• 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
TheChubu

OpenGL
OpenGL 4.4 spec is published

20 posts in this topic

I'm excited about ARB_Sparse_Texture, though I'm a little confused as to why they don't support any of the 3-component texture formats.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not a very interesting revision, but the new extensions (sparse texture, bindless texture) are intriguing...

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, since I didn't saw any thread about it, here it is:

 

OpenGL 4.4 released.

 

OpenGL registry where you can see the pdfs of the spec.

 

And nVidia's drivers for it (Linux/Windows/x86/x86_64/yaddayadda). There are a few new extensions also available for OpenGL 3 hardware.

 

Thanks for the heads up.  I'll have to check it out.

Edited by MarekKnows.com
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the biggest improvement is the conformace test. From what i head from who prefer DX over GL is that the drivers sometimes have different behaviours for different cards (with openGL). With this change, all the driver will(?should?) have the same behaviour, making it easier to develop openGL programs.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, OpenGL 4.4 specs have been published, and AMD still doesn't have a [i]working[/i] implementation of OpenGL 4.3. This is wonderful. rolleyes.gif

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm excited about ARB_Sparse_Texture, though I'm a little confused as to why they don't support any of the 3-component texture formats.

GPU hardware hasn't supported 3-component texture formats for a long time (aside from packed formats like DXT1).

If you ask GL to give you an RGB texture, on the GPU it will allocate an RGBA texture and pretend that the alpha channel doesn't exit...

I think the biggest improvement is the conformace test. From what i head from who prefer DX over GL is that the drivers sometimes have different behaviours for different cards (with openGL). With this change, all the driver will(?should?) have the same behaviour, making it easier to develop openGL programs.

Yeah that's something that I always have a whinge about, so this makes me very happy biggrin.png

[the ARB] has created the first set of formal OpenGL conformance tests since OpenGL 2.0 [and] full certification is mandatory for OpenGL 4.4 and onwards

Edited by Hodgman
2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not gonna comment on the features since I'm still trying to play catch up (this is what happens when you live in a place where any upgrade to a PC ends up costing an entire salary, let alone getting a new computer that isn't already outdated).

 

I'm curious about the certification part, though. Yeah, sure, having a guarantee that drivers always work the same is nice, but how do they plan to enforce it? Does this mean it'll be outright illegal to release an OpenGL driver that isn't certified? I can see that being a massive issue for FOSS drivers (which does matter on Linux). Does anybody have exact details on what certification allows?

 

EDIT: should have checked more carefully

http://www.khronos.org/conformance/

 

OK, it's mostly a trademark issue (so e.g. Mesa probably still would be safe since it doesn't call itself OpenGL). It seems that FOSS implementations still would be able to go through the implementers program if they want to use the name (not the adopters one due to the fee).

Edited by Sik_the_hedgehog
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, OpenGL 4.4 specs have been published, and AMD still doesn't have a working implementation of OpenGL 4.3. This is wonderful. rolleyes.gif

Well, AMD is much less of an issue than Intel, they (AMD) are actually pretty good nowadays. Intel is the real problem. They not only do not have a working implementation of OpenGL 4.0, but they also do not have a working implementation of OpenGL 3.0.

 

Which makes me wonder what this entire certification thing will be good for at all.

 

Intel will not pull functional 3.0 (let's not even imagine 4.4) drivers out of their magic hat, but Intel integrated GPUs are the main GPU in every El Cheapo computer, and in the major share of non-tablet computers anyway, too. And, outside the world of Android, they're pretty much omni-present in tablets as well.

 

Which will probably mean no more and no less than OpenGL will simply not be supported (or supported even worse as it is now) on a considerable share of hardware. Sorry for being pessimistic, but I just can't see Intel producing a quality 4.x driver and undergo certification any time soon. They'll just show everyone the middle finger, knowing their CPUs are sold anyway.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

So, OpenGL 4.4 specs have been published, and AMD still doesn't have a working implementation of OpenGL 4.3. This is wonderful. rolleyes.gif

Well, AMD is much less of an issue than Intel, they (AMD) are actually pretty good nowadays. Intel is the real problem. They not only do not have a working implementation of OpenGL 4.0, but they also do not have a working implementation of OpenGL 3.0.

 

Which makes me wonder what this entire certification thing will be good for at all.

 

Intel will not pull functional 3.0 (let's not even imagine 4.4) drivers out of their magic hat, but Intel integrated GPUs are the main GPU in every El Cheapo computer, and in the major share of non-tablet computers anyway, too. And, outside the world of Android, they're pretty much omni-present in tablets as well.

 

Which will probably mean no more and no less than OpenGL will simply not be supported (or supported even worse as it is now) on a considerable share of hardware. Sorry for being pessimistic, but I just can't see Intel producing a quality 4.x driver and undergo certification any time soon. They'll just show everyone the middle finger, knowing their CPUs are sold anyway.

