Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

uray

OpenGL why OpenGL not improve

Recommended Posts

OpenGL is done by committee, a committee of people with wildly different agendas. Also the "extension" model used in OpenGL has made it ripe for manufacturers to come out with lots of proprietary extensions. These extensions create a false impression that OpenGL is properly supporting new features and keeping up, which makes the committee even more lax about keeping the real OpenGL standard up to date with technology.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
quote:
Original post by Michalson
These extensions create a false impression that OpenGL is properly supporting new features and keeping up, which makes the committee even more lax about keeping the real OpenGL standard up to date with technology.


Actually, OpenGL does properly support all new features, on non-proprietary base. Which feature exactly do you think it is missing ? All new features have currently been standarized as vendor independent ARB extensions. So where is the problem ?

quote:
Original post by uray
OpenGL version is 1.3 the new is 1.4 with a little improvement,it is not like DirectX...
what's wrong?


Nothing is wrong. OpenGL uses a different updating scheme, that's all. It is perfectly up to date.


[edited by - Yann L on July 25, 2003 3:31:49 PM]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
quote:
Original post by Yann L
Actually, OpenGL does properly support all new features, on non-proprietary base. Which feature exactly do you think it is missing ? All new features have currently been standarized as vendor independent ARB extensions. So where is the problem ?



Exactly!!!

"C lets you shoot yourself in the foot rather easily. C++ allows you to reuse the bullet!"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Anonymous Poster
This is really stupid. The notes from the last ARB meeting is on www.opengl.org so please give some examples how OpenGL is not improving fast enough.

If no good examples can be made after such statements is the only reasonable conclusion that they was just bullshit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sorry, a quick search for that document didn't turn up anything. Could you provide a link, or at least substantiate your claim of a claim?

EDIT : Not to mention that a comparison between DirectX and OpenGL is ridiculous at best. Perhaps you meant Direct3D? [last comment removed - pure vitriol.]

Later,
ZE.

//email me.//zealouselixir software.//msdn.//n00biez.//
miscellaneous links


[edited by - zealouselixir on July 25, 2003 4:14:15 PM]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Did you read the summary at the top? That's old and only takes into consideration a part of OpenGL. I merely scanned the list, but virtually every one of the "No" answers in the OpenGL column would be a "Yes" (or a "Yes, for some platforms" for one or two) if they considered a modern OpenGL standard and its ARB (non-vendor) extensions. Edit: I've been beaten .



[edited by - Null and Void on July 25, 2003 4:41:51 PM]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mhm. It''s hard to compare an obsolete version of OpenGL with the latest (as of that writing) version of Direct3D, especially when you completely ignore the very mechanism that allows features to be added to OpenGL. That document is tripe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
you may want to read up on 3Dlabs OpenGL 2.0 proposal.

To the vast majority of mankind, nothing is more agreeable than to escape the need for mental exertion... To most people, nothing is more troublesome than the effort of thinking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
quote:
Original post by uray
what is feature that make OpenGL better than DirectX?



I don't know of any obvious feature... however I can tell you that many people feel that OpenGL is easier to use... I personally think it's easier because (like I hinted in my sarcastic reply) DirectX needs to be explained everying in triangles. So if I want to render a simple cube in DirectX I need to tell it to render 12 triangles, while in OpenGL I can tell it that I want to render 6 rectangles.

[edited by - TempusElf on July 25, 2003 4:59:56 PM]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, the biggest advantage of OpenGL is multi-platform compatability. If your target is just Windows, then it doesn''t matter. From what I''ve seen, most people find OpenGL is easier to learn, and if their job requires they learn D3D, then they learn it.

I predict that both will continue to exist, constantly competing, and I''m sure you all agree that competition forces both of them to improve, and give us that much better graphics APIs. :-D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Oh, and perhaps just to mention this: Direct3D virtually doesn't exist beyond the PC/games world. The whole professional 3D domain (architecture, industrial CAD/CAM, flight simulators, medical imaging, movie special effect pre-vis, etc) run under OpenGL exclusively (and often on non-x86 hardware). So yes, the future of OpenGL is definitely secured. It has always been.

