OpenGL ES 3.0 Will Be Here This Summer

[bachinchi]

OpenGL ES 2.0 (GLES2) requires EGL to setup and run, or the use of special nvidia/amd extensions for the desktop (which I don't know how to use) to setup and run GLES2.

More importantly, GLES2 is designed to run without GLX (which is why it typically requires the platform-neutral EGL), which allows it to run on mobiles and other systems which don't need X.org or can't run it, that's why Wayland requires (and defines its own) EGL - because Wayland needs to run independently without having to depend on GLX (X.org).

Thus as a desktop dev it's better to target GL 3.3 unless you're after WebGL or mobiles.

I don't really get what you mean.

[mark45]

OpenGL ES 2.0 (GLES2) requires EGL to setup and run, or the use of special nvidia/amd extensions for the desktop (which I don't know how to use) to setup and run GLES2.

More importantly, GLES2 is designed to run without GLX (which is why it typically requires the platform-neutral EGL), which allows it to run on mobiles and other systems which don't need X.org or can't run it, that's why Wayland requires (and defines its own) EGL - because Wayland needs to run independently without having to depend on GLX (X.org).

Thus as a desktop dev it's better to target GL 3.3 unless you're after WebGL or mobiles.

[elanthis]

So they're pretty much same powerful and flexible?
OpenGL ES is easier to learn and develop with?

Core profile OpenGL is also cleaned up and refined more or less identically to OpenGL ES. The API was fully aligned between OpenGL ES 2.0 and OpenGL 4.2, and will likely be aligned between OpenGL ES 3.0 and OpenGL 4.3 (if not 4.2). Desktop OpenGL has a ton of features and support than OpenGL ES does not. The rumors for OpenGL ES 3 would make it almost -- but not quite -- equivalent to D3D10. The direct comparison is a bit uneven (even today's GL ES devices have some features only found in D3D11, while D3D11 still has features that no version of GL offers even with extensions -- primarily threading support, which is basically impossible to do properly with the 1980's single-threaded GL/GLES API design).

So far as "easier to learn," the old deprecated OpenGL API is actually much "easier," which is why it's stuck around so long and why hobbyists and students keep clinging to it despite how awful it is for performance. Of course it's trivial to build such an easy API on top of GL3 or D3D, but nobody has written one (at least none that is widely known and ubiquitous). D3D10+ is also considered easier to learn and develop with compared to any version of GL ES or Core profile GL (again due to GL/GLES having that ancient 1980's style API, which is difficult to thread properly due to global state, is highly error prone and difficult to debug, is unfriendly to code completion, etc.).

[uid313]

OpenGL ES is a much smaller API in terms of entry points (functions) and functionality. OpenGL ES 2.0 is based on OpenGL 2.1 but with all legacy functions removed (i.e. no immediate mode rendering, no display lists, no fixed-function functionality.) OpenGL ES 3.0 will bring newer functionality equivalent to OpenGL 3.x (FBOs by default, more flexible shaders), with the possible exception of geometry shaders (which are much less useful than they sound, esp. in the mobile space.)

Apart from these differences, there are OpenGL ES versions for devices without floating-point hardware and for devices with increased stability requirements.

In short, OpenGL ES is closer to what OpenGL could have been if it wasn't burdened by backwards compatibility.

So they're pretty much same powerful and flexible?
OpenGL ES is easier to learn and develop with?

[BlackStar]

What is the difference between OpenGL and OpenGL ES?

I know that ES are for Embedded Systems.
But what really is the difference besides the name?

OpenGL ES is a much smaller API in terms of entry points (functions) and functionality. OpenGL ES 2.0 is based on OpenGL 2.1 but with all legacy functions removed (i.e. no immediate mode rendering, no display lists, no fixed-function functionality.) OpenGL ES 3.0 will bring newer functionality equivalent to OpenGL 3.x (FBOs by default, more flexible shaders), with the possible exception of geometry shaders (which are much less useful than they sound, esp. in the mobile space.)

Apart from these differences, there are OpenGL ES versions for devices without floating-point hardware and for devices with increased stability requirements.

In short, OpenGL ES is closer to what OpenGL could have been if it wasn't burdened by backwards compatibility.

[uid313]

What is the difference?

What is the difference between OpenGL and OpenGL ES?

I know that ES are for Embedded Systems.
But what really is the difference besides the name?

[halfmanhalfamazing]

OpenGL ES 3 is closer than it may appear

Some time ago this was posted:

http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=OTc3OA

And

http://cgit.freedesktop.org/mesa/mesa/tree/docs/GL3.txt

You can use these two links to track how fast this work is being done by comparing the time of posting at Phoronix, vs what it currently says at freedesktop.org.

Being as GLES3 will be in large part based upon GL 3.2, it won't be too big of a bridge to cross. Almost the entirety of OpenGL 3-3.3 is implemented. The one that's going to stick around as a sore spot for a long time will be GL 4.3.

Going into GL 4, that's the big bridge to cross.

[efikkan]

What we really need in OpenGL is standardizations of some innovations from nVidia such as bindless graphics/textures.

Jedibeeftrix:
The most important "feature" of SM4(Direct3D 10 and OpenGL 3.x) was the architectural redesign to better utilize modern GPU architectures. I have hardly ever seen geometry shaders in use, so I guess they just take up too much space to implement in mobile hardware.

[Jedibeeftrix]

cheers, makes sense i guess.

i see the logic, but i'm not sure that MESA compatibility is a serious concern for the ARB given that 99.99% of mobile devices run vendor supplied proprietary drivers.

[smitty3268]

Based on OpenGL 3.2+ rather than 3.3, i wonder if this answers why beyond3D people are saying that DX10 style geometry shaders are not part of the spec (added to OpenGL in 3.3 i believe)?

Why would they cut that feature out? over and above more complex shader operations, geometry shaders were one of the key functionality advancements that DX10 added over the old 9.x series......

They were actually added as part of GL3.2. I'm guessing the reason they are being left out is they require a significant amount of hardware transistors for a feature that would rarely be used in a mobile context. With ES hardware you have to balance the cost to make the hardware and the power required to run it with any new features you add, and geometry shaders probably just didn't end up making sense.

If they are left out, that will make ES3.0 a good target for Mesa to shoot for between GL3.1 and 3.2. They might be able to complete it for the January 2013 release and aim for more complete 3.2 support in the July 2013 release.