• 9
• 16
• 15
• 12
• 9
• Similar Content

• By Elwin
So I've started in learning OpenGL , then I found the NeHe website and its Legacy Tutorials  (here is the link  http://nehe.gamedev.net/tutorial/lessons_01__05/22004/ ).But the problem is that I can't download any   examples of code ( neither C code examples nor any other language ) .As you see it is impossible to download http://nehe.gamedev5.net/data/lessons/pelles_c/lesson01.zip . Does anyone has expamles of C code of this lessons ?  And the second question. If I prefer coding on C , should I choose GLUT but not an OpenGL ?
• By elect
Hi,
ok, so, we are having problems with our current mirror reflection implementation.
At the moment we are doing it very simple, so for the i-th frame, we calculate the reflection vectors given the viewPoint and some predefined points on the mirror surface (position and normal).
Then, using the least squared algorithm, we find the point that has the minimum distance from all these reflections vectors. This is going to be our virtual viewPoint (with the right orientation).
After that, we render offscreen to a texture by setting the OpenGL camera on the virtual viewPoint.
And finally we use the rendered texture on the mirror surface.
So far this has always been fine, but now we are having some more strong constraints on accuracy.
What are our best options given that:
- we have a dynamic scene, the mirror and parts of the scene can change continuously from frame to frame
- we have about 3k points (with normals) per mirror, calculated offline using some cad program (such as Catia)
- all the mirror are always perfectly spherical (with different radius vertically and horizontally) and they are always convex
- a scene can have up to 10 mirror
- it should be fast enough also for vr (Htc Vive) on fastest gpus (only desktops)

Looking around, some papers talk about calculating some caustic surface derivation offline, but I don't know if this suits my case
Also, another paper, used some acceleration structures to detect the intersection between the reflection vectors and the scene, and then adjust the corresponding texture coordinate. This looks the most accurate but also very heavy from a computational point of view.

Other than that, I couldn't find anything updated/exhaustive around, can you help me?

• Hello all,
I am currently working on a game engine for use with my game development that I would like to be as flexible as possible.  As such the exact requirements for how things should work can't be nailed down to a specific implementation and I am looking for, at least now, a default good average case scenario design.
Here is what I have implemented:
Deferred rendering using OpenGL Arbitrary number of lights and shadow mapping Each rendered object, as defined by a set of geometry, textures, animation data, and a model matrix is rendered with its own draw call Skeletal animations implemented on the GPU.   Model matrix transformation implemented on the GPU Frustum and octree culling for optimization Here are my questions and concerns:
Doing the skeletal animation on the GPU, currently, requires doing the skinning for each object multiple times per frame: once for the initial geometry rendering and once for the shadow map rendering for each light for which it is not culled.  This seems very inefficient.  Is there a way to do skeletal animation on the GPU only once across these render calls? Without doing the model matrix transformation on the CPU, I fail to see how I can easily batch objects with the same textures and shaders in a single draw call without passing a ton of matrix data to the GPU (an array of model matrices then an index for each vertex into that array for transformation purposes?) If I do the matrix transformations on the CPU, It seems I can't really do the skinning on the GPU as the pre-transformed vertexes will wreck havoc with the calculations, so this seems not viable unless I am missing something Overall it seems like simplest solution is to just do all of the vertex manipulation on the CPU and pass the pre-transformed data to the GPU, using vertex shaders that do basically nothing.  This doesn't seem the most efficient use of the graphics hardware, but could potentially reduce the number of draw calls needed.

Really, I am looking for some advice on how to proceed with this, how something like this is typically handled.  Are the multiple draw calls and skinning calculations not a huge deal?  I would LIKE to save as much of the CPU's time per frame so it can be tasked with other things, as to keep CPU resources open to the implementation of the engine.  However, that becomes a moot point if the GPU becomes a bottleneck.

