Jump to content

  • Log In with Google      Sign In   
  • Create Account


OpenGL 2.0


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
18 replies to this topic

#1 DrKappa   Members   -  Reputation: 122

Like
Likes
Like

Posted 25 September 2001 - 08:03 AM

I just downloaded 3DLabs proposal doc about OpenGL 2.0 and had a brief look at it, and I have to say I''m confused. It should be clear that OpenGL as it is today cannot keep the pace with DirectX. The nature of DirectX, an omni-comprehensive API, makes it a step forward a 3d-graphic-only one like OpenGL. Even Direct3d, the real OpenGL competitor, is now a giant compared to what OGL is. DX is full-featured, OGL is not. The way proposed extensions has increased is a crazy mechanism which MUST be stopped. To have something like 230/240 extensions is just perverse. To have to deal with extensions based upon another extension which replaced an old extension could seriously make a lot of developers move to D3D. Not considering that this is no more the original "clean" API everybody appreciated. When the same feature is implemented in two separated extensions created by two competiting manufacturers, I don''t know if I''m talking about an API anymore. DX was once complex to initialize. Now it is more frustrating to check a list of 200+ extensions linked to a 10 years old API. I said I''m confused. I''m confused because I''m not sure OpenGL should follow DirectX. Original OpenGL was intended to be an high-end API. Nobody could buy a 1000$ PC and get OGL running at full framerate in 92. OpenGL was an API supported by high end chipset manufacturers which decided to unite themselves in order to get stronger. Unluckly things has changed during the past 10 years. DirectX emerged as a way for Microsoft to add advanced and realtime 3d graphic support for win32 OSes. It''s an API focused on low and mid end machines. The great market behind DX is the entertainment market. XBox could enforce DX dominion even more, and at this time there''s no clear response on OGL side. If you look at the list of manufacturers present in ARB, you immediately notice all companies producing chipsets used as reference by game developers are there. As for me it is not about where OpenGL is about to go, but where such companies are about to go. If there''s a clear intention to support only low and mid end markets, then OpenGL could share the same target applications with DX, realying upon the intrinsic limitation of DX: to be a win32-only API. Otherwise, if such companies decided to enter in high-end market, OpenGL would have the real chance to get back to 92 and be the definite standard for high-end market, being still able to provide support for 200/400$ chipsets. By doing so, OpenGL could attract a lot of developers implementng custom engines. Such engines could power a blockbuster game as well as a professional 3d tool. My final question is: what do you think about an ideal OpenGL 2.0? Should it follow DX steps or not?

Sponsor:

#2 mkaltner   Members   -  Reputation: 122

Like
Likes
Like

Posted 25 September 2001 - 08:15 AM

I can''t comment as I haven''t read the spec but honestly, I like OpenGL the way it is. I''ve tried learning DirectX and it seemed messy to me. Maybe it''s because I was younger, or didn''t have the devotion I do now, or didn''t have the right reference but still. OpenGL, to me, is very clean and easy to implement. Aside from that, it''s very powerful from what I''ve seen and can be run great with a video card in the $150 range.

I like it the way it is.

Make improvments, but don''t change the architexture.

- Mike

#3 GKW   Members   -  Reputation: 200

Like
Likes
Like

Posted 25 September 2001 - 09:36 AM

I think it was about time they got back into the driver seat and stopped trying to follow MS. As the presentation said the graphics card has changed dramatically since 91 and they need to dramatically change the api in order to take full advantages of the changes. The first versions will be backwards compatable and in a few years when most cards support 2.0 then they can dump the legacy code and kick ass with a lean and mean api. A standard shading language is a must and I do like being able to control what is in memory, even if it does end up being a hint. The change is needed and I think it looks great.

The fanatic is incorruptible: if he kills for an idea, he can just as well get himself killed for one; in either case, tyrant or martyr, he is a monster.
--EM Cioran

Opere Citato

#4 Null and Void   Moderators   -  Reputation: 1087

Like
Likes
Like

Posted 25 September 2001 - 10:03 AM

I downloaded the presentation yesterday. I agree with about 50% of the things they propose. A standard shader language is pretty important, and this would take a big load off of both NVidia and ATI, who seem to want to standardize their existing languages anyway (read the ARB notes). The example Stanford C-Style shader language looked pretty nice also.

Although, I think they want to change too many basic things that already work fine. Also, what is with their obsession with time keeping? If someone can point out why that would be useful, it may help me understand it .

Anyway, to sum up my opinion: As long as OpenGL provides high performance 2D/3D graphics in multiple operating systems, I''ll continue to use it .

[Resist Windows XP''s Invasive Production Activation Technology!]

#5 zedzeek   Members   -  Reputation: 528

Like
Likes
Like

Posted 25 September 2001 - 11:31 AM

the openml is a good thing. about opengl 2.0 personally I dont think its gone far enuf, comparing it to d3d, its aimed at d3d10/11 when it should be aiming for d3d13/14. where this gonna leave us in 2005. opengl 3.0?

