Hey hey Long post, be weary. Also, this is not another DX OGL war. I''ve been reading about OpenGL quite extensivley latley, and I''ve liked what I''ve been reading. I''ve heard OpenGL 1.3 (or 2.0, as some call it) is either in development or ready for release - how so, in what form? I''ve read that windows 9x only supports 1.1, and I''m ill-informed about the NT(2K) implications of the graphics technology (does 2k support 1.2?) I''ve recently become an OpenGL advacist, and I was wondering how its progressing (in terms of 1.3). It just seems like such a noble API, yet I''m let down by it''s lack of support from the so called committee thats standardizing it. Remember now this is all opinion, and I''m probably misinformed on quite a few things here, but hopefully someone can clear this up for me and anyone passing through. I would also like to ask what input, sound, and newotrking API people use when doing 3D in OpenGl. I''ve been using DirectX for about 5 months now, learning windows multimedia along with the API, and now have a grudge against anything that approaches me that even LOOKS like COM. I''ve read people don''t use DirectX (as adversed to OpenGL) for 3d Graphics because many dislike COM. If thats the case, do they yield to these objections when they need something advanced to handle sound and input, or is there another input/sound API that I don''t know about? Just an inquiry. As of now I think people that use OpenGL for 3D graphics use OS independent sound routines and input routines (which CAN''T be right). Too much work in my opinion. Another thing, DX9 - can anyone speculate if this will be the version that D3D compares to OpenGL in functionality and (ease of use). I say this because I don''t ever think D3D will surpass OpenGL in ease of use because of the methods MS uses to get everything done (my 2D dos graphics engine was easier to use, and that was a mess). I only make this inquiry from what I''ve read - I don''t know the gritty details of either API''s 3D capability, but I''ve seen some comparisons in capabilities between both API''s by technical gurus. DX8 is agreed to be (by most) a heavy advancement in MS'' directX in terms of ease of use and functionality, but many say it''s still deriving most of its functionality from OpenGL. In this posters opinion, if DX9 is the significant progression that DX8 was (in terms of 3D) then I think the market will shift in favor of DX9. Personally I don''t want D3D to ever surpass OGL in capability and ease of use (although I think D3D has passed it in terms of standardization) but reality says that through MS'' frequent updates they''re making DX better and better, in which OGL can''t compare...... which is why I asked the question in this topic in the first place - OpenGL''s "soon to be" update. If anyone can shed any information on 1.3 (or 2.0, whichever) I''d be thankful for the information. BTW, after reading through my post I think I''ve treaded on a lot of sensitive territory, and ask any corrections be posted (I''m new to the subject, flames wouldn''t really help me... =) Adios -Phil Crosby www.philisoft.com www.graphics-design.com

The official story is that Win98 does not "support" OpenGL 1.2, Win2K does.

Not really. Both systems will happily run OpenGL 1.2 if your drivers support it. However, OpenGL32.dll on Win98 does not expose the new 1.2 functions (such as glTexImage3D() ). If you want to use these on Win98, you have to load them yourself using wglGetProcAddress() .

I just have to ask: where did you hear about GL 1.3 or 2.0?

- Tom

Quantum, thanks for the OpenAL and OpenNL information, I''ll look into those. Are they as standard and compatible as their directx counterparts (to the extent that openGL is)? Also, I know 2k supports OpenGL, I was asking if it supported 1.2
And Delphi you answered that thoroughly.

I heard about 1.3 in a few places around this board, either posted many times by the same person in different places, or mentioned by a few people - might have been in the dx vs ogl war post. I remember someone saying that some app was soon to be released, "and it might ship with OGL 1.3 (2.0?)" something to that accord.

BTW, I''ve started coding OpenGL... and my code looks so purty =) Die COM.

-Phil Crosby
www.philisoft.com
www.graphics-design.com

ya i used to think that non-COM code was pretty, so i didn''t like directX, but I got over it. Now i think COM code looks pretty

quote:Original post by PSioNiC

ya i used to think that non-COM code was pretty, so i didn''t like directX, but I got over it. Now i think COM code looks pretty

Are you on crack?

LPTHISVARIABLENAMEISLONG (c''mon people this get''s annoying)
and the fact that I have to pass pointers to the D3DDevice every time I instantiate a new light/texture/model/whatever class from my encapsulation so that I can render is b/s. The fact that I can call glClear() from any one of my classes or mehtods without any variable passing nonsense makes my world a happy place.

~S''Greth

quote:Original post by SGreth
Are you on crack?

That has nothing to do with liking COM. Just because people actually show some sign of liking something that Microsoft did does not automatically make them a drug addict or a loser. Grow up.

quote:
LPTHISVARIABLENAMEISLONG (c''mon people this get''s annoying)
and the fact that I have to pass pointers to the D3DDevice every time I instantiate a new light/texture/model/whatever class from my encapsulation so that I can render is b/s. The fact that I can call glClear() from any one of my classes or mehtods without any variable passing nonsense makes my world a happy place.

Firstly, this makes it clear to me that you seem not to understand what COM is all about. And also, the LPDIRECT3DDEVICE8 or LPDIRECTINPUTDEVICE8 and such variable names are nothing to do with COM, they are Hungarian Notation. At least Microsoft programmers are consisitent with their notation, and do not mess us about by giving their types unclear names or in lower case letters. The common practice is to make structure tag names, typedefs and enums all upper case letters, and the programmers are only following that convention. You do not have to pass a pointer to the D3DDEVICE. You could:
a) make it global
b) encapsulate it in a class and make the class global

I suggest you study COM further (OLE Controls and the like) to see exactly why it is how it is. Then you might understand it.


Just because you''re outnumbered doesn''t mean you''re wrong.

sharewaregames.20m.com

quote:Original post by -TheDragon

If anyone can shed any information on 1.3 (or 2.0, whichever)

If you read the forums at opengl.org those in the know don''t talk about future releases so microsoft doesn''t steal their ideas as that is how microsoft gets most of their ideas.

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

ms love hungarian notation so much that theyve decided to stop using it

>>I''ve been reading about OpenGL quite extensivley latley, and I''ve liked what I''ve been reading. I''ve heard OpenGL 1.3 (or 2.0, as some call it) is either in development or ready for release<<
i havent heard anything about this, though there are another couple of big developments going on with opengl at the moment.
btw would would u like opengl1.3 to contain. personally i cant think of too many things that ild like to add to the 1.2 spec

COM whats this i hear about kde getting into the act arrghh. personally COM is not as bad as some ppl portray it is though ive gotta say it is an idea in practice doesnt really live up to its promise (like so many things )

heres what i use
sound - used to use directsound (dropped it in support for openal)
input - directinput (on windows)
network - hawknl

http://members.xoom.com/myBollux