Sign in to follow this  
superoptimo

OpenGL Why OpenGL 3.0 is so badly?

Recommended Posts

I don't get it.

is it so bad enough for throwing it away?

Of course, OpenGL doesn't reflect the real architecture of Graphics processors. But it works!

At least on my computer, OGL beats DX9c. But I didn't experiment with DX10 yet, may the situation would be far different. (core 2 duo with NVidia 8400)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Back in the day OpenGL was ahead of the curve, and hardware was racing to catch up. Most games let you switch between the software rasterizer and hardware acceleration. Now it's the other way around, and the hardware guys are setting the curve and the API people are racing to keep up. OpenGL is way behind, or forces the hardware guys to jump through hoops, while DirectX is mostly on par with what the hardware is doing, so basically if you're game needs to use the latest hardware features (which most AAA titles do), then you're pretty much stuck with DirectX.

If you don't care about the latest features, and you don't mind a little obtuseness here and there (and lack of support on most integrated chipsets), then OpenGL is fine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote:
Original post by Numsgil
Back in the day OpenGL was ahead of the curve, and hardware was racing to catch up. Most games let you switch between the software rasterizer and hardware acceleration. Now it's the other way around, and the hardware guys are setting the curve and the API people are racing to keep up. OpenGL is way behind, or forces the hardware guys to jump through hoops, while DirectX is mostly on par with what the hardware is doing, so basically if you're game needs to use the latest hardware features (which most AAA titles do), then you're pretty much stuck with DirectX.


Which features is OpenGL lacking that DirectX has then?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote:
Original post by Numsgil
OpenGL is way behind, or forces the hardware guys to jump through hoops, while DirectX is mostly on par with what the hardware is doing,

This is incorrect. OpenGL offers essentially everything DX10 offers (and very shortly also D3D10.1, and possibly even more). It's not about functionality, it's about driver support and about facilitating both driver development and application development. Essentially, D3D costs both IHVs and application developers less money to maintain than OpenGL. That's the whole deal with OpenGL 3.0, not functionality.

Quote:
Original post by Numsgil
so basically if you're game needs to use the latest hardware features (which most AAA titles do), then you're pretty much stuck with DirectX.

Also incorrect. You can access the latest features with OpenGL, but you have to rely on driver support. Which can be very variable depending on IHV. And very few (probably no) current AAA games use the latest DX10 features. Heck, most AAA games don't even use the latest DX9 features.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As posted above, OpenGL does not lack any features. It is just not a good representation of today's hardware, making it difficult to implement in the drivers. Current OpenGL also makes programming more difficult than it should, with a larger specification (causing a longer learning curve) and unclean code (using extensions and redundant calls).

OpenGL 3.0 should have been a new clean API, featuring an object model that would make learning and working with OpenGL easier. It would also make driver development a lot easier, without the functionality the hardware is not made for. Also, the object model would make code look a lot cleaner.

The reason for not writing a new API is presumably because it would force application developers to write new code to continue using the latest hardware. This in itself is a contradiction, because the latest hardware should require change to use after 10 years, no matter the API that uses it. OpenGL's answer so far was to use extensions. The new answer is probably deprecation.

Right now we can only hope OpenGL 3.1 will be what we have hoped to see now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OpenGL 3 is a step in the right direction, a lot of old crud is going to be cleared away with each revision. GL3 and GL2.1 with extensions is DX10 compliant. So no need to worry about being left behind as long as you are on Nvidia hardware, and soon ATI will be up to speed also. Intel who knows their GPUs blow, and so do there drivers. I hope this isn't the case with Larrabee, or it will be the fastest death of a GPU since i740!!!! :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Its good to see more evidence that the gamedev forums are no longer open to free discussion, as my last post was deleted from this thread. Keep up the good work gamedev staff!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote:

Its good to see more evidence that the gamedev forums are no longer open to free discussion, as my last post was deleted from this thread. Keep up the good work gamedev staff!


hmmm!... it feels like somebody is twisting the public opinion about cross platform development. There is a silent power behind of this forum.

