• Advertisement
Sign in to follow this  

OpenGL Why OpenGL 3.0 is so badly?

This topic is 3435 days old which is more than the 365 day threshold we allow for new replies. Please post a new topic.

If you intended to correct an error in the post then please contact us.

Recommended Posts

The real question is Why the maintenance of a mutable object system in OpenGL 3.0 is so badly? How it affects its performance? Which disadvantages it presents on Geometry shaders?

Share this post


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

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 V-man
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.

You can use GL_EXT_draw_instanced

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes, but the point was it wasn't in the core.

If you are going to take the 'you can do it via this extension' route then GL3.0 is basically redundant as basically everything you can do it with it could be done via extensions already.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote:
Original post by phantom
is basically redundant


Then I guess we are in agreement.

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
Sign in to follow this  

  • Advertisement
  • Advertisement
  • Popular Now

  • Advertisement
  • Similar Content

    • By Balma Alparisi
      i got error 1282 in my code.
      sf::ContextSettings settings; settings.majorVersion = 4; settings.minorVersion = 5; settings.attributeFlags = settings.Core; sf::Window window; window.create(sf::VideoMode(1600, 900), "Texture Unit Rectangle", sf::Style::Close, settings); window.setActive(true); window.setVerticalSyncEnabled(true); glewInit(); GLuint shaderProgram = createShaderProgram("FX/Rectangle.vss", "FX/Rectangle.fss"); float vertex[] = { -0.5f,0.5f,0.0f, 0.0f,0.0f, -0.5f,-0.5f,0.0f, 0.0f,1.0f, 0.5f,0.5f,0.0f, 1.0f,0.0f, 0.5,-0.5f,0.0f, 1.0f,1.0f, }; GLuint indices[] = { 0,1,2, 1,2,3, }; GLuint vao; glGenVertexArrays(1, &vao); glBindVertexArray(vao); GLuint vbo; glGenBuffers(1, &vbo); glBindBuffer(GL_ARRAY_BUFFER, vbo); glBufferData(GL_ARRAY_BUFFER, sizeof(vertex), vertex, GL_STATIC_DRAW); GLuint ebo; glGenBuffers(1, &ebo); glBindBuffer(GL_ELEMENT_ARRAY_BUFFER, ebo); glBufferData(GL_ELEMENT_ARRAY_BUFFER, sizeof(indices), indices,GL_STATIC_DRAW); glVertexAttribPointer(0, 3, GL_FLOAT, false, sizeof(float) * 5, (void*)0); glEnableVertexAttribArray(0); glVertexAttribPointer(1, 2, GL_FLOAT, false, sizeof(float) * 5, (void*)(sizeof(float) * 3)); glEnableVertexAttribArray(1); GLuint