Jump to content

  • Log In with Google      Sign In   
  • Create Account

Banner advertising on our site currently available from just $5!


1. Learn about the promo. 2. Sign up for GDNet+. 3. Set up your advert!


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

#41 Knuckler   Members   -  Reputation: 144

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 11 August 2008 - 07:07 AM

Geometry shaders are in the core: Geometry Shaders

Sponsor:

#42 Dave Astle   Senior Staff   -  Reputation: 2307

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 11 August 2008 - 07:10 AM

Quote:
Original post by DumpAlien
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!


Having worked very closely with OpenGL drivers at AMD/ATI and Qualcomm, I'll take this one.

1) Because of its long evolution, OpenGL provides many different ways to do the same thing. Typically, one of those ways is very good for performance, and the other ways are bad. In order to access the fast path as things now stand, you have to be familiar with the underlying hardware and usually write multiple paths to fully take advantage of all the hardware out there.

2) Supporting 15+ years of legacy functionality by itself significantly complicates the driver. The expectation that the driver should not just support it, but make it fast, further complicates the drivers.

3) Hardware has changed drastically since OpenGL was first introduced. Because of this, OpenGL is no longer "close to the metal" - which is what you'd expect from a low-level, high performance graphics API. This gets back to the first two points: because the API doesn't really reflect how the hardware actually works, a significant amount of optimization needs to to be done both in the driver and in applications.

As originally described, 3.0 would have fixed these things. Unfortunately, just like 2.0, it seems that 3.0 fell far short of what was initially envisioned.

#43 speciesUnknown   Members   -  Reputation: 527

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 11 August 2008 - 07:28 AM

Quote:
Original post by Myopic Rhino
Quote:
Original post by DumpAlien
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!


Having worked very closely with OpenGL drivers at AMD/ATI and Qualcomm, I'll take this one.

1) Because of its long evolution, OpenGL provides many different ways to do the same thing. Typically, one of those ways is very good for performance, and the other ways are bad. In order to access the fast path as things now stand, you have to be familiar with the underlying hardware and usually write multiple paths to fully take advantage of all the hardware out there.

2) Supporting 15+ years of legacy functionality by itself significantly complicates the driver. The expectation that the driver should not just support it, but make it fast, further complicates the drivers.

3) Hardware has changed drastically since OpenGL was first introduced. Because of this, OpenGL is no longer "close to the metal" - which is what you'd expect from a low-level, high performance graphics API. This gets back to the first two points: because the API doesn't really reflect how the hardware actually works, a significant amount of optimization needs to to be done both in the driver and in applications.

As originally described, 3.0 would have fixed these things. Unfortunately, just like 2.0, it seems that 3.0 fell far short of what was initially envisioned.


Its nice to know why, but what concerns me is what do we do next? The only alternatives to windows PC's for gaming, without a more up to date OpenGL, is Cider on apple machines, or consoles. For indie game developers, this means XNA, therefore the Xbox. Either way, MS now get a further increased share of the video game market, to the point where the effect of free market competition is non existant.

I fear that no competator to D3D means poorer quality from MS in the future. OpenGl thrived when it was a viable alternative to DX, but now it seems this is no longer the case. What other alternatives are there?


#44 LogicalError   Members   -  Reputation: 241

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 11 August 2008 - 07:31 AM

Quote:
Original post by speciesUnknown
I fear that no competator to D3D means poorer quality from MS in the future. OpenGl thrived when it was a viable alternative to DX, but now it seems this is no longer the case. What other alternatives are there?


Larrabee or Larrabee-esque architectures where people don't need an API to render at high frame rates maybe?

Sigh.. are we going to have dozens of different API's now?


#45 phantom   Moderators   -  Reputation: 8494

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 11 August 2008 - 07:31 AM

Quote:
Original post by speciesUnknown
I fear that no competator to D3D means poorer quality from MS in the future. OpenGl thrived when it was a viable alternative to DX, but now it seems this is no longer the case. What other alternatives are there?


To be fair, OpenGL hasn't really been a viable alternative to D3D in the commerical game space for some years now. Also, MS have already been throwing more resources at XB360 as the recent GameFest showed in the presentation bias towards the 360.

For hobby developers, well, you've still got OpenGL, just not the new shiney API that was planned for.

#46 EmptyVoid   Banned   -  Reputation: 99

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 11 August 2008 - 07:34 AM

Quote:
Original post by speciesUnknown
Quote:
Original post by Myopic Rhino
Quote:
Original post by DumpAlien
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!