So, the message is clear. The advice is to keep Micro$oft untouched. Don't blame against the M$ empire or against of its nice Windows OS... or the contrary you'll be silenced.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In fact his post had nothing todo with MS (that's an S btw, not a $, please refrain from trolling) and wasn't remotely useful in the slightest thus it was removed (and not by myself either).

There was no twisting at all, only the removal of a dumb post; lets just say there is a reason his rating is 0.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote:
Original post by Ignifex
As posted above, OpenGL does not lack any features.


Geometry shaders has not been included in GL 3.0
I'm not sure why because the spec touches some DX10 features.
You can of course continue to use GL 2.1 and GL_EXT_geomtry_shader4
Instancing is not present but one could argue that GL doesn't need it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote:
Original post by Yann L
Not to fuel the conspiracy theories, I removed his post. It was a troll post that had absolutely nothing to do with Microsoft.


When did this post become solely about Microsoft? I was simply pointing out the ridiculous wants and needs of cleaner API by some developers. Its called a pun. Look it up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote:
Original post by soconne
Quote:
Original post by Yann L
Not to fuel the conspiracy theories, I removed his post. It was a troll post that had absolutely nothing to do with Microsoft.


When did this post become solely about Microsoft? I was simply pointing out the ridiculous wants and needs of cleaner API by some developers. Its called a pun. Look it up.


He was responding to superoptimo's post following your own.

And no, it wasn't a pun, a pun is a play on words (maybe you should look it up before telling others to) what you posted was nothing short of idiotic troll bait and this is a formal statement telling you to drop it now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, I wouldn't like to discuss about Microsoft on this forum.

The problem raises when we start comparing OpenGL against DirectX, because each API has its own way to do the same thing. F.E. OpenGL doesn't require Instancing at all.

Instead of thinking about how much likes/dislikes OpenGL from DX10, just think about programmers and applications.

It's true that OpenGL evolution goes too slow and OGL3 is a little disappointing, but who cares? sometimes it's more convenient when you hate the idea of rewriting the whole engine every year. Take in consideration how different becomes each DirectX version, see how they always broke the entire API, and who knows how different from DX10 would be the upcoming DX11. When DX would reach its maturity? never.

Also think about the users that are developing for non-windows platforms, They're important people too! and there is more life outside of Windows Vista.

However, in this topic the real question is how much performance we're loosing with the current OGL3.0 specification. At this moment, it's no clear at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote:
Original post by superoptimo
Take in consideration how different becomes each DirectX version, see how they always broke the entire API, and who knows how different from DX10 would be the upcoming DX11. When DX would reach its maturity? never.


DX9 was around for about 5 years before DX10 came along and will continue to be around for the forseeable future. DX10 did break compatibility but in a good way because at a certain point your abstraction no longer abstracts well enough and a rethink is required. DX11 is DX10 with some concepts changed and brings added flexibility which would be well worth the [short] amount of time those changes will require in current code based which work on DX10 hardware.

There is a difference between 'mature', indeed I would argue that DX9 is mature now as it is stable and well known, and 'stagnant'; OpenGL has become the later.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote:
Original post by superoptimo
F.E. OpenGL doesn't require Instancing at all.

Of course it does. The idea that OpenGL doesn't need instancing is a common misconception. It needed it less than DX, due to its nature of being a state machine and having less drawcall overhead. But this doesn't mean that native instancing wouldn't be tremendously beneficial to OpenGL as well. That's why NVidia created the EXT_draw_instanced extension some time ago, and the concept is now part of GL3.0 (exhibit A, exhibit B...)

Quote:
Original post by superoptimo
Instead of thinking about how much likes/dislikes OpenGL from DX10, just think about programmers and applications.

Instead of thinking about programmers and applications, think about driver support. Because that is the one most important aspect of any hardware abstraction API out there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote:
Original post by superoptimoTake in consideration how different becomes each DirectX version, see how they always broke the entire API, and who knows how different from DX10 would be the upcoming DX11. When DX would reach its maturity? never.


I am not sure how many Direct3D transitions you have done. As I use DirectX since it was called “Game SDK” I had take any one of them. So far there were only two larger breaks. The first one was the move from the execute buffers to a draw primitive concept and the second one the big cut for Direct3D 10. All other versions changes were quite easy and mostly doable with some search replace. The move to Direct3D 11 will be an easy one. I can port our current Direct3D 10 backend in less than one day and then start using the new stuff.