#6 Anonymous Poster_Anonymous Poster_*   Guests   -  Reputation:

Likes

Posted 25 September 2001 - 12:27 PM

What is OpenML?

#7 GKW   Members   -  Reputation: 200

Like
Likes
Like

Posted 25 September 2001 - 05:46 PM

OpenML

The fanatic is incorruptible: if he kills for an idea, he can just as well get himself killed for one; in either case, tyrant or martyr, he is a monster.
--EM Cioran

Opere Citato

Edited by - GKW on September 25, 2001 12:47:20 AM

#8 GKW   Members   -  Reputation: 200

Like
Likes
Like

Posted 26 September 2001 - 05:40 AM

quote:
Original post by Null and Void
Although, I think they want to change too many basic things that already work fine. Also, what is with their obsession with time keeping? If someone can point out why that would be useful, it may help me understand it .



THis is also due to OpenML. In order to synchronize video and audio they have a time keeping system which they are going to extend into opengl.

The fanatic is incorruptible: if he kills for an idea, he can just as well get himself killed for one; in either case, tyrant or martyr, he is a monster.
--EM Cioran

Opere Citato

#9 AlbertoT   Members   -  Reputation: 100

Like
Likes
Like

Posted 26 September 2001 - 07:24 AM

"Even Direct3d, the real OpenGL competitor, is now a giant compared to what OGL is."

May be, I am not an expert.
I would ask you a simple question.
Are you able to understand which API has been used to develop a 3d game, just playing it?
My gut feeling is that direct x must have some advantages vs opengl .
It is hard for me to believe that most of professional software houses use direct x,just because of the tremendous Microsoft marketing power.
A comparison giant \ dwerf it seem to me however a bit exagerate.
A part from the above considerations it is a matter of fact that opengl is much, much, much easier to use then direct x and I am sure not to exagerate.
In conclusion the amateur \ shareware game developer comunity definitly need opengl.
I will continue using opengl 1.1 and I do hope the 3d card manufactures will support OGL even in the future




#10 Rudan   Members   -  Reputation: 158

Like
Likes
Like

Posted 26 September 2001 - 09:51 AM

quote:
it is a matter of fact that opengl is much, much, much easier to use then direct x and I am sure not to exagerate.

I hope you''ve actually used DirectX 8 before making a comment like that... I had been using OpenGL for quite a while, but I decided to try DX. I had no problem whatsoever. And that old argument that DX is much harder to initialize than OpenGL isn''t true anymore. But later I switched back to OpenGL again, simply because I liked it better. I think that as long as OpenGL and DX has about the same performance, it''s all about personal preference (And portability and stuff like that). If OpenGL ever becomes some sort of amateur\shareware API, I''ll be the first one to return to the dark side

And to those who doubt OpenGL:s greatness, I can only say one thing: Doom 3!

#11 Malloc   Members   -  Reputation: 122

Like
Likes
Like

Posted 26 September 2001 - 04:48 PM

Well i started with DX (7!) and i really liked it, it was very easy to understand and initialize (kinda) but it was all in VB so is really easy, but now that i was threating with C++, heck DX is HARD to initialize some times, structures and classes are confusing, OpenGL is easy API, just glVertex3f(x, y, z) and that''s all, one single vertex with 1 line of code and 3 variables!

Sure OpenGL 1.1 is an Old Version of OpenGL and IT''S Anoying to check all the list of the ARB extensions (i tryed myself and i get a headche), anyway it should be cool OpenGL 2, with all ARB extensions included and everything updated for new GPUs and CPUs!

Anyway No Comments this time

W-Buffer

#12 buzzy_b   Members   -  Reputation: 122

Like
Likes
Like

Posted 26 September 2001 - 06:42 PM

DrKappa: "When the same feature is implemented in two separated extensions created by two competiting manufacturers, I don''t know if I''m talking about an API anymore."

Sorry for the relatively pointless post, but that comment immediately reminded me that DX8.0 is NVIDIA''s DX, while DX8.1 is ATI''s DX.

--Buzzy

#13 Obelix   Members   -  Reputation: 122

Like
Likes
Like

Posted 26 September 2001 - 06:43 PM

Let me start with some comments:
- Anything you can do with Direct3D can you do with OpenGL. Saying that D3D is a giant compared to OpenGL does not make sense to me.
- Direct3D was following OpenGL and not the other way around. The original D3D had some bad goals but after that was OpenGL the ideal.
- Today is the development of both D3D and OpenGL driven by the advancements in hardware.
- The rapid improvements of hardware makes the market totally different than it was 92. Cheap graphic cards is very powerfull.

The big question is how the RISC like operations will be supported in future versions of core OpenGL. I do not belive that the D3D hack to do this for the current hardware gives the best answer. It may be a good investment to let it take some time so that the alternatives can be evaluated.

The new hw will be more programmable but I do not see a future there most graphic code is done on such a low level. We will probably get the low level code from the manufacturers and others sources on the internet and use them like library functions. That may also eliminate the need for extensions.

