Gallium3D Gets New Geometry Shader Support

[dl.zerocool]

First, in order for standards to be even followed, Windows must die a horrible and very quick death, yesterday.

Untill then, if it even happens, standards do not mean shit...

If you want some cool DirectX replacement then use SDL in the mean time...

Ahaha your first sentence is just awesome :P I would not say it, but I don't think less of it too :P

SDL is one of the solutions that I already used, but it's not enough advanced, most times I did used it, I had to fall back to OpenGL direct and keep SDL to manage inputs etc.

So it's not a real solution in a way. But in fact it works fine

[V!NCENT]

To say true what I would like to see in the future of OpenGL
is a merge and standardization of all 3D features, input management and sound management like in DirectX.

First, in order for standards to be even followed, Windows must die a horrible and very quick death, yesterday.

Untill then, if it even happens, standards do not mean shit...

If you want some cool DirectX replacement then use SDL in the mean time...

[yotambien]

Yes, but in order to get the "awesome" D3D10, you must pay Micro$oft a large amount of $$$ U$D, only to be vendor-locked-in and restricted with at bunch of DRM.

The cost of MS Windows is included in the price of every new computer sold. Since nowadays you can buy a laptop for about ?200 I fail to see where that 'large amount of $$$ U$D' is. Vendor lock-in? Are you using it as buzz word or you actually mean something? As for being 'restricted with a bunch of DRM', I guess you refer to having the possibility to play restricted media as dictated by the content providers--not by Microsoft.

[thefirstm]

Well, it is, if we want to be honest with ourselves. OpenGL 3.2 manages to close the gap somewhat, but it's still far behind D3D10 as far as API design, ease of use and stability is concerned. (Yes, it offers more functionality in general, but (a) it's still missing binary shaders and (b) 50% of the market is using Intel IGPs, which are synonymous with "bad OpenGL support" and (c) our OSS drivers don't even support GL2.1, much less 3.2).

Yes, but in order to get the "awesome" D3D10, you must pay Micro$oft a large amount of $$$ U$D, only to be vendor-locked-in and restricted with at bunch of DRM.

[BlackStar]

Direct3D? Awesome? I think not....

Well, it is, if we want to be honest with ourselves. OpenGL 3.2 manages to close the gap somewhat, but it's still far behind D3D10 as far as API design, ease of use and stability is concerned. (Yes, it offers more functionality in general, but (a) it's still missing binary shaders and (b) 50% of the market is using Intel IGPs, which are synonymous with "bad OpenGL support" and (c) our OSS drivers don't even support GL2.1, much less 3.2).

[thefirstm]

Wasn't the geometry shading what made Direct3D version 10 so awesome and wasn?t it what made people so angry about the lack of it in OpenGL 3.0?

Direct3D? Awesome? I think not....

[V!NCENT]

Thank you, Remco and Svartalf for the insight.

From what I understood is that OpenGl 3.0 was supposed to be completely new, that much I know, and it should also adapt to Direct3D 10ish hardware, right? From what I remember, but correct me if I am wrong, is that with the start of Direct3D 10 there is no longer a graphical pipeline, is that correct? Which should mean that one could get more performance out of this new architecture.

I thought that geometry shaders made that possible, but apparently they don't?

[Svartalf]

Wasn't the geometry shading what made Direct3D version 10 so awesome and wasn?t it what made people so angry about the lack of it in OpenGL 3.0?

Yes to the first question, no to the second.

There's extensions that support that functionality that were being ratified by the ARB during the period that everyone was beta-testing those D3D10 drivers. Plans were afoot with at least one vendor to support the same ASAP under OpenGL.

What everyone was so angry about wasn't the lack of Geometry shaders, it was the keeping of legacy (i.e. immediate mode rendering and things like it) interfaces and the omission of the new object model and API edge. 3.0 isn't the revolutionary change they'd originally promised for it- it's very weakly evolutionary in many ways.

[DeepDayze]

Or why not add some fancy textures to the cube such as granite frames to each side

[Remco]

I wonder if something like this can be used for a cool Compiz effect?

Some kickass tessellation of the desktop cube, maybe? :P