 

 

 I really don't consider Intel to be that big of any issue. Their integrated graphics are in a completely different class compared to AMD and Nvidia's dedicated GPUs. I mean whats the real advantage to being able to enable the latest OpenGL 4 / DX11 level features in a game if its going to run at 5fps?

Edited by Chris_F
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Intel will not pull functional 3.0 (let's not even imagine 4.4) drivers out of their magic hat, but Intel integrated GPUs are the main GPU in every El Cheapo computer, and in the major share of non-tablet computers anyway, too. And, outside the world of Android, they're pretty much omni-present in tablets as well.

 

Which will probably mean no more and no less than OpenGL will simply not be supported (or supported even worse as it is now) on a considerable share of hardware. Sorry for being pessimistic, but I just can't see Intel producing a quality 4.x driver and undergo certification any time soon. They'll just show everyone the middle finger, knowing their CPUs are sold anyway.

 

 

I would be surprised if they added this certification if Intel haven't already said yes to it. What would be the point if it's still just AMD/Nvidia?

 

 

 

 I really don't consider Intel to be that big of any issue. Their integrated graphics are in a completely different class compared to AMD and Nvidia's dedicated GPUs. I mean whats the real advantage to being able to enable the latest OpenGL 4 / DX11 level features in a game if its going to run at 5fps?

 

 

That seems rather irrelevant in the context of conformance, where the point is that any features should behave the same, which is just as important if one only uses 2.0 functionality. AMD/Nvidia are already close enough, and the real advantage of the conformance tests would be when writing an application that doesn't require the beefiest hardware and being able to rely on it working the intended way on any device.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Certification is just required for GL4.4+, so all that Intel (or AMD for that matter, should they be so inclined) have to do is freeze their implementation at a pre-4.4 level and hey-presto!  No need for certification and they can continue to ship driver bugs.

 

I wouldn't underestimate Intel, by the way.  Haswell is looking pretty good, is beating comparable parts from AMD, and in a couple more generations we may well see them emerging as a third serious player in the market.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wouldn't underestimate Intel, by the way.  Haswell is looking pretty good, is beating comparable parts from AMD, and in a couple more generations we may well see them emerging as a third serious player in the market.


Yeah, this.

Both in desktop and mobile the Intel machine has woken up and starting to push serious resources into the development; with AMD's CPU division sucking away the profits from graphics if Intel can keep up investment they could move into second place.

As for GL4.4; there isn't really a great deal to it.
From the headline features;

- Buffer Storage has mostly provoked arguements as to how useful it'll be (more so when the notes on the extension say that at least one of the bits might be ignored) - I'm pretty sure this also basically mimics D3D11's buffer controls

- Async Queries could be useful if you are doing anything which requires GPU output which would normally bounce thru a CPU buffer

- Shader Variable Layout, while intresting from a 'yay!' point of view is again basically a HLSL parity feature

- Multi-bind is a good addition but nothing earth shattering (and it's bizzare it wasn't about before... see D3D10)

- The 10-11-11 vertex format support is just... well, sane.. again, surprising it wasn't there before.

There are some intresting extensions about (sparse, bindless, draw parameters, variable group size(!), indirect parameters) but the core feels like a 'tidying up missing features vs D3D11' really.

Maybe GL4.5 will bring something new to the table in the core, we'll see, as D3D is basically stuck at D3D11 due to the enforcement of Win8.1 for D3D11.2 - OGL has basically a 3rd chance to try and become a viable option again.
2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

GPU hardware hasn't supported 3-component texture formats for a long time (aside from packed formats like DXT1).


If you ask GL to give you an RGB texture, on the GPU it will allocate an RGBA texture and pretend that the alpha channel doesn't exit...
 

 

Learn something new every day! Good to know this.. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't be like that, its getting there! tongue.png

 

"Getting there" isn't good enough.  GL4.3 has been specified for the past year, AMD are a member of the standards body that specified it, they should have had a full GL4.3 driver long ago.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They should put more effort into streamlining the API again, and I'm not sure why we don't have a single state vector yet, neither why samplers are not solely shader side for example.

It would also be nice to be able to generate and submit a command buffer sequence easily. (Create it once, resubmit it as many times as you want, sorta like a copy/paste operation.)

 

How many ways do we need to specify a typed multi-dimensional array ?

BufferData, BufferStorage, TextureImage*, TexStorage*... That's way too many...

 

The API is at last giving us access to hardware features that have been available for years now, but the API isn't making the jump I'd like to see and change once and for all into OpenGL Lean & Mean, a promise from 2002 for OpenGL 2.0... (Long before 3.0/Long Peaks)

Edited by Ingenu
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What I don't get about query buffers is that for most query objects (including occlusion and timer, the most interesting ones) it says that at most one query can be active at a time.

 

In other words, you can now read many queries into a buffer object to avoid stalls and to avoid a round-trip to the CPU, but you can still only run one query at a time. Which, frankly, isn't so much different.

