be less useful than specific implementations.

                      Originally posted by M1kkko View Post
                      That's what I had in mind. The current situation is, "you can use OpenGL, but only with proprietary drivers".
                      Not really, Mesa supports OpenGL up to 3.0 & KOS for the Dreamcast supports roughly 1.2. Neither of these are certified OpenGL though, they just implement the standard. That's not to say though you have to use a proprietary implementation. I don't see where the confusion is here...

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by M1kkko View Post
                        And I still don't, after all these years, quite get it how there can be an "OpenGL" specification without a free implementation of it? I know it's always been this way, but I've never quite understood..
                        You need to remember the history. OpenGL came out when there weren't good cross-vendor standards, so to a large extent every graphics workstation vendor had a different graphics language. The idea was to make a standard that could be implemented by a number of different proprietary graphics hardware systems, which in turn mostly ran on proprietary UNIX-based OSes -- don't think there was any consideration of open source. I'm not even sure the term "open source" existed at the time.

                        A quick scan of Wikipedia suggests :

                        OpenGL - 1992
                        Brian Paul starts working on Mesa - 1993
                        Direct3D - 1995
                        First HW acceleration in Mesa - 1997
                        Common use of term "open source" - 1998
                        Jens Owen & Kevin Martin write initial DRI design doc - 1998
                        John Carmack donates $10,000 to Mesa project - 1999
                        Last edited by bridgman; 08-06-2012, 01:52 PM. Reason: added more entries to timeline

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by M1kkko View Post
                          That's what I had in mind. The current situation is, "you can use OpenGL, but only with proprietary drivers".
                          You have that much need for a terribly preforming softpipe that has the sole goal of being a reference implementation? Honestly, a reference driver can't be made, because graphics cards are not uniform.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by losinggeneration View Post
                            Not really, Mesa supports OpenGL up to 3.0 & KOS for the Dreamcast supports roughly 1.2. Neither of these are certified OpenGL though, they just implement the standard. That's not to say though you have to use a proprietary implementation. I don't see where the confusion is here...
                            The confusion here is due to the open implementation (Mesa) not being in any way affiliated with those behind the specification itself (the Khronos group).

                            Mesa is far from being compliant with the newest OpenGL specification, and as such is in no way a "gold standard for correctness" either. That makes OpenGL an "open" specification with only closed implementations. I could even go so far as to say that I wouldn't consider OpenGL really open until there is an actual open reference implementation out there.

                            In other words; I'm going to be playing my games with the proprietary Nvidia driver if I want to enjoy the latest version of this specification.

                            Originally posted by bridgman View Post
                            You need to remember the history. OpenGL came out when there weren't good cross-vendor standards, so to a large extent every graphics workstation vendor had a different graphics language. The idea was to make a standard that could be implemented by a number of different proprietary graphics hardware systems, which in turn mostly ran on proprietary UNIX-based OSes -- don't think there was any consideration of open source. I'm not even sure the term "open source" existed at the time.

                            A quick scan of Wikipedia suggests :

                            OpenGL - 1992
                            DirectX - 1995
                            Common use of term "open source" - 1998
                            Now that we have a historical perspective, it suddenly starts to make more sense. It would still be nice to have official support from Khronos though.

                            By the way, I said a free implementation, didn't I? I believe the term free software dates back to the early 80's, if not earlier.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by M1kkko View Post
                              Mesa is far from being compliant with the newest OpenGL specification, and as such is in no way a "gold standard for correctness" either. That makes OpenGL an "open" specification with only closed implementations. I could even go so far as to say that I wouldn't consider OpenGL really open until there is an actual open reference implementation out there.
                              I'm not sure if there is complete consensus on this, but I suspect that Mesa probably *is* the closest thing to a gold standard for correctness, at least for the GL levels it supports. Some (but not all) of the proprietary implementations support higher GL levels, of course.

                              There was an "official" reference implementation from SGI (which SGI open-sourced recently) but the last update was to OpenGL 1.2.

                              BTW before you pick a specific proprietary implementation as your "reference", you might want to read up on strict vs relaxed implementations. There are some significant differences in the way that out-of-spec API calls are handled, each with pros and cons.

                              Originally posted by M1kkko View Post
                              By the way, I said a free implementation, didn't I? I believe the term free software dates back to the early 80's, if not earlier.
                              Yes, but your implication seemed to be that the use of the word "Open" in the standard name meant that it should at least have an open/free implementation -- or maybe I got that wrong.

                              I was going to say something like "they didn't call it FreeGL" earlier, but I thought that could have come across as more sarcastic than I intended
                              Last edited by bridgman; 08-06-2012, 02:23 PM.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X