Having worked very closely with OpenGL drivers at AMD/ATI and Qualcomm, I'll take this one.

1) Because of its long evolution, OpenGL provides many different ways to do the same thing. Typically, one of those ways is very good for performance, and the other ways are bad. In order to access the fast path as things now stand, you have to be familiar with the underlying hardware and usually write multiple paths to fully take advantage of all the hardware out there.

2) Supporting 15+ years of legacy functionality by itself significantly complicates the driver. The expectation that the driver should not just support it, but make it fast, further complicates the drivers.

3) Hardware has changed drastically since OpenGL was first introduced. Because of this, OpenGL is no longer "close to the metal" - which is what you'd expect from a low-level, high performance graphics API. This gets back to the first two points: because the API doesn't really reflect how the hardware actually works, a significant amount of optimization needs to to be done both in the driver and in applications.

As originally described, 3.0 would have fixed these things. Unfortunately, just like 2.0, it seems that 3.0 fell far short of what was initially envisioned.


Its nice to know why, but what concerns me is what do we do next? The only alternatives to windows PC's for gaming, without a more up to date OpenGL, is Cider on apple machines, or consoles. For indie game developers, this means XNA, therefore the Xbox. Either way, MS now get a further increased share of the video game market, to the point where the effect of free market competition is non existant.

I fear that no competator to D3D means poorer quality from MS in the future. OpenGl thrived when it was a viable alternative to DX, but now it seems this is no longer the case. What other alternatives are there?


Always could make a new API(The graphics API made by GameDev.net targeted at cross platform game development) But you know that would take awhile and we would need some major $$. It also would probably not work out for some reason.

#47 speciesUnknown   Members   -  Reputation: 527

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 11 August 2008 - 07:34 AM

Quote:
Original post by phantom
Quote:
Original post by speciesUnknown
I fear that no competator to D3D means poorer quality from MS in the future. OpenGl thrived when it was a viable alternative to DX, but now it seems this is no longer the case. What other alternatives are there?


To be fair, OpenGL hasn't really been a viable alternative to D3D in the commerical game space for some years now. Also, MS have already been throwing more resources at XB360 as the recent GameFest showed in the presentation bias towards the 360.

For hobby developers, well, you've still got OpenGL, just not the new shiney API that was planned for.


Well this does not interfere with my own game concept, but in future, I will likely need to learn DX instead. If that is the case, I may as well continue my hobby on XNA; for the time being, I see little reason not to do so. I know im not the only one who thinks this way.

#48 Naurava kulkuri   Members   -  Reputation: 344

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 11 August 2008 - 07:35 AM

Quote:
Original post by speciesUnknown
I fear that no competator to D3D means poorer quality from MS in the future. OpenGl thrived when it was a viable alternative to DX, but now it seems this is no longer the case. What other alternatives are there?
OpenCL and Larrabee?

... Just some really wild speculation. See also AMD Announces OpenCL Compatible Teraflop Graphics Card.
---Sudet ulvovat - karavaani kulkee

#49 lollan   Members   -  Reputation: 144

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 11 August 2008 - 07:38 AM

OpenGL 3.0 lol

What is brilliant in the computing industry in general is this ability to first deliver something which is not finished yet ( beta version ...) and let the user try it for us.
The second thing is this ability to give the same deficient product again and again until one day you just need to catch up on the rest of the world, because well nobody is using it any more lol.

Anyway I was really waiting for this one, I'm disappointed they could at least explain why.

#50 BradDaBug   Members   -  Reputation: 907

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 11 August 2008 - 07:48 AM

Quote:
Original post by Myopic Rhino
Having worked very closely with OpenGL drivers at AMD/ATI and Qualcomm, I'll take this one.

1) Because of its long evolution, OpenGL provides many different ways to do the same thing. Typically, one of those ways is very good for performance, and the other ways are bad. In order to access the fast path as things now stand, you have to be familiar with the underlying hardware and usually write multiple paths to fully take advantage of all the hardware out there.

2) Supporting 15+ years of legacy functionality by itself significantly complicates the driver. The expectation that the driver should not just support it, but make it fast, further complicates the drivers.

3) Hardware has changed drastically since OpenGL was first introduced. Because of this, OpenGL is no longer "close to the metal" - which is what you'd expect from a low-level, high performance graphics API. This gets back to the first two points: because the API doesn't really reflect how the hardware actually works, a significant amount of optimization needs to to be done both in the driver and in applications.

Do these points also apply to OpenGL ES?