• Hello!
I would like to introduce Diligent Engine, a project that I've been recently working on. Diligent Engine is a light-weight cross-platform abstraction layer between the application and the platform-specific graphics API. Its main goal is to take advantages of the next-generation APIs such as Direct3D12 and Vulkan, but at the same time provide support for older platforms via Direct3D11, OpenGL and OpenGLES. Diligent Engine exposes common front-end for all supported platforms and provides interoperability with underlying native API. Shader source code converter allows shaders authored in HLSL to be translated to GLSL and used on all platforms. Diligent Engine supports integration with Unity and is designed to be used as a graphics subsystem in a standalone game engine, Unity native plugin or any other 3D application. It is distributed under Apache 2.0 license and is free to use. Full source code is available for download on GitHub.
Features:
True cross-platform Exact same client code for all supported platforms and rendering backends No #if defined(_WIN32) ... #elif defined(LINUX) ... #elif defined(ANDROID) ... No #if defined(D3D11) ... #elif defined(D3D12) ... #elif defined(OPENGL) ... Exact same HLSL shaders run on all platforms and all backends Modular design Components are clearly separated logically and physically and can be used as needed Only take what you need for your project (do not want to keep samples and tutorials in your codebase? Simply remove Samples submodule. Only need core functionality? Use only Core submodule) No 15000 lines-of-code files Clear object-based interface No global states Key graphics features: Automatic shader resource binding designed to leverage the next-generation rendering APIs Multithreaded command buffer generation 50,000 draw calls at 300 fps with D3D12 backend Descriptor, memory and resource state management Modern c++ features to make code fast and reliable The following platforms and low-level APIs are currently supported:
Windows Desktop: Direct3D11, Direct3D12, OpenGL Universal Windows: Direct3D11, Direct3D12 Linux: OpenGL Android: OpenGLES MacOS: OpenGL iOS: OpenGLES API Basics
Initialization
The engine can perform initialization of the API or attach to already existing D3D11/D3D12 device or OpenGL/GLES context. For instance, the following code shows how the engine can be initialized in D3D12 mode:
#include "RenderDeviceFactoryD3D12.h" using namespace Diligent; // ...  GetEngineFactoryD3D12Type GetEngineFactoryD3D12 = nullptr; // Load the dll and import GetEngineFactoryD3D12() function LoadGraphicsEngineD3D12(GetEngineFactoryD3D12); auto *pFactoryD3D11 = GetEngineFactoryD3D12(); EngineD3D12Attribs EngD3D12Attribs; EngD3D12Attribs.CPUDescriptorHeapAllocationSize[0] = 1024; EngD3D12Attribs.CPUDescriptorHeapAllocationSize[1] = 32; EngD3D12Attribs.CPUDescriptorHeapAllocationSize[2] = 16; EngD3D12Attribs.CPUDescriptorHeapAllocationSize[3] = 16; EngD3D12Attribs.NumCommandsToFlushCmdList = 64; RefCntAutoPtr<IRenderDevice> pRenderDevice; RefCntAutoPtr<IDeviceContext> pImmediateContext; SwapChainDesc SwapChainDesc; RefCntAutoPtr<ISwapChain> pSwapChain; pFactoryD3D11->CreateDeviceAndContextsD3D12( EngD3D12Attribs, &pRenderDevice, &pImmediateContext, 0 ); pFactoryD3D11->CreateSwapChainD3D12( pRenderDevice, pImmediateContext, SwapChainDesc, hWnd, &pSwapChain ); Creating Resources
Device resources are created by the render device. The two main resource types are buffers, which represent linear memory, and textures, which use memory layouts optimized for fast filtering. To create a buffer, you need to populate BufferDesc structure and call IRenderDevice::CreateBuffer(). The following code creates a uniform (constant) buffer:
BufferDesc BuffDesc; BufferDesc.Name = "Uniform buffer"; BuffDesc.BindFlags = BIND_UNIFORM_BUFFER; BuffDesc.Usage = USAGE_DYNAMIC; BuffDesc.uiSizeInBytes = sizeof(ShaderConstants); BuffDesc.CPUAccessFlags = CPU_ACCESS_WRITE; m_pDevice->CreateBuffer( BuffDesc, BufferData(), &m_pConstantBuffer ); Similar, to create a texture, populate TextureDesc structure and call IRenderDevice::CreateTexture() as in the following example:
TextureDesc TexDesc; TexDesc.Name = "My texture 2D"; TexDesc.Type = TEXTURE_TYPE_2D; TexDesc.Width = 1024; TexDesc.Height = 1024; TexDesc.Format = TEX_FORMAT_RGBA8_UNORM; TexDesc.Usage = USAGE_DEFAULT; TexDesc.BindFlags = BIND_SHADER_RESOURCE | BIND_RENDER_TARGET | BIND_UNORDERED_ACCESS; TexDesc.Name = "Sample 2D Texture"; m_pRenderDevice->CreateTexture( TexDesc, TextureData(), &m_pTestTex ); Initializing Pipeline State
Diligent Engine follows Direct3D12 style to configure the graphics/compute pipeline. One big Pipelines State Object (PSO) encompasses all required states (all shader stages, input layout description, depth stencil, rasterizer and blend state descriptions etc.)
To create a shader, populate ShaderCreationAttribs structure. An important member is ShaderCreationAttribs::SourceLanguage. The following are valid values for this member:
SHADER_SOURCE_LANGUAGE_DEFAULT  - The shader source format matches the underlying graphics API: HLSL for D3D11 or D3D12 mode, and GLSL for OpenGL and OpenGLES modes. SHADER_SOURCE_LANGUAGE_HLSL  - The shader source is in HLSL. For OpenGL and OpenGLES modes, the source code will be converted to GLSL. See shader converter for details. SHADER_SOURCE_LANGUAGE_GLSL  - The shader source is in GLSL. There is currently no GLSL to HLSL converter. To allow grouping of resources based on the frequency of expected change, Diligent Engine introduces classification of shader variables:
Static variables (SHADER_VARIABLE_TYPE_STATIC) are variables that are expected to be set only once. They may not be changed once a resource is bound to the variable. Such variables are intended to hold global constants such as camera attributes or global light attributes constant buffers. Mutable variables (SHADER_VARIABLE_TYPE_MUTABLE) define resources that are expected to change on a per-material frequency. Examples may include diffuse textures, normal maps etc. Dynamic variables (SHADER_VARIABLE_TYPE_DYNAMIC) are expected to change frequently and randomly. This post describes the resource binding model in Diligent Engine.
The following is an example of shader initialization:
To create a pipeline state object, define instance of PipelineStateDesc structure. The structure defines the pipeline specifics such as if the pipeline is a compute pipeline, number and format of render targets as well as depth-stencil format:
// This is a graphics pipeline PSODesc.IsComputePipeline = false; PSODesc.GraphicsPipeline.NumRenderTargets = 1; PSODesc.GraphicsPipeline.RTVFormats[0] = TEX_FORMAT_RGBA8_UNORM_SRGB; PSODesc.GraphicsPipeline.DSVFormat = TEX_FORMAT_D32_FLOAT; The structure also defines depth-stencil, rasterizer, blend state, input layout and other parameters. For instance, rasterizer state can be defined as in the code snippet below:
// Init rasterizer state RasterizerStateDesc &RasterizerDesc = PSODesc.GraphicsPipeline.RasterizerDesc; RasterizerDesc.FillMode = FILL_MODE_SOLID; RasterizerDesc.CullMode = CULL_MODE_NONE; RasterizerDesc.FrontCounterClockwise = True; RasterizerDesc.ScissorEnable = True; //RSDesc.MultisampleEnable = false; // do not allow msaa (fonts would be degraded) RasterizerDesc.AntialiasedLineEnable = False; When all fields are populated, call IRenderDevice::CreatePipelineState() to create the PSO:
Shader resource binding in Diligent Engine is based on grouping variables in 3 different groups (static, mutable and dynamic). Static variables are variables that are expected to be set only once. They may not be changed once a resource is bound to the variable. Such variables are intended to hold global constants such as camera attributes or global light attributes constant buffers. They are bound directly to the shader object:

