Jump to content

  • Log In with Google      Sign In   
  • Create Account


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

#21 MrDaaark   Members   -  Reputation: 3539

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 11 August 2008 - 04:59 AM

OpenGL hasn't been cutting edge since before DX8 came out. Now they are just cross platform and playing catch up. They had one foot in the grave when D3D8 came out, and then Ms left the ARB and released D3D9 and they were officially dead in the water.

OpenGL became redundant for a few reasons.

- They keep adding messy extensions onto an old, outdated base API. D3D is like a sports car, and OpenGL is like a scooter that keeps getting side cars attached to it.

- The company that has the most installed graphics chips on home machines has the crappiest drivers. It really sucks to write perfectly legal code and have the horrible intel implementation completely botch your whole program. Even worse when one of the driver versions reported supporting OpenGL 1.2 but didn't actually support most 1.2 extensions.

Have you ever hung out on the user forums for 3D software written in OpenGL? Every time the program gets patched there is a flood of intel users reporting that the program is broken or crashes with strange errors, and the devs have to write workarounds for everything they added.

What good is a standard when no one follows it? Especially when the company that has the biggest share of the GPU market doesn't have a working implementation on most of their models of GPU and has no intention of fixing it. People think it's all about ATI and nVidia, when they are really only competing for second and third place.

When I wanted to write a polished game and publish it, I gave up on OpenGL because of all those problems. All my target audience was going to have those GPUs. I can't be dealing with all that crap. I want to write something that just works. Instead of being creative, I had to look over my code and keep blindly recompiling to try and prevent my friend's intel gpu from rendering my game with a wireframe overlay, and random faces being culled, when I had no calls for wireframe drawing mode in my whole app, and culling disabled. [lol]

The ARB just takes years to try and agree on a header file, and they have to make everyone happy and cater to every possible interest at the same time. And then, they just give us that header and they leave it at that. Everyone else has to do all the work. Even to the point where a member of this forum has to write a library to easily access the extensions. Why couldn't the ARB get off their asses and make their own GLEE like header for everyone to use??

---

I think it's time to let this horse die and let another company step forward and create a cross platform 3D games API. Why hasn't apple been spending money to develop their own DirectX like technology? Maybe even license Direct3D?

Sponsor:

#22 rbarris   Members   -  Reputation: 631

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 11 August 2008 - 04:59 AM


3.0 could be looked at as the last fully upward compatible revision of OpenGL; since it introduces a deprecation model allowing for the phased elimination of obsolete API's (a set of which are already defined in the spec). The intent there is to provide for an orderly simplification of the specification and drivers for upcoming releases, the next of which is scheduled for less than 12 months from now.

http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/khronos-releases-opengl-30-specifications/story.aspx?guid=%7BC2A3B5D7-CB9A-4898-BAF9-178DD8CFD695%7D&dist=hppr

BTW we have set up a mail reflector specifically for questions and suggestions specifically relating to game development using OpenGL 3.0 - if there is some piece of hardware functionality not addressed by the current 3.0 spec, now is exactly the right time to let us hear about it.

gamedev@khronos.org



#23 phantom   Moderators   -  Reputation: 6802

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 11 August 2008 - 05:03 AM

Quote:
Original post by 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?


Because this ISNT what was talked about a year ago when they were 'close' to having a spec.

The point of OpenGL3.0, as originally talked about, was to;
- make the 'fast path' easy to find
- make the life of driver developers easier
- change the API to better reflect the hardware

The OpenGL API is.. well, probably over 15 years old by now, if not a little bit more, and while it matched the hardware for a while it is now drifting from it (see D3D10 for a better idea of how to talk to the hardware) and the point of the breaking refresh was to better match that hardware.

However, by simply bolting things onto the OpenGL2.1 spec they have;
- failed to make the fast path easy to find
- failed to make the driver developers lives easier
- failed to change the API to better reflect the hardware

Same old, same old really... on reflection it was dumb of us to give them another chance to 'fix' the problem.. as they say; fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me.

I won't be fooled again.

#24 phantom   Moderators   -  Reputation: 6802

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 11 August 2008 - 05:04 AM

Quote:
Original post by Oluseyi
I mean, I'm only a casual OpenGL observer, but that seems to have been the case ever since the Khronos Group became responsible.


It's been the case since long before then, we had hoped that being part of Khronos would help... apprently not.

#25 DumpAlien   Members   -  Reputation: 127

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 11 August 2008 - 05:25 AM

Quote:
Original post by phantom

- failed to make the fast path easy to find
- failed to make the driver developers lives easier
- failed to change the API to better reflect the hardware



Sorry for asking again... but how u come to a conclusion that openGL failed on these three above? I am a little confuzed..