Although we're all waiting for OpenGL 2.0 (and waiting, and waiting, and...)

quote:
Original post by TempusElf
I personally think it's easier because (like I hinted in my sarcastic reply) DirectX needs to be explained everying in triangles. So if I want to render a simple cube in DirectX I need to tell it to render 12 triangles, while in OpenGL I can tell it that I want to render 6 rectangles.


Well, that's perhaps nice if you're a beginner. But later on, you won't use those features anymore. If you want top-performance, you should stick with triangles - wether you use OpenGL or Direct3D. The hardware is the same, and GPUs prefer triangles.


[edited by - Yann L on July 25, 2003 5:28:28 PM]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Won''t everything be the same, besides some new advanced features? Just like C++ is C with extra features. Unless they change glBegin() to glStart() I should probably be reading up on what they are planning for the new version.

If you don''t understand OpenGL, I doubt you would be using 2.0''s advanced features for some time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
quote:
Original post by uray
OK i''ll wait for OpenGL 2.0 then i learn it...


why not just wait for 3.0? cause that will have even more features

learning the current version wont kill you or somehow make you out of date.



Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don''t use opengl at all so forgive me if this is a stupid question. But why doesn''t OpenGL adopt the arb extensions as the core? By leaving the extensions proprietary to manufacturers and such it really leaves OpenGL as a api that''s run by video card developers (Or so it seems). In some aspects it seems like a strength and in others it seems a little messy. One card comes out with a feature and the others have to scramble to add in the extension into their new cards or write drivers to support it.

Though I''m very gung ho and comfortable with directx and using vertex and index buffers. I''d love to be liberated of them. Is openGL 2.0 going to be much diffrent from opengl?

~Wave

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Announcements

  • Forum Statistics

    • Total Topics
      628401
    • Total Posts
      2982456
  • Similar Content

    • By test opty
      Hi all,
       
      I'm starting OpenGL using a tut on the Web. But at this point I would like to know the primitives needed for creating a window using OpenGL. So on Windows and using MS VS 2017, what is the simplest code required to render a window with the title of "First Rectangle", please?
       