I agree that it would be nice if Direct3D stops changing but how should this happens when the hardware that is controlled still changes? OpenGLs answer to this challenge are extensions. I would not call this maturity either especial if I see the sections about interaction with other calls in the documentation.


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  

  • Forum Statistics

    • Total Topics
      628281
    • Total Posts
      2981796
  • Similar Content

    • 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.
    • By Abecederia
      So I've recently started learning some GLSL and now I'm toying with a POM shader. I'm trying to optimize it and notice that it starts having issues at high texture sizes, especially with self-shadowing.
      Now I know POM is expensive either way, but would pulling the heightmap out of the normalmap alpha channel and in it's own 8bit texture make doing all those dozens of texture fetches more cheap? Or is everything in the cache aligned to 32bit anyway? I haven't implemented texture compression yet, I think that would help? But regardless, should there be a performance boost from decoupling the heightmap? I could also keep it in a lower resolution than the normalmap if that would improve performance.
      Any help is much appreciated, please keep in mind I'm somewhat of a newbie. Thanks!
    • By test opty
      Hi,
      I'm trying to learn OpenGL through a website and have proceeded until this page of it. The output is a simple triangle. The problem is the complexity.
      I have read that page several times and tried to analyse the code but I haven't understood the code properly and completely yet. This is the code:
       