Thanks again!


#26 Yann L   Moderators   -  Reputation: 1794

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 11 August 2008 - 05:27 AM

This is an unbelievable letdown. I kind of saw it coming, but I never expected the ARB to fail on such an immense scale. I find it astonishing how far some people can be removed from reality, and yet not be immediately fired due to overwhelming incompetence. This is the death of modern OpenGL. Thank you very much ARB. What Microsoft never managed, you did. You should be ashamed of yourselves.

After hearing these news, we will be starting the end-of-life plan for our OpenGL renderer in the very near future (XP compatibility and quad buffered stereo are the only features holding it back), and will be focusing on D3D10 exclusively from now on.

Oh, and we are a CAD software manufacturer...

I really wonder if there is some remote possibility to take legal action against the ARB / Khronos after this total fiasco.

Quote:

The intent there is to provide for an orderly simplification of the specification and drivers for upcoming releases, the next of which is scheduled for less than 12 months from now.

Haha, good one. At least they haven't lost their (very strange) sense of humour...

#27 paulecoyote   Members   -  Reputation: 1060

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 11 August 2008 - 05:36 AM

Not that it matters much, but I'm sure the Comparison of OpenGL and Direct3D wikipage slants a certain way.

I wonder then, as Macs are becoming more popular these days... and more people play games - will Apple / Linux community implement and extend to keep up with DX? Or do something new?

I'd imagine implement + extend would fragment the platform though, potentially taking away some of the cross-platform-ness.

#28 mrbastard   Members   -  Reputation: 1573

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 11 August 2008 - 05:36 AM

Quote:
Original post by rbarris

BTW we have set up a mail reflector specifically for questions and suggestions specifically relating to game development using OpenGL 3.0 - if there is some piece of hardware functionality not addressed by the current 3.0 spec, now is exactly the right time to let us hear about it.

gamedev@khronos.org


Thanks for that. Though TBH I think you may be one of the few game developers with the resources to carry on using GL. It's not that anything has gotten signifantly worse, it's that not enough things have gotten better to counter the long-standing lack of freely available tools and support (compared to D3D). A fresh new API would have gone some way to countering the problem, but would still have only been a stop-gap.

For example; the company I work for refuses to consider OpenGL simply because of the percieved lack of support. OpenGL 3 wasn't going to change that, but the impression given by the recent problems is that support is getting worse not better.

I realise these aren't technical issues, sorry. Overall I think the problem here is that for a while it seemed Khronos would make OpenGL as easy to work with as Direct3D, and the long wait and shiny new version number made people hope for something bigger even than what was promised.

#29 dv   Members   -  Reputation: 101

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 11 August 2008 - 05:37 AM

Less than 12 months.

Deprecation model, eh? I have a much simpler deprecation model, rbarris - FREEZE GL 2.1, and design GL3 from scratch. This was promised to us. It was a lie. OpenGL died today.

#30 Scourage   Members   -  Reputation: 694

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 11 August 2008 - 05:40 AM

I wrote the gamedev@khronos.org asking where's the API that was promised and what the hell were they doing for the last year that they couldn't talk with the community about. I doubt I'll get a sincere response, but I want to know how they could catastrophically fail in moving this standard forward. I understand legacy code bases probably better than then next guy (anybody play with DIS And HLA simulations?), but this is ridiculous. Where is the progress they promised?

Bob

Halfway down the trail to Hell...

#31 V-man   Members   -  Reputation: 801

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 11 August 2008 - 05:59 AM

This is why they say GL is for CAD. D3D is for games.

#32 elFarto   Members   -  Reputation: 206

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 11 August 2008 - 06:05 AM

I guess the OpenGL vs Direct3D question has finally been answered. It's Direct3D unless you need cross platform compatibility.

Very sad.

Regards
elFarto

#33 samoth   Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 4523

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 11 August 2008 - 06:07 AM

Although I can understand some of the frustration around here, I think you may be a bit too pessimistic there.

I've only skimmed over that specification for about 5 minutes, but so far it really doesn't look that grim.
Yes, there are no objects. Yes, there is still fixed functionality around. No, there has been no complete API rewrite. But hey, so what.
Look at the positive side. A good number of extensions with valuable features has been promoted to core, even some features that weren't initially announced at all. So, some stuff will be a bit less messy, which is good already.
Maybe "version 3.0" is a bit far fetched for what's in the spec, I'd rather have called it 2.2 or 2.3, but hey... what do numbers really mean. Remember when Netscape jumped from 4 to 6 in one go? :)

To be honest, this spec is a lot more than what I had expected to happen, and I see it as a very positive thing. In fact, I had expected that nothing happens at all, and I am very happy that we got at least half of what was promised, and a few goodies to comfort for the other half.
If you consider how many people/companies inside and outside of Khronos have excellent economic reasons against supporting and extending OpenGL, and how few people have a reason to support it at all, it's a miracle.