       
    • By DejayHextrix
      Hi, New here. 
      I need some help. My fiance and I like to play this mobile game online that goes by real time. Her and I are always working but when we have free time we like to play this game. We don't always got time throughout the day to Queue Buildings, troops, Upgrades....etc.... 
      I was told to look into DLL Injection and OpenGL/DirectX Hooking. Is this true? Is this what I need to learn? 
      How do I read the Android files, or modify the files, or get the in-game tags/variables for the game I want? 
      Any assistance on this would be most appreciated. I been everywhere and seems no one knows or is to lazy to help me out. It would be nice to have assistance for once. I don't know what I need to learn. 
      So links of topics I need to learn within the comment section would be SOOOOO.....Helpful. Anything to just get me started. 
      Thanks, 
      Dejay Hextrix 
    • By mellinoe
      Hi all,
      First time poster here, although I've been reading posts here for quite a while. This place has been invaluable for learning graphics programming -- thanks for a great resource!
      Right now, I'm working on a graphics abstraction layer for .NET which supports D3D11, Vulkan, and OpenGL at the moment. I have implemented most of my planned features already, and things are working well. Some remaining features that I am planning are Compute Shaders, and some flavor of read-write shader resources. At the moment, my shaders can just get simple read-only access to a uniform (or constant) buffer, a texture, or a sampler. Unfortunately, I'm having a tough time grasping the distinctions between all of the different kinds of read-write resources that are available. In D3D alone, there seem to be 5 or 6 different kinds of resources with similar but different characteristics. On top of that, I get the impression that some of them are more or less "obsoleted" by the newer kinds, and don't have much of a place in modern code. There seem to be a few pivots:
      The data source/destination (buffer or texture) Read-write or read-only Structured or unstructured (?) Ordered vs unordered (?) These are just my observations based on a lot of MSDN and OpenGL doc reading. For my library, I'm not interested in exposing every possibility to the user -- just trying to find a good "middle-ground" that can be represented cleanly across API's which is good enough for common scenarios.
      Can anyone give a sort of "overview" of the different options, and perhaps compare/contrast the concepts between Direct3D, OpenGL, and Vulkan? I'd also be very interested in hearing how other folks have abstracted these concepts in their libraries.
    • By aejt
      I recently started getting into graphics programming (2nd try, first try was many years ago) and I'm working on a 3d rendering engine which I hope to be able to make a 3D game with sooner or later. I have plenty of C++ experience, but not a lot when it comes to graphics, and while it's definitely going much better this time, I'm having trouble figuring out how assets are usually handled by engines.
      I'm not having trouble with handling the GPU resources, but more so with how the resources should be defined and used in the system (materials, models, etc).
      This is my plan now, I've implemented most of it except for the XML parts and factories and those are the ones I'm not sure of at all:
      I have these classes:
      For GPU resources:
      Geometry: holds and manages everything needed to render a geometry: VAO, VBO, EBO. Texture: holds and manages a texture which is loaded into the GPU. Shader: holds and manages a shader which is loaded into the GPU. For assets relying on GPU resources:
      Material: holds a shader resource, multiple texture resources, as well as uniform settings. Mesh: holds a geometry and a material. Model: holds multiple meshes, possibly in a tree structure to more easily support skinning later on? For handling GPU resources:
      ResourceCache<T>: T can be any resource loaded into the GPU. It owns these resources and only hands out handles to them on request (currently string identifiers are used when requesting handles, but all resources are stored in a vector and each handle only contains resource's index in that vector) Resource<T>: The handles given out from ResourceCache. The handles are reference counted and to get the underlying resource you simply deference like with pointers (*handle).  
      And my plan is to define everything into these XML documents to abstract away files:
      Resources.xml for ref-counted GPU resources (geometry, shaders, textures) Resources are assigned names/ids and resource files, and possibly some attributes (what vertex attributes does this geometry have? what vertex attributes does this shader expect? what uniforms does this shader use? and so on) Are reference counted using ResourceCache<T> Assets.xml for assets using the GPU resources (materials, meshes, models) Assets are not reference counted, but they hold handles to ref-counted resources. References the resources defined in Resources.xml by names/ids. The XMLs are loaded into some structure in memory which is then used for loading the resources/assets using factory classes:
      Factory classes for resources:
      For example, a texture factory could contain the texture definitions from the XML containing data about textures in the game, as well as a cache containing all loaded textures. This means it has mappings from each name/id to a file and when asked to load a texture with a name/id, it can look up its path and use a "BinaryLoader" to either load the file and create the resource directly, or asynchronously load the file's data into a queue which then can be read from later to create the resources synchronously in the GL context. These factories only return handles.
      Factory classes for assets:
      Much like for resources, these classes contain the definitions for the assets they can load. For example, with the definition the MaterialFactory will know which shader, textures and possibly uniform a certain material has, and with the help of TextureFactory and ShaderFactory, it can retrieve handles to the resources it needs (Shader + Textures), setup itself from XML data (uniform values), and return a created instance of requested material. These factories return actual instances, not handles (but the instances contain handles).
       
       
      Is this a good or commonly used approach? Is this going to bite me in the ass later on? Are there other more preferable approaches? Is this outside of the scope of a 3d renderer and should be on the engine side? I'd love to receive and kind of advice or suggestions!
      Thanks!
    • By nedondev
      I 'm learning how to create game by using opengl with c/c++ coding, so here is my fist game. In video description also have game contain in Dropbox. May be I will make it better in future.
      Thanks.
  • Popular Now