Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

OpenGL 3.0, GLSL 1.30 Released

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

  • #16
    I was not expected that all X devs goes to Intel and now even Ian Romaniac is. He will (for sure), step-by-step, aligning Mesa to work on "every" platform with Larrabee, but not... Who cares for busted & delayed X experiment? Or for OGL3? Ian's & Transgaming's extensions? HAHAHAHA!!!

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by energyman View Post
      people are always disappointed. If the new release would have broken all the apis for the sake of 'clean up' a lot more people would be disappointed.

      Whatever you do, you will always see some whining. Just look at this forum and the whining bridgeman& co have to endure (and endure they do, with humour)
      No, in fact they have a good reason to be upset. A year ago a new api was promised, examples were shown in a newsletter and it would all be wonderfull: a modern, clean, easy to develop for api. An api that could be on par with DirectX 10. Now, a year later, after being quiet for almost a year (with no reasons given why OpenGL 3.0 was delayed) they come up with something that they should have called OpenGL 2.2.

      Is it al that bad? Well... there are some positive points. There is a new depricated model that shows almost any fixed pipeline function to be depricated. This means, all depricated functionality being removed in the next version of OpenGL. It also means that it will take until the next version of OpenGL before it really gets easier for driver developers and application developers to develop OpenGL applications. Khronos members told in the opengl forums that the object oriented api is still being worked on, but the problem is that nobody trusts Khronos anymore after a year delay, a year of silence and a totally different api then promised.

      Another thing that is different then promised is that you need DirectX 10 capable hardware for OpenGL 3.0 (initial plans were based on minimum R300/NV30). But probably the most important feature: geometry shaders still need an extension. So it is the question if Ati, Nvidia and Intel will support this extension.

      Anyway: if you use the forward-compatible profile (profiles are also new), which doesn't use any depricated functions, you have a cleaned up api. But it would be nice if Khronos released a spec without all the depricated stuff in it (which takes up about 2/3 of the spec).

      Comment


      • #18
        I read the reactions of a bunch of DX fanboys on opengl.org. The bottom line however, is that if they wish to sell their games to me, they better not use DX 10+ (should stick with OpenGL or DX 9), due to the Vista+ only support. Some game developers understand this perfectly well.

        Comment


        • #19
          I think one problem with OpenGL is that it actually was never made for programming games with it. It was a tool to create powerful CAD applications, which didn't even need to be hardware accelerated. Because of its nature, OpenGL now keeps the support for the workstation business and tries to add support for games, but these two things actually have very different needs and thus, creating a "clean" API is very hard as there will always be areas which never get touched in either games or CAD programs.
          Ever wondered why D3D is superior to OpenGL today? It's only supposed to be used for games, and as such the API is optimized for that use.
          What we would need is a complete restart (yeah, I'm one of these guys who say starting from scratch is always a good idea ;-) ) with a new API that is tied to programming games only and let the OGL ARB do whatever they want to go back to workstation-only. The only problem with this approach is that it would probably damn hard to get the support from major companies like ATI or NVIDIA for that (however, that reason has never prevented some OSS developers to implement their ideas).

          Comment


          • #20
            Fork! Fork! Fork! Fork!

            Comment


            • #21
              OMG! Boom goes plans to get a Radeon HD4850. How long before we see hardware support for OpenGL 3.0 ? I guess its direct competition is going to be DirectX 11.0, since OpenGL 2.1 takes care of DirectX 10.

              Is it going to enter the kernel soon ? When ?

              Comment


              • #22
                who programs games on bare ogl+glut anyway? sdl and friends are there for a reason.

                A fork would be stupid - it would kill ogl and the fork.

                Comment


                • #23
                  I've also been waiting long for this announcement, but I'm not a developer so I'm sad to see the reactions. I do work with OpenGL apps as a 3D/compositing artist, and it's only been lately that 3D DCC apps have included OGL 2(.1) functions, so I guess OGL 3(.1) functions are a way off still.

                  About games, id Software still uses OpenGL for "Rage" the new title they are working on. It is IMO the best looking realtime graphics I've seen yet, so I don't understand those of you who think DX10 is superior.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by MetalheadGautham View Post
                    OMG! Boom goes plans to get a Radeon HD4850. How long before we see hardware support for OpenGL 3.0 ? I guess its direct competition is going to be DirectX 11.0, since OpenGL 2.1 takes care of DirectX 10.

                    Is it going to enter the kernel soon ? When ?
                    The hardware is already out, has been for a while. a DX10 card has no issues running OGL3.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by numasan View Post
                      I've also been waiting long for this announcement, but I'm not a developer so I'm sad to see the reactions. I do work with OpenGL apps as a 3D/compositing artist, and it's only been lately that 3D DCC apps have included OGL 2(.1) functions, so I guess OGL 3(.1) functions are a way off still.