m_pPSO->CreateShaderResourceBinding(&m_pSRB); Dynamic and mutable resources are then bound through SRB object:
m_pSRB->GetVariable(SHADER_TYPE_VERTEX, "tex2DDiffuse")->Set(pDiffuseTexSRV); m_pSRB->GetVariable(SHADER_TYPE_VERTEX, "cbRandomAttribs")->Set(pRandomAttrsCB); The difference between mutable and dynamic resources is that mutable ones can only be set once for every instance of a shader resource binding. Dynamic resources can be set multiple times. It is important to properly set the variable type as this may affect performance. Static variables are generally most efficient, followed by mutable. Dynamic variables are most expensive from performance point of view. This post explains shader resource binding in more details.
Setting the Pipeline State and Invoking Draw Command
Before any draw command can be invoked, all required vertex and index buffers as well as the pipeline state should be bound to the device context:
// Clear render target const float zero[4] = {0, 0, 0, 0}; m_pContext->ClearRenderTarget(nullptr, zero); // Set vertex and index buffers IBuffer *buffer[] = {m_pVertexBuffer}; Uint32 offsets[] = {0}; Uint32 strides[] = {sizeof(MyVertex)}; m_pContext->SetVertexBuffers(0, 1, buffer, strides, offsets, SET_VERTEX_BUFFERS_FLAG_RESET); m_pContext->SetIndexBuffer(m_pIndexBuffer, 0); m_pContext->SetPipelineState(m_pPSO); Also, all shader resources must be committed to the device context:
m_pContext->CommitShaderResources(m_pSRB, COMMIT_SHADER_RESOURCES_FLAG_TRANSITION_RESOURCES); When all required states and resources are bound, IDeviceContext::Draw() can be used to execute draw command or IDeviceContext::DispatchCompute() can be used to execute compute command. Note that for a draw command, graphics pipeline must be bound, and for dispatch command, compute pipeline must be bound. Draw() takes DrawAttribs structure as an argument. The structure members define all attributes required to perform the command (primitive topology, number of vertices or indices, if draw call is indexed or not, if draw call is instanced or not, if draw call is indirect or not, etc.). For example:
DrawAttribs attrs; attrs.IsIndexed = true; attrs.IndexType = VT_UINT16; attrs.NumIndices = 36; attrs.Topology = PRIMITIVE_TOPOLOGY_TRIANGLE_LIST; pContext->Draw(attrs); Tutorials and Samples
The GitHub repository contains a number of tutorials and sample applications that demonstrate the API usage.

