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 ?
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.
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.
The hardware is already out, has been for a while. a DX10 card has no issues running OGL3.
Originally Posted by MetalheadGautham
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.
Originally Posted by numasan
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 )
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.
Originally Posted by NeoBrain
Well, it was a rather bad day! Hope that throught OpenCL maybe also OpenGL will make a leap ahead, someday...
Spork! Spork! Spork! Spork!
Originally Posted by rbmorse
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.
Originally Posted by some-guy
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.
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 at 06:10 PM.
Folks...Read and re-read this over and over until it soaks in.
Originally Posted by NeoBrain
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.
Heh... Breaking at every rev being superior? Niiice.
Originally Posted by flami
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?