here is a link to the entire OpenGL reference manual and programmers guide. full OpenGL 1.1 function call specifications, as well as detailed information of the algorithms used to calculate fogging, projection, etc. and examples and source code. it''s a good place to start if you are SERIOUS about becoming a OpenGL developer.
http://ask.ii.uib.no/ebt-bin/nph-dweb/dynaweb/SGI_Developer/OpenGL_RM
http://ask.ii.uib.no/ebt-bin/nph-dweb/dynaweb/SGI_Developer/OpenGL_RG
peace.
To the vast majority of mankind, nothing is more agreeable than to escape the need for mental exertion... To most people, nothing is more troublesome than the effort of thinking.
OpenGL doesn't do fog??!?
quote:
What''s true however is that if your hardware doesn''t support fogging, it will get emulated by OpenGL, probably with that alpha-blending trick you mentionned. I think that''s what happens with old Vaudoos.
No, even the oldset Voodoo-1 did per-pixel fog in hardware.
The only place where it emulates it by vertex alpha blending is in software mode, or if you specifically ask for it.
- AH
quote:Original post by merlin9x9
Also, we must not forget that since nobody but Microsoft makes an OpenGL binding on Windows, Windows platforms are stuck at API version 1.1, while 1.3 hardware compliance already exists...
Use the Silicon Graphics Incorporated libraries instead. Firstly they are at higher versions, secondly they rendered textures, smooth and rendered polygons faster (lines are slower) and thirdly the source is available.
So we can get v1.3 from sgi for windows?
Another thign I dont understand. If people realy want OpenGL for Windows, why hasn't a 3rd party or even SGI taken control back of the Windows implementation. MS is not supporting it anymore, so what is stopping someone from writing there own version of the libs? I would figure then that all card manufacturers do that. But why not just have 1 3rd party write the standar 1.3 libs with all the latest features of the ARB and have the card manufactures include there extra features through extensions. To my understanding to get the 1.3 features of OGL working with windows 1.1, the card manufactures have to implement them as extensions.
Edited by - ANSI2000 on November 14, 2001 12:44:24 PM
Another thign I dont understand. If people realy want OpenGL for Windows, why hasn't a 3rd party or even SGI taken control back of the Windows implementation. MS is not supporting it anymore, so what is stopping someone from writing there own version of the libs? I would figure then that all card manufacturers do that. But why not just have 1 3rd party write the standar 1.3 libs with all the latest features of the ARB and have the card manufactures include there extra features through extensions. To my understanding to get the 1.3 features of OGL working with windows 1.1, the card manufactures have to implement them as extensions.
Edited by - ANSI2000 on November 14, 2001 12:44:24 PM
i can''t believe this POST received 14, i mean 15 replies.
To the vast majority of mankind, nothing is more agreeable than to escape the need for mental exertion... To most people, nothing is more troublesome than the effort of thinking.
To the vast majority of mankind, nothing is more agreeable than to escape the need for mental exertion... To most people, nothing is more troublesome than the effort of thinking.
quote:Original post by ANSI2000
So we can get v1.3 from sgi for windows?
Another thign I dont understand. If people realy want OpenGL for Windows, why hasn''t a 3rd party or even SGI taken control back of the Windows implementation. MS is not supporting it anymore, so what is stopping someone from writing there own version of the libs?
ms wont let anyone else make a vesion of opengl32.dll. my bet is when opengl2.0 comes out all these problems will be solved (ie a clean break).
Author
quote:Original post by zedzeek
ms wont let anyone else make a vesion of opengl32.dll. my bet is when opengl2.0 comes out all these problems will be solved (ie a clean break).
What makes you say that? AFAIK, there''s nothing stopping MS from preventing anyone else from making a new version of opengl32.dll.
But what I don''t get is, why no just change the name of the DLL to SGI''s DLL, which is just opengl.dll & glu.dll? Wouldn''t that circumvent MS''s restriction?
quote:Original post by NuffSaid
What makes you say that? AFAIK, there''s nothing stopping MS from preventing anyone else from making a new version of opengl32.dll.
But what I don''t get is, why no just change the name of the DLL to SGI''s DLL, which is just opengl.dll & glu.dll? Wouldn''t that circumvent MS''s restriction?
There are potential legal issues with updating the OpenGL MCD shipped with Windows, but nothing is certain until it happens. The OpenGL ARB is getting pretty ticked off at Microsoft (read the ARB notes), since they (SGI) have had up-to-date MCD''s for Windows ready to go for years (Microsoft has had the longest ''testing'' period in history specially made just for the MCD''s). You are able to replace them yourself, but how many people will do that?
[Resist Windows XP''s Invasive Production Activation Technology!]
This topic is closed to new replies.
Advertisement
Popular Topics
Advertisement