#34 EmptyVoid   Banned   -  Reputation: 99

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 11 August 2008 - 06:12 AM

WHY HAVE YOU GUY BEEN DEBATING THIS FOR SO LONG?!?! After DirectX8 came out it was clear that DirectX was the better API and anyone that thought it was not didn't use it. OpenGL is for cross platform support and not easy use.

#35 PlayerX   Members   -  Reputation: 279

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 11 August 2008 - 06:23 AM

Hmmm, I must admit I was looking forward to a new streamlined OpenGL, but I don't find this new version that bad. You can see some of what they were aiming for in the new deprecation model. It does away with a lot of the cruft in OpenGL, including pretty much everything fixed-function. They've been quite brutal with what they've culled as listed in Appendix E.

I suspect this'll actually make life easier for driver writers as they'll write new drivers to support the new deprecation model with an OpenGL 2.1 emulator sitting on top of that. If the ARB is wise they'll provide the code for that emulation layer to help things along.

It's not the re-write they had promised us, but after that strange year of dead silence we kinda all knew something was up. But this just doesn't seem that bad to me. It's not a huge leap but it is a step in the right direction.

BTB, I've had the misfortune to create renderers for the Intel i915 in both GL and D3D, and their drivers stink on both. :-/


#36 MrDaaark   Members   -  Reputation: 3539

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 11 August 2008 - 06:42 AM

LOL, problem solved. Some cad guy told everyone in the thread @ OpenGL's site to calm down, and that games are small, unimportant apps.

#37 LoneDwarf   Members   -  Reputation: 226

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 11 August 2008 - 06:47 AM

Sounds like lots of 'The sky falling' talk but I thought the sky had fallen years ago. I am using OGL/GLSL and it has everything I need. The trick is not to read the DX SDK :)

I don't think a clean slate would help drivers out since it would likely mean a new driver from scratch plus maintaining their old one. Honestly, do you think people would just run over to the oven for the freshly baked OGL 3.0 and say 'Finally, we can all stop sitting on our hands and start witting our OGL 3.0 driver'?

I learned roughly OS/2 years ago not to take sides. Just use OGL for what it's good for and leave it at that.



#38 pro_optimizer   Members   -  Reputation: 138

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 11 August 2008 - 06:47 AM

Wow, that is in fact a massive letdown.

Though, I interpret this as an artifact of the upcoming paradigm shift in graphics, introduced by Larrabee et al. ... Makes me think that the DirectX story is far from being told with Microsoft adding Compute Shaders to it either.

Part of the problem seems to be that there is no sufficiently good API to that future architecture yet, not even conceptually, let alone one that traditional things such as OpenGL/DX could easily be consistent with. So that no really future-proof way of evolving these is in sight atm.

[Edited by - pro_optimizer on August 11, 2008 1:47:17 PM]

#39 AndyPandyV2   Members   -  Reputation: 298

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 11 August 2008 - 06:51 AM

Extremely unprofessional job by Kronos, they took an extra year to basically just add a couple of NV extensions as ARB extensions. If they were going to go back on their original intentions they should have made it clear much earlier. Don't even see Geometry shaders mentioned either so sub sm4 levels. I'm done with OGL asap.

#40 phantom   Moderators   -  Reputation: 6802

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 11 August 2008 - 07:05 AM

Quote:
Original post by Tesshu
I don't think a clean slate would help drivers out since it would likely mean a new driver from scratch plus maintaining their old one. Honestly, do you think people would just run over to the oven for the freshly baked OGL 3.0 and say 'Finally, we can all stop sitting on our hands and start witting our OGL 3.0 driver'?


Given that the original re-write from scratch plans were from ATI and NV I have to call that into question. Yes, they would still have to do some mantainence on the old drivers, however for the new they have a clean slate.

Right now when functionality is added into the core they have to check how it interacts with EVERYTHING down to glVertex() and the like. Stripping all this out would have given them a clean slate to start again and not have to worry about these old, outdated methods and how they interact with the newer functionality.

As for the 'deprecation model' someone mentioned; yes because deprecation has worked so well in other cases. People keep using it (see Java) even when there is a big 'do no use!' warning slapped on it, which means it has to stay in because as soon as you remove it it breaks something and BAM! loads of complaints.

The amusing thing, from what I recall there was always plans for a backwards compatible system, with contexts being shared between GL2.x and Longs Peaks so both could operate at once. Guess that wasn't enough...




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