Archived

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

Xori

OpenGL Future of OpenGL: The future of us all

Recommended Posts

Sooo... not long ago when I started doing things with hardware accelerated graphics, I chose OpenGL. Natural decision, I suppose. I bought a book on Direct3D way back when and a book on OpenGL. There were so many things that seemed easier/common sense about OpenGL. Even so, back when I bought those books, OpenGL was far superior. As of late I'm a bit behind the wagon on this one - I want to start playing with more of the advanced technologies (until recently I have used OpenGL to nicely render my experiments with various graphics algorithms, such as the construction of my particle system... those sorts of things). So, it's time to make a decision. Do I need to take the plunge and dump OpenGL for Direct3D simply because D3D is now superior? I've told myself time and time again that OpenGL 2.0 (when/IF it ever gets here) is going to blow D3D out of the water once again. I think many of us tell ourselves that. But the question remains: what IS the status of OpenGL 2.0? What is going to happen to OpenGL 2.0 given that Microsoft is never going to support it in Windows? Also - since I'm really a noobler to the more advanced extensions, I'm baffled by what so many people continually tell me about them. Right now extensions from OpenGL 1.2/1.3 I have been using manually. So uhm... I will continue to be able to do that for OpenGL 2.0, right? See I'm not clear on this. I would like to be - but I can't find any information on it to save my life! Would someone in the know - throw me and nooblers like me a bone - Should I abandon all hope of cross platform engines and D3D-free simulations? Thank you... PS. Sorry if this should have gone in the Beginner's form. It was so OpenGL specific that I figured maybe it should be here :/ [edited by - xori on November 17, 2003 4:34:26 AM]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[disclaimer]
I''m not interested in joining a flamewar, even though this thread may be asking for it. I''m simply trying to give useful advice.
[/disclaimer]
quote:
Original post by Xori
Sooo... not long ago when I started doing things with hardware accelerated graphics, I chose OpenGL. Natural decision, I suppose. I bought a book on Direct3D way back when and a book on OpenGL. There were so many things that seemed easier/common sense about OpenGL. Even so, back when I bought those books, OpenGL was far superior.

As of late I''m a bit behind the wagon on this one - I want to start playing with more of the advanced technologies (until recently I have used OpenGL to nicely render my experiments with various graphics algorithms, such as the construction of my particle system... those sorts of things). So, it''s time to make a decision. Do I need to take the plunge and dump OpenGL for Direct3D simply because D3D is now superior?

Personally, I''ve done the opposite - I''d been using Direct3D since 1999, but have now (september) switched to OpenGL for various reasons. I don''t especially want to stay around for when Microsoft''s licensing for Windows becomes fascist, so I''ve almost completely migrated to Linux. I''m still developing for both platforms, but it does mean Direct3D isn''t a very useful choice.
Also, while Direct3D is fundamentally well-designed (more so than OpenGL if you''re talking about advanced features), the constant changes from version to version have started to annoy me, even though they''re only minor. In OpenGL you can simply add any new stuff that comes along to what you already have, for example by adding a renderpath in your engine. No existing code has to be updated.

quote:

I''ve told myself time and time again that OpenGL 2.0 (when/IF it ever gets here) is going to blow D3D out of the water once again. I think many of us tell ourselves that. But the question remains: what IS the status of OpenGL 2.0?

Well, what was supposed to be OpenGL 2.0 has now been released as 1.5 as far as I can tell, even though there''s still stuff missing, which will turn up over the next few months. In a way, I''m not too bothered about what they call it, if they got the job done and call it something else I''m happy with that. Right now I can''t think of anything that OpenGL doesn''t do that Direct3D does in terms of functionality. OK, so GLSL/GLSlang isn''t finalised yet, but it''s damn close and you can still use D3D HLSL to generate assembly shaders and use those in an OpenGL app if that''s what you need.

quote:
What is going to happen to OpenGL 2.0 given that Microsoft is never going to support it in Windows?

