Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

OpenGL 3.0, GLSL 1.30 Released

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • phoronix
    started a topic OpenGL 3.0, GLSL 1.30 Released

    OpenGL 3.0, GLSL 1.30 Released

    Phoronix: OpenGL 3.0, GLSL 1.30 Released

    From SIGGRAPH 2008, one of the premiere computers graphics conferences, the Khronos Group has announced the release of the OpenGL 3.0 API specification and the GLSL 1.30 shading language specification. This is the first major update to this cross-platform 3D programming API since the OpenGL 2.1 release two years ago. In this article we have a bit of information on these OpenGL and GLSL updates and when we can expect to see the Linux graphics scene moving to this new standard.

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=12730

  • Regenwald
    replied
    hm, i don't hope that this is all.

    Leave a comment:


  • NeoBrain
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Dragoran
    replied
    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
    http://www.nvision2008.com/Professionals/index.cfm

    Leave a comment:


  • Redeeman
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • drag
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • R3MF
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


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

    anyway its the others fault ^^

    Leave a comment:


  • Svartalf
    replied
    Originally posted by flami View Post
    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.
    Heh... Breaking at every rev being superior? Niiice.

    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?

    Leave a comment:


  • Svartalf
    replied
    Originally posted by NeoBrain View Post
    In fact, many games that offer both DX9 and DX10 versions don't differ _that_ much in graphics quality, so it's actually possible to do the same "very realistic graphics" of DX10 and DX9. And as most (if not all) DX9 features are also implemented in Opengl 2.x, it's even possible to do these kinds of graphics in "old" Opengl versions.
    What OpenGL 3 improves here, however, is the general API look and also it optimizes a few basic concepts as well as introducing a better shader language.
    I.e. both DX10 and OGL3 don't make these graphics possible, but make it easier for games to achieve them.
    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.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X