• Announcements

    • khawk

      Download the Game Design and Indie Game Marketing Freebook   07/19/17

      GameDev.net and CRC Press have teamed up to bring a free ebook of content curated from top titles published by CRC Press. The freebook, Practices of Game Design & Indie Game Marketing, includes chapters from The Art of Game Design: A Book of Lenses, A Practical Guide to Indie Game Marketing, and An Architectural Approach to Level Design. The GameDev.net FreeBook is relevant to game designers, developers, and those interested in learning more about the challenges in game development. We know game development can be a tough discipline and business, so we picked several chapters from CRC Press titles that we thought would be of interest to you, the GameDev.net audience, in your journey to design, develop, and market your next game. The free ebook is available through CRC Press by clicking here. The Curated Books The Art of Game Design: A Book of Lenses, Second Edition, by Jesse Schell Presents 100+ sets of questions, or different lenses, for viewing a game’s design, encompassing diverse fields such as psychology, architecture, music, film, software engineering, theme park design, mathematics, anthropology, and more. Written by one of the world's top game designers, this book describes the deepest and most fundamental principles of game design, demonstrating how tactics used in board, card, and athletic games also work in video games. It provides practical instruction on creating world-class games that will be played again and again. View it here. A Practical Guide to Indie Game Marketing, by Joel Dreskin Marketing is an essential but too frequently overlooked or minimized component of the release plan for indie games. A Practical Guide to Indie Game Marketing provides you with the tools needed to build visibility and sell your indie games. With special focus on those developers with small budgets and limited staff and resources, this book is packed with tangible recommendations and techniques that you can put to use immediately. As a seasoned professional of the indie game arena, author Joel Dreskin gives you insight into practical, real-world experiences of marketing numerous successful games and also provides stories of the failures. View it here. An Architectural Approach to Level Design This is one of the first books to integrate architectural and spatial design theory with the field of level design. The book presents architectural techniques and theories for level designers to use in their own work. It connects architecture and level design in different ways that address the practical elements of how designers construct space and the experiential elements of how and why humans interact with this space. Throughout the text, readers learn skills for spatial layout, evoking emotion through gamespaces, and creating better levels through architectural theory. View it here. Learn more and download the ebook by clicking here. Did you know? GameDev.net and CRC Press also recently teamed up to bring GDNet+ Members up to a 20% discount on all CRC Press books. Learn more about this and other benefits here.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Alessandro

OpenGL
OpenGL and Windows Vista

22 posts in this topic

On some forums i've been suggested to switch to DirectX since Windows Vista will have a very poor support for Opengl API's. I recall also seeing a sort of "petition" against MS regarding this subject at opengl.org, but unfortunately i couldn't understand all of that document (english is not my first language). I really hope it won't be like that, i love OpenGL and i don't want to start to study another graphics programming API. No words to say that if all this is true, well it seems very unfair to me.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote:
Original post by Alessandro
On some forums i've been suggested to switch to DirectX since Windows Vista will have a very poor support for Opengl API's.
I recall also seeing a sort of "petition" against MS regarding this subject at opengl.org, but unfortunately i couldn't understand all of that document (english is not my first language).
I really hope it won't be like that, i love OpenGL and i don't want to start to study another graphics programming API. No words to say that if all this is true, well it seems very unfair to me.


an alternative would be suse 10 + nvidia drivers *they got an installer for suse* :)

I will try this out in 2 months when my exams are over
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote:

From the document i have read, it seems that opengl support is continued, am i right ?


Yep!
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Microsoft is doing, with Vista, what they did with XP. On XP, Microsoft only provided version 1.1 of OpenGL, and third party companies were left to provide additional versions and support. With Vista, Microsoft made the decision to provide support up until 1.4. And, again, other people would have to give the additional support.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote:
Original post by Dorvo
Microsoft is doing, with Vista, what they did with XP. On XP, Microsoft only provided version 1.1 of OpenGL, and third party companies were left to provide additional versions and support. With Vista, Microsoft made the decision to provide support up until 1.4. And, again, other people would have to give the additional support.

Not really. It's a little more complex than that. In XP, while Microsofts OpenGL support was obsolete beyond belief, the interface to it - the ICD interface - was well documented for hardware manufacturers.

In Vista, the LDDM compatible interface to the Aero desktop compositor is not documented, and LDDM is more complex than the old XP driver ICD interface model (due to WGF, but also due to TC related issues). In other words, external vendors were not able to support OpenGL, even if they wanted to. They still cannot to the full extend (ie. fully composited Aeroglass OpenGL), but a compromise solution was found (ie. uncomposited window, without requiring to turn off Aero entirely).