Microsoft doesn''t support OpenGL 1.2, but that doesn''t prevent driver manufacturers and developers from using it. OK, so it''s not exactly very nice, but you can use wrappers (see the FAQ of this forum) to do that for you. It''s not a big deal. If you want a real OpenGL implementation, use a different OS. Linux, *BSD, MacOS all can support 1.5 as far as I know. I''m using 1.3/1.4 under Linux myself.
Also, OpenGL is very much associated with the Open Source community, and they''re well known for coming up with solutions to problems that big corporations don''t want to. Read: someone may write a third-party, compatible opengl.dll which supports higher versions. If the ARB get involved with it, I doubt anyone would hold back on using it.

quote:
Also - since I''m really a noobler to the more advanced extensions, I''m baffled by what so many people continually tell me about them. Right now extensions from OpenGL all the way up to 1.3 I have been using manually. So uhm... I will continue to be able to do that for OpenGL 2.0, right? See I''m not clear on this. I would like to be - but I can''t find any information on it to save my life!

I doubt that OpenGL will lose its backwards-compatibility anytime soon, that would just go against its own principles. Even if it did, someone would no doubt write support for Windows.

quote:
Would someone in the know - throw me and nooblers like me a bone - Should I abandon all hope of cross platform engines and D3D-free simulations?

No, definitely not, for above reasons.
Besides, OpenGL is still used actively in game development. Most big engines are either OpenGL, or both Direct3D and OpenGL.

quote:
PS. Sorry if this should have gone in the Beginner''s form. It was so OpenGL specific that I figured maybe it should be here :/

I''d be more worried about getting the thread closed for danger of flamewar.

- JQ

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thank you for your lengthy and reasonable reply.
I really am not asking for a flamewar. Last thing I want I simply fear that it maybe time to acknowledge one side or the other - that is, if I wish to be a successful graphics developer.

Please, no flames.
I am not trying to make any points, just asking questions because I''m frustrated, slightly clueless, and... I can''t be the only one.

Thank you for being considerate. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
quote:
Original post by Xori
I''ve told myself time and time again that OpenGL 2.0 (when/IF it ever gets here) is going to blow D3D out of the water once again. I think many of us tell ourselves that. But the question remains: what IS the status of OpenGL 2.0?

The ARB is taking their time with OpenGL 2.0. What new feature would it include that you really need over what an extension (possibly standardized in some 1.x release) could offer? OpenGL 2.0 is meant to be the "cleaning up" release, to unify the interfaces to some of the features (babbling: I''d love to see the VBO usage-model style attributes applied to things like textures); I''d rather they take their time on it.

quote:
Original post by Xori
What is going to happen to OpenGL 2.0 given that Microsoft is never going to support it in Windows?

Just access its features through extensions in Windows ; possibly write a wrapper to make it effortless, just like what one has always done to make up for Windows'' out-dated OpenGL implemenation. Certain video cards with certain drivers (can''t really give you specifics from memory; 3Dlabs and possibly certain ATI products, I think) already expose pre-standard implementations to certain OpenGL 2.0 features through extensions (Carmack claims to have implemented an experimental "OpenGL 2.0" path in his Doom 3 code using these extensions).

quote:
Original post by Xori
Also - since I''m really a noobler to the more advanced extensions, I''m baffled by what so many people continually tell me about them. Right now extensions from OpenGL all the way up to 1.3 I have been using manually. So uhm... I will continue to be able to do that for OpenGL 2.0, right?

Why wouldn''t you be able to? OpenGL 2.0 will likely "force" the support of certain extensions much like the 1.x releases have done and/or simply have the functionality of the extensions as part of the core standard (especially the latter if they change the interfaces any). Everything I seen has indicated that early OpenGL 2.0 standards will require backwards compatibility with OpenGL 1.x standards (and that wouldn''t be all that difficult to do, considering how little will change and that the old functionality will be able to simply wrap over the new).

In summary: keep using OpenGL 1.x if you want to, the moderately-distant release of OpenGL 2.0 is nothing to worry about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As a side note, no matter what API you use, it''s always good to keep up with how the other API develops, and how it goes about things, as it quite often makes understanding easier, and helps with design decisions in your own application.

- JQ

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Announcements

  • Forum Statistics

    • Total Topics
      628401
    • Total Posts
      2982462
  • 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