 

The only useful application is really transform feedback and/or geometry shader (where more than one query at a time can be active).

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Has anyone tried to implement the sparse textures? I've placed glTexParameteri(GL_TEXTURE_3D, GL_TEXTURE_SPARSE_ARB, GL_TRUE) into my code and it compiles fine but there does not seem to be anything shader specific written in the specs (similar to the AMD versions where you use sparseTexture(sampler, coord)).

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ah, yes, that omission... it took me a while to spot it as well (mostly because I couldn't believe it WAS missing); but yes, as it stands ARB_sparse_texture lacks the GLSL extension for shader -> cpu feedback loops.

While annoying this doesn't render the extension useless it just means you have to manage things via corser CPU side controls rather than using a shader feedback loop (which, to be honest, for a streaming solution you'll want anyway so no foul there really).

Part of me wonders if this omission is due to an NV or Intel GPU weakness where their current hardware can do the virtual texturing bit just fine but can't do the feedback loop; probably because it pretty much requires a writable buffer to be bound to any pipeline stage to be completely viable for all situations something AMD can do but it seems NV can't/won't expose on some/all of their hardware (see D3D11.1 'uav on all pipeline stages' issue for NV)... and god knows about Intel.

Truth be told however this extension, and the more powerful AMD varient get more intresting once the tiled resource extension comes into play; I don't have a link to the pdf handy but basically you'll be able to reserve a buffer (say 128meg) and then allocate out of that tile sized resources to your sparse textures rather than relying on the driver's best guess as it currently stands. (edit: and now I have the link to hand! Hardware Virtual Textures has the details.)

Combine sparse, memory controls and bindless and you've got one hell of a powerful set of features going forward. Edited by phantom
1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Part of me wonders if this omission is due to an NV or Intel GPU weakness where their current hardware can do the virtual texturing bit just fine but can't do the feedback loop;

Indeed, Nvidia supports the general virtual memory framework but not the shader feedback. Hence DX11.2 having two tiers for tiled resources, with the second tier having the shader extensions.

Edited by MJP
1

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 Toastmastern
      So it's been a while since I took a break from my whole creating a planet in DX11. Last time around I got stuck on fixing a nice LOD.
      A week back or so I got help to find this:
      https://github.com/sp4cerat/Planet-LOD
      In general this is what I'm trying to recreate in DX11, he that made that planet LOD uses OpenGL but that is a minor issue and something I can solve. But I have a question regarding the code
      He gets the position using this row
      vec4d pos = b.var.vec4d["position"]; Which is then used further down when he sends the variable "center" into the drawing function:
      if (pos.len() < 1) pos.norm(); world::draw(vec3d(pos.x, pos.y, pos.z));  
      Inside the draw function this happens:
      draw_recursive(p3[0], p3[1], p3[2], center); Basically the 3 vertices of the triangle and the center of details that he sent as a parameter earlier: vec3d(pos.x, pos.y, pos.z)
      Now onto my real question, he does vec3d edge_center[3] = { (p1 + p2) / 2, (p2 + p3) / 2, (p3 + p1) / 2 }; to get the edge center of each edge, nothing weird there.
      But this is used later on with:
      vec3d d = center + edge_center[i]; edge_test[i] = d.len() > ratio_size; edge_test is then used to evaluate if there should be a triangle drawn or if it should be split up into 3 new triangles instead. Why is it working for him? shouldn't it be like center - edge_center or something like that? Why adding them togheter? I asume here that the center is the center of details for the LOD. the position of the camera if stood on the ground of the planet and not up int he air like it is now.

      Full code can be seen here:
      https://github.com/sp4cerat/Planet-LOD/blob/master/src.simple/Main.cpp
      If anyone would like to take a look and try to help me understand this code I would love this person. I'm running out of ideas on how to solve this in my own head, most likely twisted it one time to many up in my head
      Thanks in advance
      Toastmastern
       
       
    • By fllwr0491
      I googled around but are unable to find source code or details of implementation.
      What keywords should I search for this topic?
      Things I would like to know:
      A. How to ensure that partially covered pixels are rasterized?
         Apparently by expanding each triangle by 1 pixel or so, rasterization problem is almost solved.
         But it will result in an unindexable triangle list without tons of overlaps. Will it incur a large performance penalty?
      B. A-buffer like bitmask needs a read-modiry-write operation.
         How to ensure proper synchronizations in GLSL?
         GLSL seems to only allow int32 atomics on image.
      C. Is there some simple ways to estimate coverage on-the-fly?
         In case I am to draw 2D shapes onto an exisitng target:
         1. A multi-pass whatever-buffer seems overkill.
         2. Multisampling could cost a lot memory though all I need is better coverage.
            Besides, I have to blit twice, if draw target is not multisampled.
       
    • 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));  
  • Popular Now