#51 FlyingIsFun1217   Members   -  Reputation: 128

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 11 August 2008 - 08:09 AM

Quote:
Original post by 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]


No kidding. I would almost like Microsoft if they somehow made DirectX cross-platform, a crazy thought in itself.

Shame shame ARB.

FlyingIsFun1217



#52 Yann L   Moderators   -  Reputation: 1802

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 11 August 2008 - 08:19 AM

Quote:
Original post by speciesUnknown
Its nice to know why, but what concerns me is what do we do next? The only alternatives to windows PC's for gaming, without a more up to date OpenGL, is Cider on apple machines, or consoles. For indie game developers, this means XNA, therefore the Xbox. Either way, MS now get a further increased share of the video game market, to the point where the effect of free market competition is non existant.

But what can you do if the only real competitor kills itself with a stunt that would be the digital equivalent of a Darwin Award ?


#53 FlyingIsFun1217   Members   -  Reputation: 128

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 11 August 2008 - 08:20 AM

Quote:
Original post by Yann L
Quote:
Original post by speciesUnknown
Its nice to know why, but what concerns me is what do we do next? The only alternatives to windows PC's for gaming, without a more up to date OpenGL, is Cider on apple machines, or consoles. For indie game developers, this means XNA, therefore the Xbox. Either way, MS now get a further increased share of the video game market, to the point where the effect of free market competition is non existant.

But what can you do if the only real competitor kills itself with a stunt that would be the digital equivalent of a Darwin Award ?


Pray for a miracle to happen.

FlyingIsFun1217



#54 DaBono   Members   -  Reputation: 1139

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 11 August 2008 - 08:25 AM

I must admit I've only glanced the spec, but for now I don't get the whole deprecation thing. So, apart from checking which extensions ARE supported, I now also need to check if some parts of the functionality I use are NOT supported anymore? If they're so worried about backwards-compatibility, what would've been wrong with the opengl{1-3}.dll proposed in this thread?

The whole object design they presented looked so clean and useful. Coming up with this after creating such anticipation is just plain stupid. If they knew this was what they would come up with, being so secretive till now just makes the anti-climax worse.

#55 OpenGL_Guru   Members   -  Reputation: 100

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 11 August 2008 - 08:33 AM

Quote:
Original post by V-man
This is why they say GL is for CAD. D3D is for games.


and other opengl applications that people use and develop all over the globe that run not only on windows, but also on linux and mac.



#56 Mike.Popoloski   Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 3030

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 11 August 2008 - 08:37 AM

Quote:
Original post by OpenGL_Guru
Quote:
Original post by V-man
This is why they say GL is for CAD. D3D is for games.


and other opengl applications that people use and develop all over the globe that run not only on windows, but also on linux and mac.


At this point these people are thinking to themselves "Why am I forcing myself to use this torturous, outdated API just so that I can tap into less than 15% of the market?"
Mike Popoloski | Journal | SlimDX

#57 OpenGL_Guru   Members   -  Reputation: 100

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 11 August 2008 - 08:38 AM

Quote:
Original post by Mike.Popoloski
Quote:
Original post by OpenGL_Guru
Quote:
Original post by V-man
This is why they say GL is for CAD. D3D is for games.


and other opengl applications that people use and develop all over the globe that run not only on windows, but also on linux and mac.


At this point these people are thinking to themselves "Why am I forcing myself to use this torturous, outdated API just so that I can tap into less than 15% of the market?"


oh yeah also forgot portables via OpenglES and the PS3.



#58 Cypher19   Members   -  Reputation: 768

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 11 August 2008 - 08:43 AM

Quote:
oh yeah also forgot portables via OpenglES and the PS3.

While I can't speak on GL ES (AFAIK, it actually has been getting relatively radical updates), on the PS3, not many people do use GL ES. Instead, they typically just write to the command buffer directly, since it's just that much faster.

#59 Promit   Moderators   -  Reputation: 9372

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 11 August 2008 - 08:43 AM

OpenGL|ES is a separate standard and problem from OpenGL, not that it matters in this context since the PS3 doesn't use OpenGL|ES. Sony provides an implementation for it that sits above the native API -- you could do the same for any other API, that one just happens to come with the package. Nobody uses it though, it's slow compared to the native interfaces.

#60 Lazy Foo   Members   -  Reputation: 1111

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 11 August 2008 - 08:51 AM

Man you guys are being nice compared to the OpenGL boards.

The ARB got some 'splaining to do wednesday.

Learn to make games with my SDL 2 Tutorials





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