OpenGL OpenGL 2.0 Nvidia

Recommended Posts

The new drivers released yesterday has full support for OpenGL 2.0. WTF I can't find the new updated headers (glu.h and glext.h) for 2.0 with the declarations. In the 2.0 support paper that was also released said that you can get those new headers from Nvidia's developer site but they can't be found. Does anyone out there already have these headers or know were I can get them?

Share on other sites
You can always get them ,here

J

Share on other sites
No there are suppose to be new versions of gl.h and glext (I meant to say gl.h not glu.h from my first post) that have OpenGL 2.0 API declarations in them. That link only takes me to a page where I can get the old glext.h, wglext.h, etc.

Unless I am missing something those are not 2.0 headers.

Share on other sites
Definitions for all version of opengl extensions are in there. Scroll down the list in "glext.h". See 1.3, 1.4, 2.0? It's all there as far as I can see.

gl.h hasn't changed in a very long time to the best of my knowledge, especially on Windows. Everything since 1.1 or 1.2 (correct me if I am wrong) has been implemented in extension form in glext.h.

This file's date is 6/20/2005, so Im sure this is the latest.

J

Share on other sites
Ok I see what you mean. I didn't look in the file before. I thought you could use the 2.0 functions without having to use extensions? So we still have to get pointers to the functions in order to use them?

According to the Nvidia support paper there is suppose to be a new 2.0 gl.h as well.

Share on other sites
Quote:
 Ok I see what you mean. I didn't look in the file. I thought you could use the 2.0 functions without having to use extensions? So we still have to get pointers to the functions in order to use them?

Yes, I beleive they are used like all the other extensions. For ease of use, use GLEE it sets up extensions automatically. You don't even have to initialize it. It has full OGL 2.0 support.

Good coding

J

Share on other sites
So the only difference between 2.0 and 1.5 (from the point of view we are talking about) is that we drop the ARB on the extension function names? If we still have to get the functions our selves what is the point?

Thanks for the replies.

Share on other sites
All functionality not considered part of the "core" opengl or vendor specific extensions are implemented as before. OGL 2.0 doesn't change that. You still have to set them up like you did before. The author of "The OpenGL Shading Language" book (and one of the key people driving OpenGL's specs and extensions) explains the reasoning behind the "extension" mindset for the evolution of OpenGL, but I am at work and don't have it in front of me. Pick it up, its a great read.

Share on other sites
I get what you mean but it says in the paper that GLSL has been added to the OpenGL core. Even though I have 2.0 support now I can't use GLSL without extensions even though it says it is now part of the core.

Share on other sites
"Core" is sort of a misnomer. Implying to you I guess that it should be part of "opengl32.lib" and "gl.h" and just called like the good old immediate mode functions like glVertex3f(...) without having to set anything up.

Multi-texturing, height baed fog effects, VBOs, CVAs, etc. are part of the "core", but are still only available through extension handles existing in "glext.h" and implemented in your video card's drivers.

Seriously though, I recommend that you take a look at GLEE. It makes life a lot easier. You still have a little setup, but a lot less. Also you might look at GLEW another opengl extension wrangler.

Share on other sites
Thats because MS havent updated the opengl32.dll, as such you have to get the address of the new functionality via extension pointers.
For linux and OSX/Mac machines this isnt a problem, they will get updated files to link against at which point the 'core' concept works perfectly, its only Windows on which it looks a bit daft.

