Jump to content
  • Advertisement

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

DrKappa

OpenGL OpenGL 2.0

This topic is 6227 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

I just downloaded 3DLabs proposal doc about OpenGL 2.0 and had a brief look at it, and I have to say I''m confused. It should be clear that OpenGL as it is today cannot keep the pace with DirectX. The nature of DirectX, an omni-comprehensive API, makes it a step forward a 3d-graphic-only one like OpenGL. Even Direct3d, the real OpenGL competitor, is now a giant compared to what OGL is. DX is full-featured, OGL is not. The way proposed extensions has increased is a crazy mechanism which MUST be stopped. To have something like 230/240 extensions is just perverse. To have to deal with extensions based upon another extension which replaced an old extension could seriously make a lot of developers move to D3D. Not considering that this is no more the original "clean" API everybody appreciated. When the same feature is implemented in two separated extensions created by two competiting manufacturers, I don''t know if I''m talking about an API anymore. DX was once complex to initialize. Now it is more frustrating to check a list of 200+ extensions linked to a 10 years old API. I said I''m confused. I''m confused because I''m not sure OpenGL should follow DirectX. Original OpenGL was intended to be an high-end API. Nobody could buy a 1000$ PC and get OGL running at full framerate in 92. OpenGL was an API supported by high end chipset manufacturers which decided to unite themselves in order to get stronger. Unluckly things has changed during the past 10 years. DirectX emerged as a way for Microsoft to add advanced and realtime 3d graphic support for win32 OSes. It''s an API focused on low and mid end machines. The great market behind DX is the entertainment market. XBox could enforce DX dominion even more, and at this time there''s no clear response on OGL side. If you look at the list of manufacturers present in ARB, you immediately notice all companies producing chipsets used as reference by game developers are there. As for me it is not about where OpenGL is about to go, but where such companies are about to go. If there''s a clear intention to support only low and mid end markets, then OpenGL could share the same target applications with DX, realying upon the intrinsic limitation of DX: to be a win32-only API. Otherwise, if such companies decided to enter in high-end market, OpenGL would have the real chance to get back to 92 and be the definite standard for high-end market, being still able to provide support for 200/400$ chipsets. By doing so, OpenGL could attract a lot of developers implementng custom engines. Such engines could power a blockbuster game as well as a professional 3d tool. My final question is: what do you think about an ideal OpenGL 2.0? Should it follow DX steps or not?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Advertisement
I can''t comment as I haven''t read the spec but honestly, I like OpenGL the way it is. I''ve tried learning DirectX and it seemed messy to me. Maybe it''s because I was younger, or didn''t have the devotion I do now, or didn''t have the right reference but still. OpenGL, to me, is very clean and easy to implement. Aside from that, it''s very powerful from what I''ve seen and can be run great with a video card in the $150 range.

I like it the way it is.

Make improvments, but don''t change the architexture.

- Mike

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think it was about time they got back into the driver seat and stopped trying to follow MS. As the presentation said the graphics card has changed dramatically since 91 and they need to dramatically change the api in order to take full advantages of the changes. The first versions will be backwards compatable and in a few years when most cards support 2.0 then they can dump the legacy code and kick ass with a lean and mean api. A standard shading language is a must and I do like being able to control what is in memory, even if it does end up being a hint. The change is needed and I think it looks great.

The fanatic is incorruptible: if he kills for an idea, he can just as well get himself killed for one; in either case, tyrant or martyr, he is a monster.
--EM Cioran

Opere Citato

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I downloaded the presentation yesterday. I agree with about 50% of the things they propose. A standard shader language is pretty important, and this would take a big load off of both NVidia and ATI, who seem to want to standardize their existing languages anyway (read the ARB notes). The example Stanford C-Style shader language looked pretty nice also.

Although, I think they want to change too many basic things that already work fine. Also, what is with their obsession with time keeping? If someone can point out why that would be useful, it may help me understand it .

Anyway, to sum up my opinion: As long as OpenGL provides high performance 2D/3D graphics in multiple operating systems, I''ll continue to use it .

[Resist Windows XP''s Invasive Production Activation Technology!]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
the openml is a good thing. about opengl 2.0 personally I dont think its gone far enuf, comparing it to d3d, its aimed at d3d10/11 when it should be aiming for d3d13/14. where this gonna leave us in 2005. opengl 3.0?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Anonymous Poster
What is OpenML?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OpenML

The fanatic is incorruptible: if he kills for an idea, he can just as well get himself killed for one; in either case, tyrant or martyr, he is a monster.
--EM Cioran

Opere Citato

Edited by - GKW on September 25, 2001 12:47:20 AM

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
quote:
Original post by Null and Void
Although, I think they want to change too many basic things that already work fine. Also, what is with their obsession with time keeping? If someone can point out why that would be useful, it may help me understand it .



THis is also due to OpenML. In order to synchronize video and audio they have a time keeping system which they are going to extend into opengl.

The fanatic is incorruptible: if he kills for an idea, he can just as well get himself killed for one; in either case, tyrant or martyr, he is a monster.
--EM Cioran

Opere Citato

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"Even Direct3d, the real OpenGL competitor, is now a giant compared to what OGL is."

May be, I am not an expert.
I would ask you a simple question.
Are you able to understand which API has been used to develop a 3d game, just playing it?
My gut feeling is that direct x must have some advantages vs opengl .
It is hard for me to believe that most of professional software houses use direct x,just because of the tremendous Microsoft marketing power.
A comparison giant \ dwerf it seem to me however a bit exagerate.
A part from the above considerations it is a matter of fact that opengl is much, much, much easier to use then direct x and I am sure not to exagerate.
In conclusion the amateur \ shareware game developer comunity definitly need opengl.
I will continue using opengl 1.1 and I do hope the 3d card manufactures will support OGL even in the future


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
quote:
it is a matter of fact that opengl is much, much, much easier to use then direct x and I am sure not to exagerate.

I hope you''ve actually used DirectX 8 before making a comment like that... I had been using OpenGL for quite a while, but I decided to try DX. I had no problem whatsoever. And that old argument that DX is much harder to initialize than OpenGL isn''t true anymore. But later I switched back to OpenGL again, simply because I liked it better. I think that as long as OpenGL and DX has about the same performance, it''s all about personal preference (And portability and stuff like that). If OpenGL ever becomes some sort of amateur\shareware API, I''ll be the first one to return to the dark side

And to those who doubt OpenGL:s greatness, I can only say one thing: Doom 3!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Advertisement
×

Important Information

By using GameDev.net, you agree to our community Guidelines, Terms of Use, and Privacy Policy.

We are the game development community.

Whether you are an indie, hobbyist, AAA developer, or just trying to learn, GameDev.net is the place for you to learn, share, and connect with the games industry. Learn more About Us or sign up!

Sign me up!