texture[2]; glGenTextures(2, texture); glActiveTexture(GL_TEXTURE0); glBindTexture(GL_TEXTURE_2D, texture[0]); glTexParameteri(GL_TEXTURE_2D, GL_TEXTURE_WRAP_S, GL_CLAMP_TO_EDGE); glTexParameteri(GL_TEXTURE_2D, GL_TEXTURE_WRAP_T, GL_CLAMP_TO_EDGE); glTexParameteri(GL_TEXTURE_2D, GL_TEXTURE_MAG_FILTER, GL_LINEAR); glTexParameteri(GL_TEXTURE_2D, GL_TEXTURE_MIN_FILTER, GL_LINEAR); sf::Image* imageOne = new sf::Image; bool isImageOneLoaded = imageOne->loadFromFile("Texture/container.jpg"); if (isImageOneLoaded) { glTexImage2D(GL_TEXTURE_2D, 0, GL_RGBA, imageOne->getSize().x, imageOne->getSize().y, 0, GL_RGBA, GL_UNSIGNED_BYTE, imageOne->getPixelsPtr()); glGenerateMipmap(GL_TEXTURE_2D); } delete imageOne; glActiveTexture(GL_TEXTURE1); glBindTexture(GL_TEXTURE_2D, texture[1]); glTexParameteri(GL_TEXTURE_2D, GL_TEXTURE_WRAP_S, GL_CLAMP_TO_EDGE); glTexParameteri(GL_TEXTURE_2D, GL_TEXTURE_WRAP_T, GL_CLAMP_TO_EDGE); glTexParameteri(GL_TEXTURE_2D, GL_TEXTURE_MAG_FILTER, GL_LINEAR); glTexParameteri(GL_TEXTURE_2D, GL_TEXTURE_MIN_FILTER, GL_LINEAR); sf::Image* imageTwo = new sf::Image; bool isImageTwoLoaded = imageTwo->loadFromFile("Texture/awesomeface.png"); if (isImageTwoLoaded) { glTexImage2D(GL_TEXTURE_2D, 0, GL_RGBA, imageTwo->getSize().x, imageTwo->getSize().y, 0, GL_RGBA, GL_UNSIGNED_BYTE, imageTwo->getPixelsPtr()); glGenerateMipmap(GL_TEXTURE_2D); } delete imageTwo; glUniform1i(glGetUniformLocation(shaderProgram, "inTextureOne"), 0); glUniform1i(glGetUniformLocation(shaderProgram, "inTextureTwo"), 1); GLenum error = glGetError(); std::cout << error << std::endl; sf::Event event; bool isRunning = true; while (isRunning) { while (window.pollEvent(event)) { if (event.type == event.Closed) { isRunning = false; } } glClear(GL_COLOR_BUFFER_BIT); if (isImageOneLoaded && isImageTwoLoaded) { glActiveTexture(GL_TEXTURE0); glBindTexture(GL_TEXTURE_2D, texture[0]); glActiveTexture(GL_TEXTURE1); glBindTexture(GL_TEXTURE_2D, texture[1]); glUseProgram(shaderProgram); } glBindVertexArray(vao); glDrawElements(GL_TRIANGLES, 6, GL_UNSIGNED_INT, nullptr); glBindVertexArray(0); window.display(); } glDeleteVertexArrays(1, &vao); glDeleteBuffers(1, &vbo); glDeleteBuffers(1, &ebo); glDeleteProgram(shaderProgram); glDeleteTextures(2,texture); return 0; } and this is the vertex shader
      #version 450 core layout(location=0) in vec3 inPos; layout(location=1) in vec2 inTexCoord; out vec2 TexCoord; void main() { gl_Position=vec4(inPos,1.0); TexCoord=inTexCoord; } and the fragment shader
      #version 450 core in vec2 TexCoord; uniform sampler2D inTextureOne; uniform sampler2D inTextureTwo; out vec4 FragmentColor; void main() { FragmentColor=mix(texture(inTextureOne,TexCoord),texture(inTextureTwo,TexCoord),0.2); } I was expecting awesomeface.png on top of container.jpg