#14 DrKappa   Members   -  Reputation: 122

Like
Likes
Like

Posted 27 September 2001 - 04:46 AM

quote:
Original post by AlbertoT
"Even Direct3d, the real OpenGL competitor, is now a giant compared to what OGL is."

May be, I am not an expert.
I would ask you a simple question.
Are you able to understand which API has been used to develop a 3d game, just playing it?
My gut feeling is that direct x must have some advantages vs opengl .
It is hard for me to believe that most of professional software houses use direct x,just because of the tremendous Microsoft marketing power.
A comparison giant \ dwerf it seem to me however a bit exagerate.
A part from the above considerations it is a matter of fact that opengl is much, much, much easier to use then direct x and I am sure not to exagerate.
In conclusion the amateur \ shareware game developer comunity definitly need opengl.
I will continue using opengl 1.1 and I do hope the 3d card manufactures will support OGL even in the future





Maybe my comparison giant/dwarf is exagerated.
By the way as I said directX is omnicomrehensive, while ogl is not. Programmable GPUs and other advanced features are supported by directx, while we cannot say the same for opengl. DirectX gets updated every year, while OpenGL is still a revision of the original 1992 API (DirectX had at least 3 major improvements: version 3, 5 and 8).
The future of DirectX is shiny. XBox is a great help.
The future of OpenGl seems misty, as 3dlabs paper points out: OpenGL needs to change as soon as possible.

If it could be true that now a lot of developers are still supporting opengl, maybe directx will be more appealing when having to port games from/to xbox. When programmable gpus will be present in almost every pc used for playing games, opengl could loose other developers.
Maybe it''s not giant/dwarf today, but tomorrow? If 3dlabs distributed such a paper maybe they fear something like that.


#15 DrKappa   Members   -  Reputation: 122

Like
Likes
Like

Posted 27 September 2001 - 04:50 AM

quote:
Original post by buzzy_b
DrKappa: "When the same feature is implemented in two separated extensions created by two competiting manufacturers, I don''t know if I''m talking about an API anymore."

Sorry for the relatively pointless post, but that comment immediately reminded me that DX8.0 is NVIDIA''s DX, while DX8.1 is ATI''s DX.

--Buzzy


I could be wrong, but as far as I know Microsoft creates vertex and pixel shaders specs. DX 8.0 supported version 1.1 while 8.1 supports version 1.4. To say that RADEON 8500 is the only board supporting vertex shaders 1.4 doesn''t mean DX 8.1 is ATI''s DX.
Then, the same code works on all hardware, while shaders extensions provded by ati and nvidia for opengl aren''t compatible. You have to write code twice.

#16 zedzeek   Members   -  Reputation: 528

Like
Likes
Like

Posted 27 September 2001 - 10:45 AM

about the xbox using d3d remember the gamecube uses opengl + the ps2 can use it.
whats gonna be more of a sucess gc or xbox. every single study has said they will sell in this order of sales ps2 -> gc -> xbox
choosing d3d cause the xbox uses it aint a smart move.

>> Programmable GPUs and other advanced features are supported by directx, while we cannot say the same for opengl.<<

u could actually do these with opengl before u could with d3d, in fact name one feature that came out for d3d than opengl.



#17 Anonymous Poster_Anonymous Poster_*   Guests   -  Reputation:

Likes

Posted 27 September 2001 - 12:02 PM

quote:
Original post by DrKappa
[quote]Then, the same code works on all hardware, while shaders extensions provded by ati and nvidia for opengl aren''t compatible. You have to write code twice.


As of the EXT_vertex_shader extension, there is a relatively multi-platform extension for vertex programming. Assuming you''re reffering to vertex shaders (shader has more than one definition), and also assuming that both ATI and nVidia agree to support it (which is highly likely).

#18 no way   Members   -  Reputation: 122

Like
Likes
Like

Posted 27 September 2001 - 02:43 PM

what troubles me with this proposal is, like Zedzeek also said, that they arent aiming far enough.
Basically everything in there is just trying to resolve current problems, like mess with all the extensions, lack of shader language etc.
But in 1992 when OGL1.0 was finished, they looked much more far ahead. I mean where was consumer hardware that could do all that stuff in base GL then ? But we do have first iterations of hardware with programmable shaders now, so they are playing catchup game, and im afraid its not going to be enough.
For example, this proposal doesnt say anything about scenegraph or higher-order surfaces, both could potentially become hardware accelerated in very near future. Floating point framebuffers, displacement mapping and other methods of geometry compression etc... Im certain these will be included in DX as soon as hardware supports them.
In short, the presentation is a progress but it not by far sufficient to hold its own for another eight years.

#19 Anonymous Poster_Anonymous Poster_*   Guests   -  Reputation:

Likes

Posted 27 September 2001 - 03:10 PM

"For example, this proposal doesnt say anything about scenegraph or higher-order surfaces, both could potentially become hardware accelerated in very near future."

higher-order surfaces can and should be implemented using vertex programs, and new tesselation algorithms are constantly developed.
OpenGL is a rasterizer API, so a scenegraph won''t be included.




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