This solution is good for me, as it is acceptable for both games and professional CAD software. Although it would be nice, if we could eventually get a full LDDM compatible OpenGL driver for Aero.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I still don't understand why Microsoft 'thinks' they have a decision in impeding OpenGL in Vista. If Nvidia or ATI write their drivers to circumvent anything Microsoft has put in place, won't that just enable full support for OpenGL?
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote:
Original post by oconnellseanm
If Nvidia or ATI write their drivers to circumvent anything Microsoft has put in place, won't that just enable full support for OpenGL?
If that were to happen, MS could refuse to sign the drivers, and I gather that the current state of Vista is that no unsigned drivers are allowed without explicitly booting into a special mode.

Besides, MS haven't directly done anything to destroy OpenGL, in much the same way that Apple haven't directly done anything to prevent Windows from running on the Mactels. It's just that the technology was built in such a way (intentionally or not) that the state of affairs is as such.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's just that the technology was built in such a way (intentionally or not) that the state of affairs is as such.[/quote]

I's say intentionally !
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote:
Original post by oconnellseanm
So do most people in the industry. Check out the thread at OpenGL.org
Personally I think they're idiots, excluding the few guys from 3D Labs, who have been most helpful in providing actual facts, and not making up bullshit about the performance numbers and not using a popular website to spread Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Indeed, there is some correct information in that thread, but the signal to noise ratio is terrible, people mouthing off left and right about MS being evil and how we should all just use Linux and blah blah blah.

Most of the people posting certainly arent in the industry, I can tell you that much..
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
well, this is just my opinion, it maybe alittle bit strange.
MS won't be able to do anything that breaks support for existing Applications and Games(or makes it harder for developers to make Apps or Games).
OpenGL has alot of supporters(Carmack, NVidia, etc...), MS can't just leave all of them behind.
so, I think they'll change their mind right before releasing Vista, and if this didn't happen, we can use an uncomposited window after all :)
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you want a true OpenGL support, check out there:

http://www.petitionspot.com/petitions/openglvista
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote:
Original post by Xeee
OpenGL has alot of supporters(Carmack, NVidia, etc...),


Though Carmack is thinking about switching to Direct3D, AFAIK...
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote:
Original post by Expandable
Quote:
Original post by Xeee
OpenGL has alot of supporters(Carmack, NVidia, etc...),


Though Carmack is thinking about switching to Direct3D, AFAIK...


Who knows, but if he is planning on doing stuff with Cell phones and PS3 ect... DX wouldn't be a wise choice. I know in the latest PC gamer he said xbox 360 is their target platform now not PC... They also are going to make their games for PS3. So DX would seem a waste of time IMO if you want to sell games on PS3. I for one am sick of hearing about PC game companies selling out to the console market and seem to be ditching the PC crowd. If PC games are done with then I will be done playing games. Sorry for rant. :(
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Eh, the API simply doesn't matter that much anymore. Flipping from one to the other is easy now, with the slight catch of being forced to switch up all your shaders. Surely you don't think that Doom 3 on Xbox and Quake 4 on X360 are running OpenGL?
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote:
Original post by MARS_999
I for one am sick of hearing about PC game companies selling out to the console market and seem to be ditching the PC crowd. If PC games are done with then I will be done playing games. Sorry for rant. :(


You needn't be afraid of that. Epic are still targetting PC's as their primary platform. And regarding that article, if I remember correctly, their *primary* target platform is now XBox360. However, due to the nature of it, it is easier to port from there to PC than developing for PC and then porting to 360.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote:
Original post by rick_appleton
Quote:
Original post by MARS_999
I for one am sick of hearing about PC game companies selling out to the console market and seem to be ditching the PC crowd. If PC games are done with then I will be done playing games. Sorry for rant. :(


You needn't be afraid of that. Epic are still targetting PC's as their primary platform. And regarding that article, if I remember correctly, their *primary* target platform is now XBox360. However, due to the nature of it, it is easier to port from there to PC than developing for PC and then porting to 360.


Great! So that means we PC users will have to settle for crappy graphics.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote:
Original post by oconnellseanm
Quote:
Original post by rick_appleton
Quote:
Original post by MARS_999
I for one am sick of hearing about PC game companies selling out to the console market and seem to be ditching the PC crowd. If PC games are done with then I will be done playing games. Sorry for rant. :(


You needn't be afraid of that. Epic are still targetting PC's as their primary platform. And regarding that article, if I remember correctly, their *primary* target platform is now XBox360. However, due to the nature of it, it is easier to port from there to PC than developing for PC and then porting to 360.