The 'point' is to identify those functions which an OpenGL implimentation should provide vs thos it can optionaly provide. If a driver claims OpenGL2.0 support then it must support all (non-optional) extensions in the OpenGL2.0 spec.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

• Forum Statistics

• Total Topics
627757
• Total Posts
2978950
• Similar Content

• Hello! As an exercise for delving into modern OpenGL, I'm creating a simple .obj renderer. I want to support things like varying degrees of specularity, geometry opacity, things like that, on a per-material basis. Different materials can also have different textures. Basic .obj necessities. I've done this in old school OpenGL, but modern OpenGL has its own thing going on, and I'd like to conform as closely to the standards as possible so as to keep the program running correctly, and I'm hoping to avoid picking up bad habits this early on.
Reading around on the OpenGL Wiki, one tip in particular really stands out to me on this page:
For something like a renderer for .obj files, this sort of thing seems almost ideal, but according to the wiki, it's a bad idea. Interesting to note!
So, here's what the plan is so far as far as loading goes:
Set up a type for materials so that materials can be created and destroyed. They will contain things like diffuse color, diffuse texture, geometry opacity, and so on, for each material in the .mtl file. Since .obj files are conveniently split up by material, I can load different groups of vertices/normals/UVs and triangles into different blocks of data for different models. When it comes to the rendering, I get a bit lost. I can either:
Between drawing triangle groups, call glUseProgram to use a different shader for that particular geometry (so a unique shader just for the material that is shared by this triangle group). or
Between drawing triangle groups, call glUniform a few times to adjust different parameters within the "master shader", such as specularity, diffuse color, and geometry opacity. In both cases, I still have to call glBindTexture between drawing triangle groups in order to bind the diffuse texture used by the material, so there doesn't seem to be a way around having the CPU do *something* during the rendering process instead of letting the GPU do everything all at once.
The second option here seems less cluttered, however. There are less shaders to keep up with while one "master shader" handles it all. I don't have to duplicate any code or compile multiple shaders. Arguably, I could always have the shader program for each material be embedded in the material itself, and be auto-generated upon loading the material from the .mtl file. But this still leads to constantly calling glUseProgram, much more than is probably necessary in order to properly render the .obj. There seem to be a number of differing opinions on if it's okay to use hundreds of shaders or if it's best to just use tens of shaders.
So, ultimately, what is the "right" way to do this? Does using a "master shader" (or a few variants of one) bog down the system compared to using hundreds of shader programs each dedicated to their own corresponding materials? Keeping in mind that the "master shaders" would have to track these additional uniforms and potentially have numerous branches of ifs, it may be possible that the ifs will lead to additional and unnecessary processing. But would that more expensive than constantly calling glUseProgram to switch shaders, or storing the shaders to begin with?
With all these angles to consider, it's difficult to come to a conclusion. Both possible methods work, and both seem rather convenient for their own reasons, but which is the most performant? Please help this beginner/dummy understand. Thank you!

• I want to make professional java 3d game with server program and database,packet handling for multiplayer and client-server communicating,maps rendering,models,and stuffs Which aspect of java can I learn and where can I learn java Lwjgl OpenGL rendering Like minecraft and world of tanks

• A friend of mine and I are making a 2D game engine as a learning experience and to hopefully build upon the experience in the long run.

-What I'm using:
C++;. Since im learning this language while in college and its one of the popular language to make games with why not.     Visual Studios; Im using a windows so yea.     SDL or GLFW; was thinking about SDL since i do some research on it where it is catching my interest but i hear SDL is a huge package compared to GLFW, so i may do GLFW to start with as learning since i may get overwhelmed with SDL.
-Questions
Knowing what we want in the engine what should our main focus be in terms of learning. File managements, with headers, functions ect. How can i properly manage files with out confusing myself and my friend when sharing code. Alternative to Visual studios: My friend has a mac and cant properly use Vis studios, is there another alternative to it?

• Both functions are available since 3.0, and I'm currently using glMapBuffer(), which works fine.
But, I was wondering if anyone has experienced advantage in using glMapBufferRange(), which allows to specify the range of the mapped buffer. Could this be only a safety measure or does it improve performance?
Note: I'm not asking about glBufferSubData()/glBufferData. Those two are irrelevant in this case.
• By xhcao
Before using void glBindImageTexture(    GLuint unit, GLuint texture, GLint level, GLboolean layered, GLint layer, GLenum access, GLenum format), does need to make sure that texture is completeness.

• 11
• 10
• 10
• 23
• 14