No announcement yet.

OpenGL 3.0, GLSL 1.30 Released

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Just summed up what the people in that nice huge threat in the OLG forums are bi***ing about .

    anyway its the others fault ^^


    • #32
      Originally posted by Svartalf View Post
      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.
      i spend a boat load on computer hardware because that's what i like to do, if OpenGL 3.0 do not use that hardware (my 9800GX2) properly then i have a diminished interest in OpenGL 3.0. it is that simple.


      • #33
        Remember there is a difference between what DirectX does and what OpenGL does, right? I mean DirectX does sound, input, 2D graphics, and all sorts of stuff like that.

        In Linux-land we already have all that stuff with SDL, and it's a much cleaner and easier to program for then DirectX. If you want easy to program for stuff you do SDL. If you want easy to program for stuff, but want to get all twitchy with high-end graphics and such then you go OGL for 3D and SDL for everything else.

        And I can understand why they don't wanted to 'objects' in a very general sense. I don't know much about OpenGL, but I know about programming stuff in general.

        OpenGL is C-level stuff, right? Very low level.

        Well... C can be every bit as object oriented as anything else. I am not saying that it's pleasent, but you have to realize that C++ is written in C, so there is absolutely nothing that you can do in C++ that you can't do in C. It does everything.. if you want object oriented design you program in a object oriented manner.

        Of course your losing a lot of prepared work that other people have put into C++. Not saying it's wonderful and a good choice to stay with C, just that it doesn't restrict you from doing anything.

        For example the Linux kernel is C and it follows a strong object oriented design with all sorts of massive amounts of code re-use and abstractions. It's much more dynamic then any other sort of large C++ project.

        So if you want to use objects and you don't want to write all that crap yourself then you don't program in OpenGL. You program in software that is built on OpenGL.

        What sort of game designer actually programs in a lot of Direct3D or OpenGL anyways? Maybe a little bit of hacking for special effects, but he people that program in OpenGL are not going to be game makers, they are gaming engine makers.

        It's like if I want to make a applet for setting screen resolutions or something like that I am not going to go around hacking with developing new kernel syscalls or anything like that.. No, I'll just use python and gtk for the GUI and use X drivers to provide the functionality. If I want to always program using low-level interfaces I'll never get anything done.


        Plus with the advent of CPU-like GPU with the programming models they will bring and the sort of flexibility that things like Gallium3D brings...

        Do you really think that OpenGL is going to be the only path to the hardware?

        I mean, if you can program in regular C, C++, or Python and have your code compile with LLVM and target both the GPU and CPU based on which will be optimal for your program.. Do you really want to be farting around with GLSL shader languages to make your application go fast?

        So with Gallium3D (if it ever gets released) then you can develop all sorts of new ways to interact and program for the card that go far beyond anything you'd ever want to stick in OpenGL. It should be very API agnostic. The possibilities for different API models are quite high and I doubt anybody wants to see everything in the world stuffed into OpenGL.


        Like I said I don't know much about OpenGL or really anything much to do with graphics.

        But unless there is something fundamentally important you can't do in OpenGL that you can do in DirectX, then it may be just a better idea to leave OGL as low-level and flat as possible and let other people build new stuff from it that is easier to program for.
        Last edited by drag; 08-15-2008, 01:30 AM.


        • #34
          Originally posted by NeoBrain View Post
          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).
          except that d3d isnt superior, just because the propaganda says so, doesent make it true.


          • #35
            Several NVIDIA representatives have invited us to NVISION, so we do believe something significant could happen for Linux there, but we have yet to learn whether it pertains to an open-source strategy or Big Bang II on Linux or NVIDIA PR just trying to garner some extra attention. Though because of this, we have decided not to attend.
            LINUX Genius Bar at the exhibition: Spend 1:1 time with NVIDIA?s LINUX driver experts on the exhibition floor


            • #36
              That would give Michael a chance to do an interview with the NVIDIA Linux driver guys, however I think he'd just get the answer "no we aren't interested in OSS drivers" again, so I perfectly understand his opinion concerning the nvision.


              • #37
                hm, i don't hope that this is all.