339 replies to this topic

[phantom]

Well, someone has linked to the following on OpenGL.org; http://opengl.org/registry/doc/glspec30.20080811.pdf And, well, thanks but no thanks. All those glorious changes? Gone. The rewritten API? Gone. What we are left with is OpenGL2.2. To quote Eddy Luten from the Opengl.org forum;

Quote:

For those who don't feel like digging through the spec, OpenGL 3.0 Equals: API support for the new texture lookup, texture format, and integer and unsigned integer capabilities of the OpenGL Shading Language 1.30 specification (GL EXT gpu shader4). Conditional rendering (GL NV conditional render). Fine control over mapping buffer subranges into client space and flushing modified data. Floating-point color and depth internal formats for textures and renderbuffers (GL ARB color buffer float, GL NV depth buffer float, 455 N.2. DEPRECATION MODEL 456 GL ARB texture float, GL EXT packed float, and GL EXT texture shared exponent). Framebuffer objects (GL EXT framebuffer object). Half-float (16-bit) vertex array and pixel data formats (GL NV half float and GL ARB half float pixel). Multisample stretch blit functionality (GL EXT framebuffer multisample and GL EXT framebuffer blit). Non-normalized integer color internal formats for textures and renderbuffers (GL EXT texture integer). One- and two-dimensional layered texture targets (GL EXT texture array). Packed depth/stencil internal formats for combined depth+stencil textures and renderbuffers (GL EXT packed depth stencil). Per-color-attachment blend enables and color writemasks (GL EXT draw buffers2). RGTC specific internal compressed formats (GL EXT texture compression rgtc). Single- and double-channel (R and RG) internal formats for textures and renderbuffers. Transform feedback (GL EXT transform feedback). Vertex array objects (GL APPLE vertex array object). sRGB framebuffer mode (GL EXT framebuffer sRGB) Plus deprecation of older features.

As he said, where the hell are the objects? Frankly, this is crap. I said it was a sink or swim moment for the ARB and it's just sunk without a trace. It appears the reason is they don't want to break the API because of all the CAD apps out there (J. Carmack, QuakeCon2008), and in doing so have finally put the nail into the coffin games wise. I'd like to congratulate MS for winning the 3D API 'war' on Windows, turns out they didn't need to sink the goodship OpenGL, the captains ran it into an iceberg for them.

[hlsl]

Uhm..I was looking forward to new API. Anyway, I'm just happy with D3D. Seems like Microsoft actually know how to do the things.

[mrbastard]

Shame.

[Promit]

Fail.

[Aph3x]

Doh! Why don't they let the CAD people stick with 2.1, and move forwards with 3?

[FlyingIsFun1217]

My God. What would have been the problem saying, "This is the way it's going to be, let's REFINE it"? Makes me loose a LOT of respect for the ARB.

Of course, being on Linux, I sort of have to go with OpenGL (mesa, whatever) instead of DirectX. After this little blow though, I'm looking forward to somebody cracking DirectX.

FlyingIsFun1217

[Spoonbender]

So let me get this straight... In order to allow what, a small handful of old CAD apps to compile against 3.0, they're willing to practically kill off all *new* applications developed against the API?

That makes sense. One customer a year ago is better than ten next week... [grin]

Or maybe they've just realized that a) they've lost everything on Windows to DirectX so it doesn't really matter what they do there, and b) since they don't have a single competing API on other platforms, they don't actually need to make an effort there either.

End result, they can screw over developers as much as they like, and it won't actually hurt them. Windows developers wouldn't have used OGL in the first place, and everyone else will keep using them because there are no alternatives.

[phantom]

Quote:

Original post by Spoonbender That makes sense. One customer a year ago is better than ten next week... [grin]

Yes, apprently the ARB has a passing familarity with 'sense'; I'm starting to suspect that as a rule of thumb they find out what makes sense and then go in the other direction...

[Mike.Popoloski]

So I just checked, and it turns out we have plenty of room in DirectX and XNA for you guys. You can all come, nobody needs to get left out. Jack is going to make a batch of cookies for everyone!

[Ravuya]

So it took them a year of no updates, no news to unroll their existing changes and go back to an unassuming, useless API?

I thought Khronos was on the clue train here. People bank their livelihoods on this stuff.

Maybe with the new depreciation model we can have objects by 2014. I suspect I'd better get cracking on my Core Animation/DirectX interop layer before Apple leaves the ARB.

[InvalidPointer]

I couldn't help but laugh a little bit at the irony-- the ARB gets nailed for NOT dropping some support for older apps, but when Microsoft does the right thing and pushes forward with DX10-- they take a lot of flak themselves. Screwed if you do, screwed if you don't. That's life, I guess.