                      About games, id Software still uses OpenGL for "Rage" the new title they are working on. It is IMO the best looking realtime graphics I've seen yet, so I don't understand those of you who think DX10 is superior.
                      Its not the features that are the problem , its that they promised a modern API , as in easily to maintain , 1 way not 5 to get 1 result, object based etc.
                      But this didnt happen, nothing got deleted , so theres still 5 ways to do the same, its not object based, and because of that its hard to maintain your code. ( and drivers devs will have fun implementing 5 ways to do the same stuff to suport all the people that use them) .

                      D3D changed its API several times ( and lost backwards compatibiltiy ), to meet the requirements of modern APIs. ARB promised a similar aproach for OGL3, but the API still is similar to the one used in the 90s . This is the main reason people say D3D is superior to OGL.

                      This is the big disapointment, its not about features.
                      ( imagine you are promised a nice sports car and instead you get a raceboat , its nice but its not what you wanted )

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by NeoBrain View Post
                        ... The only problem with this approach is that it would probably damn hard to get the support from major companies like ATI or NVIDIA for that (however, that reason has never prevented some OSS developers to implement their ideas).
                        I don't think that hardware support is too hard, because no vendor want to be dependend on only one player, which dictates the market and therefore everything.

                        Well, it was a rather bad day! Hope that throught OpenCL maybe also OpenGL will make a leap ahead, someday...

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by rbmorse View Post
                          Fork! Fork! Fork! Fork!
                          Spork! Spork! Spork! Spork!

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by some-guy View Post
                            Seems like many people are disappointed: http://www.opengl.org/discussion_boa...243267&fpart=1
                            I'm a bit disappointed, if you want to know the truth of the matter- but I don't come away with the idea that "we're behind the times" and have been so since D3D 8.0 (Which is BOGUS. And it's not "easier" to code for D3D versus OpenGL- it's DIFFERENT and it makes some things easier at the expense of allowing sloppy code to go down.). Most of the eye candy potential is there with OpenGL 2.1 in the first place- all the PS3 titles sort of prove this one out already.

                            I would rather have liked to get what they tried to give us with Longs Peak originally- but most of the cruft goes bye-bye with OpenGL ES 2.0 and that's relevant for a lot of platforms (Wii, PS3, Pandora, other non-desktop solutions...) and can be made available via a thin abstraction shim or a native API edge on pretty much any platform with OpenGL 2.0 available to it.

                            [edit]

                            Perhaps we ought to be working at getting ES to be more the primary API and then force CAD-type apps down the ES 1.X leg which won't break anything for them and then do everything else in the ES 2.X leg for games, etc. ES 2.0 is the nice, lean-n-clean API, for the most part, that people want out of OpenGL (one good way of doing things, etc...) and is more akin to what we need in Linux. Honest. There's really two APIs here and they can both be supported and be cross-platform.
                            Last edited by Svartalf; 08-12-2008, 06:10 PM.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by NeoBrain View Post
                              In fact, many games that offer both DX9 and DX10 versions don't differ _that_ much in graphics quality, so it's actually possible to do the same "very realistic graphics" of DX10 and DX9. And as most (if not all) DX9 features are also implemented in Opengl 2.x, it's even possible to do these kinds of graphics in "old" Opengl versions.
                              What OpenGL 3 improves here, however, is the general API look and also it optimizes a few basic concepts as well as introducing a better shader language.
                              I.e. both DX10 and OGL3 don't make these graphics possible, but make it easier for games to achieve them.
                              Folks...Read and re-read this over and over until it soaks in.

                              This is what's going on here. And the people doing the strongest bitching actually are in the "a poor artist blames his tools" category of games and application developers. It's not that difficult to "find the fast path" and a bunch of other things they were griping about in that thread. Oftentimes D3D produces opaque code that's hard to follow- in all honesty, some of this stuff they do, I can't envision people thinking it was "easier" than OpenGL was in the long run.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by flami View Post
                                D3D changed its API several times ( and lost backwards compatibiltiy ), to meet the requirements of modern APIs. ARB promised a similar aproach for OGL3, but the API still is similar to the one used in the 90s . This is the main reason people say D3D is superior to OGL.
                                Heh... Breaking at every rev being superior? Niiice.

                                Anyone that tells you that it changes every time you turn around and come up with the next version, but is "similar" and has some smattering of backwards compatibility/emulation, but not always and not consistent when it did provide something- and this person calls it "superior" is selling something.

                                API stability is important for even games. Tracking D3D is "fun" in the masochistic sense of things and people use it because it's the "easy" way to do things under Windows because MS made it that way.

                                D3D is only "superior" because it followed the whims of MS and gave the devs precisely what they asked for. That's nice in a way, but it leads to all sorts of twitchy code and games that plain flat won't run 1-2 years after their sale. Now, that might be good for causing churn for games, but it does NOTHING for the poor bastards writing CAD and other serious 3D tools- which have tended to avoid D3D even when it's "superior" on Windows for some odd reason...wonder why?

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X