AntTweakBar sample demonstrates how to use AntTweakBar library to create simple user interface.

Atmospheric scattering sample is a more advanced example. It demonstrates how Diligent Engine can be used to implement various rendering tasks: loading textures from files, using complex shaders, rendering to textures, using compute shaders and unordered access views, etc.

The repository includes Asteroids performance benchmark based on this demo developed by Intel. It renders 50,000 unique textured asteroids and lets compare performance of D3D11 and D3D12 implementations. Every asteroid is a combination of one of 1000 unique meshes and one of 10 unique textures.

Integration with Unity
Diligent Engine supports integration with Unity through Unity low-level native plugin interface. The engine relies on Native API Interoperability to attach to the graphics API initialized by Unity. After Diligent Engine device and context are created, they can be used us usual to create resources and issue rendering commands. GhostCubePlugin shows an example how Diligent Engine can be used to render a ghost cube only visible as a reflection in a mirror.

• By Yxjmir
I'm trying to load data from a .gltf file into a struct to use to load a .bin file. I don't think there is a problem with how the vertex positions are loaded, but with the indices. This is what I get when drawing with glDrawArrays(GL_LINES, ...):

Also, using glDrawElements gives a similar result. Since it looks like its drawing triangles using the wrong vertices for each face, I'm assuming it needs an index buffer/element buffer. (I'm not sure why there is a line going through part of it, it doesn't look like it belongs to a side, re-exported it without texture coordinates checked, and its not there)
I'm using jsoncpp to load the GLTF file, its format is based on JSON. Here is the gltf struct I'm using, and how I parse the file:
glBindVertexArray(g_pGame->m_VAO);
glDrawElements(GL_LINES, g_pGame->m_indices.size(), GL_UNSIGNED_BYTE, (void*)0); // Only shows with GL_UNSIGNED_BYTE
glDrawArrays(GL_LINES, 0, g_pGame->m_vertexCount);
So, I'm asking what type should I use for the indices? it doesn't seem to be unsigned short, which is what I selected with the Khronos Group Exporter for blender. Also, am I reading part or all of the .bin file wrong?
Test.gltf
Test.bin

OpenGL Clear up the Vista / OpenGL Aero UI?

This topic is 4242 days old which is more than the 365 day threshold we allow for new replies. Please post a new topic.

Recommended Posts

So I see MS is allowing ATI/Nvidia to make their own ICD for OpenGL on Vista correct? So will this allow me to code win32/OpenGL and use the Aero UI with full acceleration and in a window mode not fullscreen? I think so but just wanted to make sure and so I don't spread any rumors if someone asks me. :) Thanks Also on a side note about GL3, how much is going to change? I mean if you know GL now fairly well GLSL, FBO's, VBO's ect... how much recoding is one going to have to do with GL3 vs. GL2.0? And how is this object model going to work?

Share on other sites
OpenGL on Vista will work identically to how OpenGL works on XP now, except that the fallback is now a fast (compared to before) OGL-on-D3D against 1.4. (There might still be a couple minor catches with the compositor, I don't remember. Those may be resolved by RTM.)