[davepermen]

Sad sad, I always loved opengl, having started with it. And I like it for being open and all. But they really lost focus completely. What's wrong with drawing a line and put a complete new api for the next version? Dx does it (too often possibly). It's not like it hurts anyone to have opengl1.dll, opengl2.dll and opengl3.dll on it's system.

Bad bad bad direction.

we should create a new one :)

[Cornstalks]

Quote:

Original post by Mike.Popoloski So I just checked, and it turns out we have plenty of room in DirectX and XNA for you guys. You can all come, nobody needs to get left out. Jack is going to make a batch of cookies for everyone!

I'm totally taking you up on that. I just started C# and XNA (I've been doing C++ and OpenGL in the past) and I'm really enjoying it. Will they be chocolate chip cookies? Those are my favorite.

[Oluseyi]

Quote:

Original post by Spoonbender So let me get this straight... In order to allow what, a small handful of old CAD apps to compile against 3.0, they're willing to practically kill off all *new* applications developed against the API?

It's not the number of apps that matter; it's the size of the market that these apps cater to. What would you estimate is the annual revenue from this "small handful of old CAD apps" (like AutoCAD 2009, released way back in the dark days of March 2008)? This was a US$ 1 billion market in 1979; in 1997, PDM - just one facet of the PLM approach generally employed by modern CAD solutions - was a $1.1 billion market by itself.

I understand the game developer's frustration - I was just about to start learning OpenGL for the Mac, and I still will - but let's not get ridiculous. CAD is a huge industry: every architecture firm, every electrical firm, every large-scale manufacturer, the automotive industry, product design, industrial design... They are a major client of OpenGL, and their perspective is an important one.

Nor can you argue that they could just continue working against 2.1 while the rest of the world moved on to 3.0. CAD applications develop and compete aggressively, as aggressively as games albeit with a different visual emphasis, and they need to take advantage of technology advances just like everyone else.


No question, this is a disappointment, but it doesn't appear to be so much a case of deliberately "screwing developers over" as it is a case of incompetence and lack of strong vision to plot a future. I mean, I'm only a casual OpenGL observer, but that seems to have been the case ever since the Khronos Group became responsible.

[V-man]

The usual will happen. GL drivers are going to get more and more complicated to write -> ATI will lag behind so don't expect GL 3.0 drivers anytime soon, Intel won't release a driver at all and neither will SIS and I don't know who else is making chipsets.

I can see they have "The Deprecation Model" on page 403 but so what??? They are going to make a clean break some day?

[Promit]

Quote:

Original post by Oluseyi No question, this is a disappointment, but it doesn't appear to be so much a case of deliberately "screwing developers over" as it is a case of incompetence and lack of strong vision to plot a future.

But it's more than just that. Forget the justification for why things ended up the way they did finally. My question is, why was everyone in the graphics world strung along for so many years? Why did the ARB and then Khronos promise pie in the sky goals and then vanish off for a year, promising big news, just to give us this? If that was how any of us behaved at our jobs, we'd be fired.

Regardless of where OpenGL goes from here (which is apparently nowhere), there's no reason to ever trust the people behind it again. This is the second time they've misled us thanks to their incompetent bickering.

[Matias Goldberg]

So... They took so much time (and delayed the launch) just for THIS???

I have a great idea!!! Next OpenGL 4.0 will be an object-oriented API that will actually wrap to Direct3D [lol][lol]

(oh... and if that doesn't work will just stick with OGL 2.3 and name it 4.0)

Seriously, If things keep going this way, we should make up a team that will be in charge of a new cross-plattform API. Not easy to do, as that would need support from Driver developers (aka NVIDIA, ATI, Intel); plus we need experienced people, and a lot of time to just design (not to mention coding). After that, it should have success into adoption.
But at least we could try.

Well.... [sigh]

Dark Sylinc

[Lord_Evil]

Quote:

Original post by Mike.Popoloski So I just checked, and it turns out we have plenty of room in DirectX and XNA for you guys. You can all come, nobody needs to get left out. Jack is going to make a batch of cookies for everyone!

Yep, I'm also considering coming back to DirectX. Shame on Khronos for making us rely on M$ [crying]

[mrbastard]

TBH I take this as a message from the hardware vendors saying "Nobody except hobbyists are interested in cutting edge cross-platform graphics - OpenGLES is fine for everyone else. Use the well supported windows API you fools!"

Which, to be fair, people have been telling us for years.

It's not that bad though, nothing has been lost. It's just a shame the ARB managed expectations of their work so poorly.

[EmptyVoid]

Didn't want to be the odd one in the bunch and I'm all for bashing OpenGL but what exactly is the problem? Has it lost hardware features? Does it run slower? Is it less compatible? I'm a noob with OpenGL I just started like 2 weeks ago and I can't understand why all of you are complaining?