    • By khawk
      We've just released all of the source code for the NeHe OpenGL lessons on our Github page at https://github.com/gamedev-net/nehe-opengl. code - 43 total platforms, configurations, and languages are included.
      Now operated by GameDev.net, NeHe is located at http://nehe.gamedev.net where it has been a valuable resource for developers wanting to learn OpenGL and graphics programming.

      View full story
    • By TheChubu
      The Khronos™ Group, an open consortium of leading hardware and software companies, announces from the SIGGRAPH 2017 Conference the immediate public availability of the OpenGL® 4.6 specification. OpenGL 4.6 integrates the functionality of numerous ARB and EXT extensions created by Khronos members AMD, Intel, and NVIDIA into core, including the capability to ingest SPIR-V™ shaders.
      SPIR-V is a Khronos-defined standard intermediate language for parallel compute and graphics, which enables content creators to simplify their shader authoring and management pipelines while providing significant source shading language flexibility. OpenGL 4.6 adds support for ingesting SPIR-V shaders to the core specification, guaranteeing that SPIR-V shaders will be widely supported by OpenGL implementations.
      OpenGL 4.6 adds the functionality of these ARB extensions to OpenGL’s core specification:
      GL_ARB_gl_spirv and GL_ARB_spirv_extensions to standardize SPIR-V support for OpenGL GL_ARB_indirect_parameters and GL_ARB_shader_draw_parameters for reducing the CPU overhead associated with rendering batches of geometry GL_ARB_pipeline_statistics_query and GL_ARB_transform_feedback_overflow_querystandardize OpenGL support for features available in Direct3D GL_ARB_texture_filter_anisotropic (based on GL_EXT_texture_filter_anisotropic) brings previously IP encumbered functionality into OpenGL to improve the visual quality of textured scenes GL_ARB_polygon_offset_clamp (based on GL_EXT_polygon_offset_clamp) suppresses a common visual artifact known as a “light leak” associated with rendering shadows GL_ARB_shader_atomic_counter_ops and GL_ARB_shader_group_vote add shader intrinsics supported by all desktop vendors to improve functionality and performance GL_KHR_no_error reduces driver overhead by allowing the application to indicate that it expects error-free operation so errors need not be generated In addition to the above features being added to OpenGL 4.6, the following are being released as extensions:
      GL_KHR_parallel_shader_compile allows applications to launch multiple shader compile threads to improve shader compile throughput WGL_ARB_create_context_no_error and GXL_ARB_create_context_no_error allow no error contexts to be created with WGL or GLX that support the GL_KHR_no_error extension “I’m proud to announce OpenGL 4.6 as the most feature-rich version of OpenGL yet. We've brought together the most popular, widely-supported extensions into a new core specification to give OpenGL developers and end users an improved baseline feature set. This includes resolving previous intellectual property roadblocks to bringing anisotropic texture filtering and polygon offset clamping into the core specification to enable widespread implementation and usage,” said Piers Daniell, chair of the OpenGL Working Group at Khronos. “The OpenGL working group will continue to respond to market needs and work with GPU vendors to ensure OpenGL remains a viable and evolving graphics API for all its customers and users across many vital industries.“
      The OpenGL 4.6 specification can be found at https://khronos.org/registry/OpenGL/index_gl.php. The GLSL to SPIR-V compiler glslang has been updated with GLSL 4.60 support, and can be found at https://github.com/KhronosGroup/glslang.
      Sophisticated graphics applications will also benefit from a set of newly released extensions for both OpenGL and OpenGL ES to enable interoperability with Vulkan and Direct3D. These extensions are named:
      GL_EXT_memory_object GL_EXT_memory_object_fd GL_EXT_memory_object_win32 GL_EXT_semaphore GL_EXT_semaphore_fd GL_EXT_semaphore_win32 GL_EXT_win32_keyed_mutex They can be found at: https://khronos.org/registry/OpenGL/index_gl.php
      Industry Support for OpenGL 4.6
      “With OpenGL 4.6 our customers have an improved set of core features available on our full range of OpenGL 4.x capable GPUs. These features provide improved rendering quality, performance and functionality. As the graphics industry’s most popular API, we fully support OpenGL and will continue to work closely with the Khronos Group on the development of new OpenGL specifications and extensions for our customers. NVIDIA has released beta OpenGL 4.6 drivers today at https://developer.nvidia.com/opengl-driver so developers can use these new features right away,” said Bob Pette, vice president, Professional Graphics at NVIDIA.
      "OpenGL 4.6 will be the first OpenGL release where conformant open source implementations based on the Mesa project will be deliverable in a reasonable timeframe after release. The open sourcing of the OpenGL conformance test suite and ongoing work between Khronos and X.org will also allow for non-vendor led open source implementations to achieve conformance in the near future," said David Airlie, senior principal engineer at Red Hat, and developer on Mesa/X.org projects.

      View full story
    • By _OskaR
      Hi,
      I have an OpenGL application but without possibility to wite own shaders.
      I need to perform small VS modification - is possible to do it in an alternative way? Do we have apps or driver modifictions which will catch the shader sent to GPU and override it?
    • By xhcao
      Does sync be needed to read texture content after access texture image in compute shader?
      My simple code is as below,
      glUseProgram(program.get());
      glBindImageTexture(0, texture[0], 0, GL_FALSE, 3, GL_READ_ONLY, GL_R32UI);
      glBindImageTexture(1, texture[1], 0, GL_FALSE, 4, GL_WRITE_ONLY, GL_R32UI);
      glDispatchCompute(1, 1, 1);
      // Does sync be needed here?
      glUseProgram(0);
      glBindFramebuffer(GL_READ_FRAMEBUFFER, framebuffer);
      glFramebufferTexture2D(GL_READ_FRAMEBUFFER, GL_COLOR_ATTACHMENT0,
                                     GL_TEXTURE_CUBE_MAP_POSITIVE_X + face, texture[1], 0);
      glReadPixels(0, 0, kWidth, kHeight, GL_RED_INTEGER, GL_UNSIGNED_INT, outputValues);
       
      Compute shader is very simple, imageLoad content from texture[0], and imageStore content to texture[1]. Does need to sync after dispatchCompute?
  • Advertisement