As for OGL 3.0, I don't think that much of the pre-proposals are actually public at the moment. But to make a long story short, it basically sounds like they're transforming OGL to largely mimic D3D in structure, which is a step that has been desperately needed for years now.

Share on other sites
Vista only uses an OpenGL-to-D3D-Wrapper if no ICD is installed. If an XP-ICD is installed, the 3d features of the desktop are deactivated when starting an OpenGL app. If a Vista-ICD is installed (and I'm sure nVidia and ATI will have one ready when Vista ships), everything will work as expected (and without a wrapper to D3D).

Share on other sites
Quote:
 Original post by PromitBut to make a long story short, it basically sounds like they're transforming OGL to largely mimic D3D in structure, which is a step that has been desperately needed for years now.

You mean after Microsoft transformed D3D to largely mimic OpenGL structures a couple of years back ? Let's be honest for a moment, Microsoft employee or not: there is almost no structural difference between D3D and OGL, except for the semantic model. And this one will not change. On modern hardware, they're both nothing more than more or less empty frameworks for the real work horses: the shaders.

There is not much known about GL3, except rumours and working group discussions. Khronos will surely make OpenGL and OpenGL ES more inline with each other. Rumours say that GL3 might drop native support for legacy features, such as display lists, feedback mode, immediate mode. These will still be available, but layered on top of the GL3 core (like a utility library).

All in all, converting to GL3 will be straightforward if you know GL2 (or any 3D API for that matter). For more info, take a look at the Siggraph 2006 tech notes from Khronos (here).

Quote:
 If a Vista-ICD is installed (and I'm sure nVidia and ATI will have one ready when Vista ships), everything will work as expected (and without a wrapper to D3D).

There is a beta from Nvidia you can try out with Vista. It already works pretty well.

Share on other sites
Quote:
 Original post by MARS_999Also on a side note about GL3, how much is going to change? I mean if you know GL now fairly well GLSL, FBO's, VBO's ect... how much recoding is one going to have to do with GL3 vs. GL2.0? And how is this object model going to work?

The sticky about OGL at SIGGRAPH contains a link to presentations which hold the 'current' information. Gold has also linked to an opengl.org thread in which they discuss things as well.

As for how much it is going to change, if the current ideas hold then its gonna be a fair amount. Instead of the current "bind-change-unbind" setup you'll provide "objects" to function calls and work with "objects" (well, you'll move around pointers).

The example given in the Opengl.org thread by Micheal Gold (iirc) shows how they'd like the API to look (as does some example(s) in the presentations now I think about it) and function. It's a definate improvement even if the new programming practise might take a short amount of time to get used to.

The idea is to make how you use the API closer to what the hardware does now, OpenGL started off as a thin layer and while the extensions covered functionality it has apprently gone from a thin layer to a thicker one as hardware has changed, the idea that NV and ATI are pushing for is to bring it back to work as a thinner layer over the hardware again to get better speeds.

It's a shame these things take so long to happen as really, I'd like to shift over now, but I guess I can wait the year for the spec and the amount of time it'll take people to get drivers out (this could infact signal a move back to NV hardware by me if they get an OGL3.0 implimentation out the door significantly in front of ATI).

Share on other sites
Quote:
 Original post by phantom(this could infact signal a move back to NV hardware by me if they get an OGL3.0 implimentation out the door significantly in front of ATI).

Should do that anyway! :) Nah I don't have a preference for either one, only which on I get at the time has the most features and best speed....

Share on other sites
Quote:
 there is almost no structural difference between D3D and OGL, except for the semantic model.

Obviously -- that doesn't change anything. OpenGL's semantic model is still basically just wrong. It's another relic of SGI's completely braindead designs. According to the New Object Model PPT from NV, 3-5% of execution time is just spent doing name translation internally, which is terrible. It's these kinds of mistakes that need to be fixed. (And as you point out, even though it's completely irrelevant, D3D was similarly wrong before 7 or 8. And a number of things are still wrong in 9, hence the major changes for 10.)
Quote:
 As for how much it is going to change, if the current ideas hold then its gonna be a fair amount. Instead of the current "bind-change-unbind" setup you'll provide "objects" to function calls and work with "objects" (well, you'll move around pointers).
Which transforms it into the same basic structure as D3D.