Great! So that means we PC users will have to settle for crappy graphics.


How do you figure? The graphics we have now are great, so you are implying they will get worse in the future?
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote:
Original post by cherryhouse
Quote:
Original post by oconnellseanm
Quote:
Original post by rick_appleton
Quote:
Original post by MARS_999
I for one am sick of hearing about PC game companies selling out to the console market and seem to be ditching the PC crowd. If PC games are done with then I will be done playing games. Sorry for rant. :(

You needn't be afraid of that. Epic are still targetting PC's as their primary platform. And regarding that article, if I remember correctly, their *primary* target platform is now XBox360. However, due to the nature of it, it is easier to port from there to PC than developing for PC and then porting to 360.

Great! So that means we PC users will have to settle for crappy graphics.

How do you figure? The graphics we have now are great, so you are implying they will get worse in the future?

He's implying that if Epic continue to target Xbox 360 (a static platform), the Unreal Engine will be bound to the 360's hardware constraints, and won't take full advantage of the power of PCs which will evolve over the lifetime of the 360.

Personally, I don't think that will happen, even if two versions of the engine are required in the end: an almost fully-developed Xbox 360 version, and a more open, less constrained PC version.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That's not a very likely case. Look at pretty much all the other games ported from console to pc, they have different graphic engines, or at least upgraded to look better. Grand theft auto:sa for example, halo is another example. List goes on. You have to remember, a lot of reasons games are created for console, then later for pc is because they do have better quality games for pc due to the expanding resource limit on pc's compared to consoles. The developers aren't brain dead, they are paid to think about these kinds of things.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Similar Content

    • By mapra99
      Hello

      I am working on a recent project and I have been learning how to code in C# using OpenGL libraries for some graphics. I have achieved some quite interesting things using TAO Framework writing in Console Applications, creating a GLUT Window. But my problem now is that I need to incorporate the Graphics in a Windows Form so I can relate the objects that I render with some .NET Controls.

      To deal with this problem, I have seen in some forums that it's better to use OpenTK instead of TAO Framework, so I can use the glControl that OpenTK libraries offer. However, I haven't found complete articles, tutorials or source codes that help using the glControl or that may insert me into de OpenTK functions. Would somebody please share in this forum some links or files where I can find good documentation about this topic? Or may I use another library different of OpenTK?

      Thanks!
    • By Solid_Spy
      Hello, I have been working on SH Irradiance map rendering, and I have been using a GLSL pixel shader to render SH irradiance to 2D irradiance maps for my static objects. I already have it working with 9 3D textures so far for the first 9 SH functions.
      In my GLSL shader, I have to send in 9 SH Coefficient 3D Texures that use RGBA8 as a pixel format. RGB being used for the coefficients for red, green, and blue, and the A for checking if the voxel is in use (for the 3D texture solidification shader to prevent bleeding).
      My problem is, I want to knock this number of textures down to something like 4 or 5. Getting even lower would be a godsend. This is because I eventually plan on adding more SH Coefficient 3D Textures for other parts of the game map (such as inside rooms, as opposed to the outside), to circumvent irradiance probe bleeding between rooms separated by walls. I don't want to reach the 32 texture limit too soon. Also, I figure that it would be a LOT faster.
      Is there a way I could, say, store 2 sets of SH Coefficients for 2 SH functions inside a texture with RGBA16 pixels? If so, how would I extract them from inside GLSL? Let me know if you have any suggestions ^^.
    • By KarimIO
      EDIT: I thought this was restricted to Attribute-Created GL contexts, but it isn't, so I rewrote the post.
      Hey guys, whenever I call SwapBuffers(hDC), I get a crash, and I get a "Too many posts were made to a semaphore." from Windows as I call SwapBuffers. What could be the cause of this?
      Update: No crash occurs if I don't draw, just clear and swap.
      static PIXELFORMATDESCRIPTOR pfd = // pfd Tells Windows How We Want Things To Be { sizeof(PIXELFORMATDESCRIPTOR), // Size Of This Pixel Format Descriptor 1, // Version Number PFD_DRAW_TO_WINDOW | // Format Must Support Window PFD_SUPPORT_OPENGL | // Format Must Support OpenGL PFD_DOUBLEBUFFER, // Must Support Double Buffering PFD_TYPE_RGBA, // Request An RGBA Format 32, // Select Our Color Depth 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, // Color Bits Ignored 0, // No Alpha Buffer 0, // Shift Bit Ignored 0, // No Accumulation Buffer 0, 0, 0, 0, // Accumulation Bits Ignored 24, // 24Bit Z-Buffer (Depth Buffer) 0, // No Stencil Buffer 0, // No Auxiliary Buffer PFD_MAIN_PLANE, // Main Drawing Layer 0, // Reserved 0, 0, 0 // Layer Masks Ignored }; if (!(hDC = GetDC(windowHandle))) return false; unsigned int PixelFormat; if (!(PixelFormat = ChoosePixelFormat(hDC, &pfd))) return false; if (!SetPixelFormat(hDC, PixelFormat, &pfd)) return false; hRC = wglCreateContext(hDC); if (!hRC) { std::cout << "wglCreateContext Failed!\n"; return false; } if (wglMakeCurrent(hDC, hRC) == NULL) { std::cout << "Make Context Current Second Failed!\n"; return false; } ... // OGL Buffer Initialization glClear(GL_DEPTH_BUFFER_BIT | GL_COLOR_BUFFER_BIT); glBindVertexArray(vao); glUseProgram(myprogram); glDrawElements(GL_TRIANGLES, indexCount, GL_UNSIGNED_SHORT, (void *)indexStart); SwapBuffers(GetDC(window_handle));  
    • By Tchom
      Hey devs!
       
