Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Khronos Publishes Its Slides About OpenGL-Next

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

  • Khronos Publishes Its Slides About OpenGL-Next

    Phoronix: Khronos Publishes Its Slides About OpenGL-Next

    Earlier this month at SIGGRAPH Vancouver we were surprised yet delighted by the news of Khronos developing a next-generation graphics API following OpenGL 4.5. All of the Khronos Group slides about OpenGL 4.5, OpenGL-Next, and their other industry-standard APIs have now been published from their SIGGRAPH track...

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=MTc2ODQ

  • #2
    That's what we needed

    I hope Gallium will be fast to catch up !

    Comment


    • #3
      Anand published them over a week ago.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by birdie View Post
        Anand published them over a week ago.
        Sharing it a week ago would've been cool, sharing it now is just lame.

        Comment


        • #5
          This has all the potential to be a great train-wreck.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by johnc View Post
            This has all the potential to be a great train-wreck.
            Life has all the potential to be a great train-wreck.

            Comment


            • #7
              I wonder if this new API has the potential to improve translation layers like Wine's d3d-to-opengl implementation. Because this will be low-level, translating seems more straight-forward to me.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by blackout23 View Post
                Life has all the potential to be a great train-wreck.
                And it usually delivers.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by johnc View Post
                  This has all the potential to be a great train-wreck.
                  Arguably, couldn't you say the current state of openGL is a train wreck? I guess a more accurate way to describe it is it's a train that is still on it's rails but has a failing engine.

                  I personally thing OpenGL-next sounds fantastic, though I'm a little disappointed that it breaks all compatibility. This is going to be a burden for Mesa and open source driver developers, and I'm not sure how this will pan out for people with older hardware. I think it's also potentially an issue for other projects too like Blender, Qt, VLC, and other things that have a pretty deep openGL implementation. I'm not too familiar with how to code for openGL but I can't imagine its a simple as just tweaking a few lines here and there and suddenly everything works. But, perhaps they may offer some backward compatibility, where some of the old obsolete code just doesn't do anything.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Pixar, Qualcomm, Samsung, NVIDIA, Epic Games, Unity, AMD, Oculus VR, Apple, ARM, VALVE, Hi Corp, Intel, Imagination, Blizzard, Sony, Broadcom, MediaTek, Google, EA, RTT, TransGaming, Mobica, and Vivante
                    Glad to see all those companies involved. The last thing we need is competition at an API level. I am quite surprised Apple is in the list. I guess they realize if their OS doesn't support a standard API it will have little chance of getting apps ported to it.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by schmidtbag View Post
                      Arguably, couldn't you say the current state of openGL is a train wreck? I guess a more accurate way to describe it is it's a train that is still on it's rails but has a failing engine.

                      I personally thing OpenGL-next sounds fantastic, though I'm a little disappointed that it breaks all compatibility. This is going to be a burden for Mesa and open source driver developers, and I'm not sure how this will pan out for people with older hardware. I think it's also potentially an issue for other projects too like Blender, Qt, VLC, and other things that have a pretty deep openGL implementation. I'm not too familiar with how to code for openGL but I can't imagine its a simple as just tweaking a few lines here and there and suddenly everything works. But, perhaps they may offer some backward compatibility, where some of the old obsolete code just doesn't do anything.
                      That's my concern too, that there is now going to be an "old" OpenGL and a "new" OpenGL, which is going to be a hell of a mess.

                      Developers won't have to deal with that kind of mess in DX; score another point for DX.

                      And it's not really obvious what benefits it's actually going to bring, other than chasing meaningless marketing buzzwords like "low-level" or the mythical "everything is better when you start over from scratch".

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        - OpenGL-Next is a ground-up design of a modern 3D+Compute API and will break compatibility with existing OpenGL implementations.

                        - This new initiative is "NOT" going to be a "multi-year, design-by-committee process."
                        I like the sound of this. These two visionary declarations is what will make this next version of OpenGL successful and competitive, more so than anything else.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by sarmad View Post
                          I am quite surprised Apple is in the list.
                          Why? Metal is designed for mobile, tile-based rendering GPUs. They still need something different for desktop.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by johnc View Post
                            Developers won't have to deal with that kind of mess in DX; score another point for DX.
                            I'm not really sure you can say that without knowing what DX12 will entail. This new GL is not really a incremental compatible change like DX10 and DX11 or GL 3.x and 4.x. Making it compatible would basically remove all the advantages it provides over the old interfaces.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by MartinN View Post
                              I like the sound of this. These two visionary declarations is what will make this next version of OpenGL successful and competitive, more so than anything else.
                              Yeah, we needed this. However, I also think unifying OpenGL ES and OpenGL was just as important a declaration.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X