OpenGL, to its credit, managed to maintain the same core interface for a long time, in spite of SGI's original idiocies in the design. But its age is showing, and people have known that for a while. OGL 2.0 was supposed to bring about lots of big changes in the API, but of course the ARB stripped back all of them. The resulting "2.0" is just a rebranded OGL 1.6 spec. Nothing has changed, and the same core problems remain. The hope is that with the ARB out of the way and Khronos in charge, and with NV and ATI exercising considerable leverage, OpenGL can be properly revised and fixed. That way, there's a chance OGL 3.0 won't be filed and chipped down into a renamed OGL 2.2.

To the OP: All of the relevant documents are here.

[Edited by - Promit on August 13, 2006 4:03:39 AM]

Share on other sites
Quote:
 Original post by PromitObviously -- that doesn't change anything. OpenGL's semantic model is still basically just wrong.

Not really. In fact, there is not much difference between the old and the new object model. Essentially, they replaced the old object IDs with opaque handles that are entirely managed by the driver. It's like going from raw pointers to smart pointers - a logical next step, but nothing amazing really. Just common sense if you want. D3D had a lot more changes done to it over its development.

That doesn't make OpenGLs semantics wrong in any way. They're just different to D3Ds philosophy. OpenGL values backwards compatibility over everything else. D3D breaks backwards compatibility at pretty much every new release. Both are extremes, and both are somewhat wrong in their own ways. OpenGL needs a refresh, there's no question about that, and OGL 3.0 will hopefully bring these changes. D3D, on the other hand, really needs a little more consistency and reliability between versions. That's why so few professional applications use D3D - they just can't afford rewriting the entire render core everytime MS puts out a new D3D version.

Quote:
 Original post by PromitIt's another relic of SGI's completely braindead designs.

Well, we wouldn't have NV without SGI, since they basically started as an ex-SGI safe haven. So their engineers can't be that braindead, can they ? And if we're talking about braindead designs, let me remind you of that kernel/user mode transition thing in DrawIndexedPrimitive... That was completely absurd, and thank god it is fixed in D3D10.

API semantics evolve over time, and adapt to the way they're being used. It's clear that OpenGL wasn't able to follow these changes as fast as D3D could - but not because of an inherently wrong design, but because of its philosophy.

Quote:
 Original post by PromitAccording to the New Object Model PPT from NV, 3-5% of execution time is just spent doing name translation internally, which is terrible. It's these kinds of mistakes that need to be fixed.

Yep.

Share on other sites
Quote:
 Original post by Yann LWell, we wouldn't have NV without SGI, since they basically started as an ex-SGI safe haven. So their engineers can't be that braindead, can they ? And if we're talking about braindead designs, let me remind you of that kernel/user mode transition thing in DrawIndexedPrimitive... That was completely absurd, and thank god it is fixed in D3D10.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but Promit doesn't seem to be doing the "DirectX is perfect, OpenGL is evil" routine, he was pointing out what he sees as a flaw in OpenGL, so answering with "Yeah, but DirectX has flaws too" just comes across a bit childish... [wink] You're right, of course, DX does have some silly design flaws, but it's pretty irrelevant to a discussion about the flaws of OpenGL.

He also didn't say that SGI's engineers were braindead. Just that SGI had some completely braindead designs.

I think you're getting a bit too defensive here. [grin]

Share on other sites
Quote:
 Original post by SpoonbenderI think you're getting a bit too defensive here. [grin]

Heh, maybe [wink] It's just not the first time I have such a discussion with Promit... And it's not as if we both weren't biased in our very particular ways ;)

Anyway, regardless of D3D, I just disagree that OpenGLs basic design philosophy is flawed. In fact, I think that this basic design and the reliance on backwards compatibility is its main strength. Sure, OpenGL needs a refresh and needs to drop a lot of the old legacy stuff. But it doesn't need a redesign. That's why I'm a little worried about the direction GL3 is taking. Some ideas are very good, the new object model for example. But I'm a little afraid that Khronos is too keen on breaking what is in fact an excellent design philosophy, in order to "catch up" with D3Ds marketshare in the games sector. I'm afraid that GL3 might infact mimic D3Ds direction too much for marketing reasons alone.

So in essence, OpenGL has its flaws, D3D has its flaws. Of course, we all know that. OpenGL needs a revamp, sure - but without breaking its unique style. Well, I guess we have to wait and see. The GL3 specs are far from finished, and lots of things can still change.