      #include <glad/glad.h> #include <GLFW/glfw3.h> #include <C:\Users\Abbasi\Desktop\std_lib_facilities_4.h> using namespace std; //****************************************************************************** void framebuffer_size_callback(GLFWwindow* window, int width, int height); void processInput(GLFWwindow *window); // settings const unsigned int SCR_WIDTH = 800; const unsigned int SCR_HEIGHT = 600; const char *vertexShaderSource = "#version 330 core\n" "layout (location = 0) in vec3 aPos;\n" "void main()\n" "{\n" " gl_Position = vec4(aPos.x, aPos.y, aPos.z, 1.0);\n" "}\0"; const char *fragmentShaderSource = "#version 330 core\n" "out vec4 FragColor;\n" "void main()\n" "{\n" " FragColor = vec4(1.0f, 0.5f, 0.2f, 1.0f);\n" "}\n\0"; //******************************* int main() { // glfw: initialize and configure // ------------------------------ glfwInit(); glfwWindowHint(GLFW_CONTEXT_VERSION_MAJOR, 3); glfwWindowHint(GLFW_CONTEXT_VERSION_MINOR, 3); glfwWindowHint(GLFW_OPENGL_PROFILE, GLFW_OPENGL_CORE_PROFILE); // glfw window creation GLFWwindow* window = glfwCreateWindow(SCR_WIDTH, SCR_HEIGHT, "My First Triangle", nullptr, nullptr); if (window == nullptr) { cout << "Failed to create GLFW window" << endl; glfwTerminate(); return -1; } glfwMakeContextCurrent(window); glfwSetFramebufferSizeCallback(window, framebuffer_size_callback); // glad: load all OpenGL function pointers if (!gladLoadGLLoader((GLADloadproc)glfwGetProcAddress)) { cout << "Failed to initialize GLAD" << endl; return -1; } // build and compile our shader program // vertex shader int vertexShader = glCreateShader(GL_VERTEX_SHADER); glShaderSource(vertexShader, 1, &vertexShaderSource, nullptr); glCompileShader(vertexShader); // check for shader compile errors int success; char infoLog[512]; glGetShaderiv(vertexShader, GL_COMPILE_STATUS, &success); if (!success) { glGetShaderInfoLog(vertexShader, 512, nullptr, infoLog); cout << "ERROR::SHADER::VERTEX::COMPILATION_FAILED\n" << infoLog << endl; } // fragment shader int fragmentShader = glCreateShader(GL_FRAGMENT_SHADER); glShaderSource(fragmentShader, 1, &fragmentShaderSource, nullptr); glCompileShader(fragmentShader); // check for shader compile errors glGetShaderiv(fragmentShader, GL_COMPILE_STATUS, &success); if (!success) { glGetShaderInfoLog(fragmentShader, 512, nullptr, infoLog); cout << "ERROR::SHADER::FRAGMENT::COMPILATION_FAILED\n" << infoLog << endl; } // link shaders int shaderProgram = glCreateProgram(); glAttachShader(shaderProgram, vertexShader); glAttachShader(shaderProgram, fragmentShader); glLinkProgram(shaderProgram); // check for linking errors glGetProgramiv(shaderProgram, GL_LINK_STATUS, &success); if (!success) { glGetProgramInfoLog(shaderProgram, 512, nullptr, infoLog); cout << "ERROR::SHADER::PROGRAM::LINKING_FAILED\n" << infoLog << endl; } glDeleteShader(vertexShader); glDeleteShader(fragmentShader); // set up vertex data (and buffer(s)) and configure vertex attributes float vertices[] = { -0.5f, -0.5f, 0.0f, // left 0.5f, -0.5f, 0.0f, // right 0.0f, 0.5f, 0.0f // top }; unsigned int VBO, VAO; glGenVertexArrays(1, &VAO); glGenBuffers(1, &VBO); // bind the Vertex Array Object first, then bind and set vertex buffer(s), //and then configure vertex attributes(s). glBindVertexArray(VAO); glBindBuffer(GL_ARRAY_BUFFER, VBO); glBufferData(GL_ARRAY_BUFFER, sizeof(vertices), vertices, GL_STATIC_DRAW); glVertexAttribPointer(0, 3, GL_FLOAT, GL_FALSE, 3 * sizeof(float), (void*)0); glEnableVertexAttribArray(0); // note that this is allowed, the call to glVertexAttribPointer registered VBO // as the vertex attribute's bound vertex buffer object so afterwards we can safely unbind glBindBuffer(GL_ARRAY_BUFFER, 0); // You can unbind the VAO afterwards so other VAO calls won't accidentally // modify this VAO, but this rarely happens. Modifying other // VAOs requires a call to glBindVertexArray anyways so we generally don't unbind // VAOs (nor VBOs) when it's not directly necessary. glBindVertexArray(0); // uncomment this call to draw in wireframe polygons. //glPolygonMode(GL_FRONT_AND_BACK, GL_LINE); // render loop while (!glfwWindowShouldClose(window)) { // input // ----- processInput(window); // render // ------ glClearColor(0.2f, 0.3f, 0.3f, 1.0f); glClear(GL_COLOR_BUFFER_BIT); // draw our first triangle glUseProgram(shaderProgram); glBindVertexArray(VAO); // seeing as we only have a single VAO there's no need to // bind it every time, but we'll do so to keep things a bit more organized glDrawArrays(GL_TRIANGLES, 0, 3); // glBindVertexArray(0); // no need to unbind it every time // glfw: swap buffers and poll IO events (keys pressed/released, mouse moved etc.) glfwSwapBuffers(window); glfwPollEvents(); } // optional: de-allocate all resources once they've outlived their purpose: glDeleteVertexArrays(1, &VAO); glDeleteBuffers(1, &VBO); // glfw: terminate, clearing all previously allocated GLFW resources. glfwTerminate(); return 0; } //************************************************** // process all input: query GLFW whether relevant keys are pressed/released // this frame and react accordingly void processInput(GLFWwindow *window) { if (glfwGetKey(window, GLFW_KEY_ESCAPE) == GLFW_PRESS) glfwSetWindowShouldClose(window, true); } //******************************************************************** // glfw: whenever the window size changed (by OS or user resize) this callback function executes void framebuffer_size_callback(GLFWwindow* window, int width, int height) { // make sure the viewport matches the new window dimensions; note that width and // height will be significantly larger than specified on retina displays. glViewport(0, 0, width, height); } As you see, about 200 lines of complicated code only for a simple triangle. 
      I don't know what parts are necessary for that output. And also, what the correct order of instructions for such an output or programs is, generally. That start point is too complex for a beginner of OpenGL like me and I don't know how to make the issue solved. What are your ideas please? What is the way to figure both the code and the whole program out correctly please?
      I wish I'd read a reference that would teach me OpenGL through a step-by-step method. 
  • Popular Now