Results 1 to 10 of 10

Thread: Mesa Makes More Strides Towards OpenGL 3.x Support

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    13,467

    Default Mesa Makes More Strides Towards OpenGL 3.x Support

    Phoronix: Mesa Makes More Strides Towards OpenGL 3.x Support

    The OpenGL 3.0 specification was announced in August of 2007 and has already been succeeded by OpenGL 3.1, OpenGL 3.2, and then earlier this year came OpenGL 3.3 and OpenGL 4.0. While the 3.0 revision to this industry standard graphics API has been around for nearly three years, it's still not fully supported by the open-source Mesa graphics stack. Progress though is being made...

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

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    983

    Default

    There's also the recent work by Zack Rusin which implements ARB_geometry_shader4.
    http://lists.freedesktop.org/archive...ly/001314.html

    Things seems to be moving along pretty well on the OGL3 front.

  3. #3

    Default

    And some people say we don't need binary blobs.

    Thank you, NVIDIA, for providing us with decent drivers with full OpenGL 3.3 support (I'm not sure about 4.0 - I've never owned GTX 4xx cards).

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    980

    Default

    VMware seems to invest a lot in it, and I suppose they want to use it for some kind of virtualization. But AFAIK they mostly contribute to the core and the software drivers. It seems a bit of a gamble to me to rely on others to produce the hardware drivers. Or perhaps they are planning to run their virtualization on softpipe or proprietary drivers. I'm a bit in the dark what their plans exactly are.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    69

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by birdie View Post
    And some people say we don't need binary blobs.

    Thank you, NVIDIA, for providing us with decent drivers with full OpenGL 3.3 support (I'm not sure about 4.0 - I've never owned GTX 4xx cards).
    And I bet you've never ran anything that used those 3.3 extensions (except for perhaps Unigine).

    I'll start worrying about 3.x and 4.0 support when I start trying to run cutting edge games on Linux that don't have a 2.x fallback. At the moment there is no rush to implement these APIs because no-one is using them anyway. These cutting edge games don't yet exist, and even if they did it would be financial suicide to not code in a fallback.

    Remember DX10? It was only supported on Vista but everyone still used XP, so the games companies continued to use DX9 OR fallback to DX9 if DX10 wasn't present. I'm pretty sure that most games still fallback to DX9. It's the same for GL, if a large percentage of users are still running GL 2.x drivers, then anyone developing OpenGL will code in a fallback if GL 3.x isn't available.

    Of course, it would be great to boast this support in MESA, and of course some of the new features can provide performance boosts, or better rendering quality, but the open drivers currently have other performance issues that negate any improvements they would bring. 3.x and 4.0 support would be nice to have, but it's far from urgent.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    2,910

    Default

    Thanks for all the work, and I'm looking forward to having an open implementation of the OpenGL 3 standard soon. Only a few extensions to go!

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Chicagoland Area, IL
    Posts
    18

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pingufunkybeat View Post
    Thanks for all the work, and I'm looking forward to having an open implementation of the OpenGL 3 standard soon. Only a few extensions to go!
    Yeah I would like to think everyone for their help with the project. But it sounds like there is MUCH more to get done than just a few extensions to go.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Chicagoland Area, IL
    Posts
    18

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kazade View Post
    And I bet you've never ran anything that used those 3.3 extensions (except for perhaps Unigine).

    I'll start worrying about 3.x and 4.0 support when I start trying to run cutting edge games on Linux that don't have a 2.x fallback. At the moment there is no rush to implement these APIs because no-one is using them anyway. These cutting edge games don't yet exist, and even if they did it would be financial suicide to not code in a fallback.

    Remember DX10? It was only supported on Vista but everyone still used XP, so the games companies continued to use DX9 OR fallback to DX9 if DX10 wasn't present. I'm pretty sure that most games still fallback to DX9. It's the same for GL, if a large percentage of users are still running GL 2.x drivers, then anyone developing OpenGL will code in a fallback if GL 3.x isn't available.

    Of course, it would be great to boast this support in MESA, and of course some of the new features can provide performance boosts, or better rendering quality, but the open drivers currently have other performance issues that negate any improvements they would bring. 3.x and 4.0 support would be nice to have, but it's far from urgent.
    I never thought about it like that until you made your post.

    I am still happy to hear of this development because I am not sure if id Tech 5 will be using OpenGL3 or not.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    2,910

    Default

    From the git progress file (for OpenGL 3.0):

    GLSL changes (GL_EXT_gpu_shader4, etc) not started
    Conditional rendering (GL_NV_conditional_render) DONE (swrast & softpipe)
    Map buffer subranges (GL_ARB_map_buffer_range) DONE
    Float textures, renderbuffers some infrastructure done
    (incl. GL_EXT_packed_float, GL_EXT_shared_exponent)
    Framebuffer objects (GL_EXT_framebuffer_object) DONE
    Half-float some infrastructure done
    Multisample blit DONE
    Non-normalized Integer texture/framebuffer formats not started
    1D/2D Texture arrays core Mesa, swrast done
    Packed depth/stencil formats DONE
    Per-buffer blend and masks (GL_EXT_draw_buffers2) DONE
    GL_EXT_texture_compression_rgtc not started
    Red and red/green texture formats Ian?
    Transform feedback (GL_EXT_transform_feedback) ~50% done
    glBindFragDataLocation, glGetFragDataLocation,
    glBindBufferRange, glBindBufferBase commands
    Vertex array objects (GL_APPLE_vertex_array_object) DONE
    sRGB framebuffer format (GL_EXT_framebuffer_sRGB) not started
    glClearBuffer commands DONE, except for dispatch
    glGetStringi command DONE, except for dispatch
    glTexParameterI, glGetTexParameterI commands DONE, except for dispatch
    glVertexAttribI commands not started
    GL_EXT_gpu_shader4 seems to be in the works.

    The rest are certainly not all trivial changes, but you can see that progress is being made.

    Anyway, the biggest change AFAIK is from OpenGL 2 -> OpenGL 3. The rest is not too huge.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    983

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by castlefox View Post
    I never thought about it like that until you made your post.

    I am still happy to hear of this development because I am not sure if id Tech 5 will be using OpenGL3 or not.
    It was still using 2.1 about a year ago, not sure if there's been any official word since? I guess it wouldn't be surprising if it had different renderpaths and supported OpenGL 2/3/4...

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •