Jump to content

  • Log In with Google      Sign In   
  • Create Account

We're offering banner ads on our site from just $5!

1. Details HERE. 2. GDNet+ Subscriptions HERE. 3. Ad upload HERE.


OpenGL3.0.. I mean 2.2


Old topic!
Guest, the last post of this topic is over 60 days old and at this point you may not reply in this topic. If you wish to continue this conversation start a new topic.

  • You cannot reply to this topic
339 replies to this topic

#321 DOS4dinner   Members   -  Reputation: 122

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 19 August 2008 - 03:16 PM

Quote:
Original post by V-man
Quote:
Original post by DOS4dinner
Well, at least the current OpenGL book I got a year ago should still be usable. Not that I plan on using it (SDL FTW)

I feel bad for Linux. I use Linux, and now for all general purposes we don't have a decent API. I think we are better off hoping WINE can rewrite the DirectX API than trusting OpenGL.

So...who wants to form UbuntuGL?

Here is what the OpenGL site should really be.


You do understand that WINE's DX library uses GL? WINE doesn't have drivers. WINE is basically an application that opens your Windows EXE as if it was a plain file.

Quote:
So...who wants to form UbuntuGL?


How about improving OpenGL?


Yes, I knew WINE uses OpenGL. Wait...Doesn't that mean that if a Windows program uses certain DX9/10 functions that WINE cannot ever hope to emulate them, as OpenGL itself cannot do it?







Sponsor:

#322 Hodgman   Moderators   -  Reputation: 31786

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 19 August 2008 - 03:29 PM

Quote:
Original post by DOS4dinner
Yes, I knew WINE uses OpenGL. Wait...Doesn't that mean that if a Windows program uses certain DX9/10 functions that WINE cannot ever hope to emulate them, as OpenGL itself cannot do it?
What can you do in DX9/10 that you can't do in GL?

#323 V-man   Members   -  Reputation: 805

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 19 August 2008 - 05:24 PM

Quote:
Original post by DOS4dinner
Yes, I knew WINE uses OpenGL. Wait...Doesn't that mean that if a Windows program uses certain DX9/10 functions that WINE cannot ever hope to emulate them, as OpenGL itself cannot do it?


I think the answer is obvious.
The bigger problem is translating shaders to GLSL. I assume there are a lot of problems in that department. I admit, I'm not a avid WINE user. I mostly run Windows.

#324 V-man   Members   -  Reputation: 805

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 19 August 2008 - 05:47 PM

Quote:
Original post by Spoonbender
If anything, OpenGL is abusing its monopoly on non-Windows platforms, to sit on their asses and do nothing for the better part of a decade. They can only do that because no alternative exists.


OpenGL is just an API, a technology, a spec. A company can be a monopoly but not a spec.

On the Windows platform, OpenGL doesn't really exist. If you install Windows (2000, XP, Vista), it does properly detect your video card but it won't install the opengl driver. Hmm... why is that?
Stranger still, it does install DirectX and the DirectX diagnostics utility. You get full hw acceleration.

You are so blindled by your hate that Long Peaks hasn't released, that you are resorting to word twisting and ignoring all the crap tactics of Microsoft.

#325 MARS_999   Members   -  Reputation: 1297

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 19 August 2008 - 06:50 PM

Quote:
Original post by Spoonbender
If anything, OpenGL is abusing its monopoly on non-Windows platforms, to sit on their asses and do nothing for the better part of a decade. They can only do that because no alternative exists.


That is so funny. Reason GL is the only choice is, MS has decided NOT to put DX on those platforms. If DX was on those platform it probably would be used more than GL, sad to say.



#326 phantom   Moderators   -  Reputation: 7556

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 19 August 2008 - 10:49 PM

Quote:
Original post by V-man
On the Windows platform, OpenGL doesn't really exist. If you install Windows (2000, XP, Vista), it does properly detect your video card but it won't install the opengl driver. Hmm... why is that?


Well, it does provide an OpenGL1.1 implimentation on XP and a hardware accelerated via D3D 1.4 version on Vista, which is more than MS have to do as they don't have anything todo with OpenGL.

It's like complaining that MS don't ship Firefox and Opera on their Windows install DVDs.

Quote:

Stranger still, it does install DirectX and the DirectX diagnostics utility. You get full hw acceleration.


OMG! MS in doing what is best for their platform shock!
(you also get full HW acceleration on Vista for OpenGL1.4, again more than they have to do as they have nothing todo with OpenGL).

#327 Neutrinohunter   Members   -  Reputation: 158

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 20 August 2008 - 01:17 AM

I have to say the news has annoyed me somewhat and is probably going to make me move towards DX10 when I get my new workstations.

Its a shame they've done this as by the time they actually get their arses in gear, DX will be far in the distance. DX has come along way since the 90's and its sad to say OpenGL really hasn't.

I think a good old DX10 wrapper for OpenGL could be in the offing.



#328 mrbastard   Members   -  Reputation: 1573

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 20 August 2008 - 01:55 AM

Quote:
Original post by rbarris
The wording on the Blizzard slides was intentionally terse (I never like presentations where the presenter is just reading the words on the slides); if you have any questions about the content in that segment I would be happy to try and respond to them.


There are a couple of new features that I'd like to know a bit more about from a game developer's perspective:

Transform Feedback
-I've read the GPU Gems chapter on using transform feedback in D3D10 for increasing the number of morph targets you can blend between for facial animation. Any more ideas on areas where Transform Feedback will be useful?
-Does using Transform Feedback make it harder/easier to balance feeding the pipeline? Is it just a case of "well, I'm fill bound so I can afford a few extra feedback loops at the vertex stage"?

Conditional Rendering
-I'm pretty sure I understand what this does, and how it improves use of occlusion queries by removing the need for the app code to handle the result. It sounds like it'll make using occlusion queries successfully even harder to understand, but the implementation much easier once you understand how to do it. Any tips? Is there any maximum number (or suggested 'best' number) of draw calls that can be queued up as part of a conditional render?

Deprecation Model:
-any tips on handling rollout of apps using different profiles? I've read a bit on this on the opengl.org forums, but I'd be interested in a game developer's perspective.

Edit: almost forgot GLSL [smile]

Removal of Built-In uniforms
-as GLSL has nothing like HLSL/FX's 'semantics' the built-in uniforms were handy for exchanging shaders between apps. Does the ARB have a better solution, GLFX maybe? (sorry, I've been unable to find anything on the recent GLFX update)

Centroid qualifier
-is this for point-sampling?

thanks

#329 SergioJdelos   Members   -  Reputation: 178

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 20 August 2008 - 03:21 AM

Quote:
Original post by mrbastard
Removal of Built-In uniforms
-as GLSL has nothing like HLSL/FX's 'semantics' the built-in uniforms were handy for exchanging shaders between apps. Does the ARB have a better solution, GLFX maybe? (sorry, I've been unable to find anything on the recent GLFX update)

I think that ColladaFX is the official solution.



#330 MARS_999   Members   -  Reputation: 1297

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 20 August 2008 - 05:34 AM

GLFX is what they are working on, they have been quiet about it lately.

#331 BradDaBug   Members   -  Reputation: 897

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 20 August 2008 - 02:15 PM

Here's something in the spec I found. In the deprecated features section it has this:

Alpha test - AlphaFunc and Enable/Disable target ALPHA_TEST (section 4.1.4), and all associated state.

So alpha testing is deprecated? How do you get equivalent functionality with OpenGL 3.0+?

#332 Yann L   Moderators   -  Reputation: 1798

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 20 August 2008 - 02:19 PM

Quote:
Original post by BradDaBug
So alpha testing is deprecated? How do you get equivalent functionality with OpenGL 3.0+?

You can use the discard keyword in a fragment shader.


#333 curtmax_0   Members   -  Reputation: 100

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 20 August 2008 - 03:04 PM

I used to use D3D exclusively (mostly d3d8 and a bit of 9). I switched to OGL about the same time I switched to 'nix.

I gritted my teeth as I coded with stupid extensions and having to consult multiple versions of documentation that were often wrong anyways. I was hoping for OGL3.

This disappointing news has finally convinced me to install Vista and work with D3D10. A quick browse of the API and it's far superior to OGL in ease of use even. Hell, you can't discount the value of a well designed SDK with docs describing everything either.

#334 BradDaBug   Members   -  Reputation: 897

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 20 August 2008 - 05:54 PM

Quote:
Original post by Yann L
Quote:
Original post by BradDaBug
So alpha testing is deprecated? How do you get equivalent functionality with OpenGL 3.0+?

You can use the discard keyword in a fragment shader.

Does that have the same performance as the old fashioned way?

#335 Hodgman   Moderators   -  Reputation: 31786

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 20 August 2008 - 07:03 PM

Quote:
Original post by BradDaBug
Quote:
Original post by Yann L
Quote:
Original post by BradDaBug
So alpha testing is deprecated? How do you get equivalent functionality with OpenGL 3.0+?

You can use the discard keyword in a fragment shader.

Does that have the same performance as the old fashioned way?
Well most fixed function stuff is implemented using a driver-generated shader program these days, so it's probably exactly the same.

#336 Krohm   Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 3245

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 20 August 2008 - 08:48 PM

Quote:
Original post by rbarris
The wording on the Blizzard slides was intentionally terse (I never like presentations where the presenter is just reading the words on the slides); if you have any questions about the content in that segment I would be happy to try and respond to them.
Thank you very much for the opportunity.
The presentation was so compact I cannot even think at what to ask. Could you please add some comments on what the speakers actually said? Since this information is lost to all of us who weren't there, maybe there's something important.

Thank you in advance.

#337 joachim_n   Members   -  Reputation: 138

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 20 August 2008 - 10:08 PM

This is not good. I already hoped for 2.0 to be a major cleanup and now 3.0 will not be much more then a few extensions integrated again.

#338 CmpDev   Banned   -  Reputation: 100

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 21 August 2008 - 02:18 AM

Maybe I missed something but an AMD employee says OpenGL did give programmers what they wanted ....hmmmm
A step in some direction
Quote:
There has been much controversy over the direction the Khronos Group/OpenGL ARB has chosen for the next major version of OpenGL. After testing an approach that would have a drastic effect on the API, requiring complete OpenGL application rewrites and not introducing any of the long awaited features modern GPUs are capable of, the choice was made to give programmers what they are really waiting for ...


#339 V-man   Members   -  Reputation: 805

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 21 August 2008 - 04:20 AM

Quote:
Original post by CmpDev
Maybe I missed something but an AMD employee says OpenGL did give programmers what they wanted ....hmmmm
A step in some direction
Quote:
There has been much controversy over the direction the Khronos Group/OpenGL ARB has chosen for the next major version of OpenGL. After testing an approach that would have a drastic effect on the API, requiring complete OpenGL application rewrites and not introducing any of the long awaited features modern GPUs are capable of, the choice was made to give programmers what they are really waiting for ...


They need to post a list of developers who are in favor and another who is against, or at least make a poll.

All I saw in this thread is a bunch of game developers who wanted Long Peaks, another bunch who won't use GL3 so the bad news doesn't effect them (they are satisfied with GL 1.1), 2 people who think OpenGL is open sourced and other types of misinformation.
The biggest misinformation was that with Long Peaks, old programs would not run and that blog says the same thing in the first few lines

Quote:
After testing an approach that would have a drastic effect on the API, requiring complete OpenGL application rewrites and not introducing any of the long awaited features modern GPUs are capable of

"OpenGL application rewrites" is basically bullshit since the plan was that old code would continue to run with old context.

#340 JMNightmare   Members   -  Reputation: 122

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 20 September 2008 - 04:49 PM

Well, you can't blame them for not wanting to mess up a perfectly good library... But I do hope they can add the features we wanted for 3.0, like that object model. I look forward to 3.1, and hope that it won't be 2.3 =[.

As for people complaining OpenGL doesn't exist on Windows, you must remember that Microsoft isn't really to blame, crappy ass hardware drivers (AHEM INTEL) cause more bugs than Microsoft causes performance issues (but it does add a hassle of loading all the extensions).

[Edited by - JMNightmare on September 20, 2008 11:49:54 PM]




Old topic!
Guest, the last post of this topic is over 60 days old and at this point you may not reply in this topic. If you wish to continue this conversation start a new topic.



PARTNERS