      I've been working on a OpenGL ES 2.0 android engine and I have begun implementing some simple (point) lighting. I had something fairly simple working, so I tried to get fancy and added color-tinting light. And it works great... with only one or two lights. Any more than that, the application drops about 15 frames per light added (my ideal is at least 4 or 5). I know implementing lighting is expensive, I just didn't think it was that expensive. I'm fairly new to the world of OpenGL and GLSL, so there is a good chance I've written some crappy shader code. If anyone had any feedback or tips on how I can optimize this code, please let me know.
       
      Vertex Shader
      uniform mat4 u_MVPMatrix; uniform mat4 u_MVMatrix; attribute vec4 a_Position; attribute vec3 a_Normal; attribute vec2 a_TexCoordinate; varying vec3 v_Position; varying vec3 v_Normal; varying vec2 v_TexCoordinate; void main() { v_Position = vec3(u_MVMatrix * a_Position); v_TexCoordinate = a_TexCoordinate; v_Normal = vec3(u_MVMatrix * vec4(a_Normal, 0.0)); gl_Position = u_MVPMatrix * a_Position; } Fragment Shader
      precision mediump float; uniform vec4 u_LightPos["+numLights+"]; uniform vec4 u_LightColours["+numLights+"]; uniform float u_LightPower["+numLights+"]; uniform sampler2D u_Texture; varying vec3 v_Position; varying vec3 v_Normal; varying vec2 v_TexCoordinate; void main() { gl_FragColor = (texture2D(u_Texture, v_TexCoordinate)); float diffuse = 0.0; vec4 colourSum = vec4(1.0); for (int i = 0; i < "+numLights+"; i++) { vec3 toPointLight = vec3(u_LightPos[i]); float distance = length(toPointLight - v_Position); vec3 lightVector = normalize(toPointLight - v_Position); float diffuseDiff = 0.0; // The diffuse difference contributed from current light diffuseDiff = max(dot(v_Normal, lightVector), 0.0); diffuseDiff = diffuseDiff * (1.0 / (1.0 + ((1.0-u_LightPower[i])* distance * distance))); //Determine attenuatio diffuse += diffuseDiff; gl_FragColor.rgb *= vec3(1.0) / ((vec3(1.0) + ((vec3(1.0) - vec3(u_LightColours[i]))*diffuseDiff))); //The expensive part } diffuse += 0.1; //Add ambient light gl_FragColor.rgb *= diffuse; } Am I making any rookie mistakes? Or am I just being unrealistic about what I can do? Thanks in advance
    • By yahiko00
      Hi,
      Not sure to post at the right place, if not, please forgive me...
      For a game project I am working on, I would like to implement a 2D starfield as a background.
      I do not want to deal with static tiles, since I plan to slowly animate the starfield. So, I am trying to figure out how to generate a random starfield for the entire map.
      I feel that using a uniform distribution for the stars will not do the trick. Instead I would like something similar to the screenshot below, taken from the game Star Wars: Empire At War (all credits to Lucasfilm, Disney, and so on...).

      Is there someone who could have an idea of a distribution which could result in such a starfield?
      Any insight would be appreciated
  • Popular Now