OpenGL 2.0?
Author
Has anyone heard any word of what will be of 3dLabs proprosal for OpenGL 2.0?
I''m brand spankin new to OpenGL programming, and I kind of worry about the ARB''s lack of progress in putting in new features. What 3dLabs proposed seems pretty cool, but I''ve yet to hear any mention of whether it will be improved or not.
Somehow, having proprietary extensions seems to be anti-thetical to the whole notion of the Open part of OpenGL. I hope the proposal goes through....
On the OpenGL Official homepage you''ll find some info about the 2.0 proposal in the news.
www.opengl.org
www.opengl.org
the arb are actively working on opengl2.0 at the moment, we will have to wait + see if its exactly like the 3dlabs proposal
quote:Original post by Dauntless
Somehow, having proprietary extensions seems to be anti-thetical to the whole notion of the Open part of OpenGL. I hope the proposal goes through....
I disagree. It makes it more open by allowing vendors to improve the API independent of any central group. The central group (the ARB) will later be able to standardize the extensions. This whole process allows vendors to add and test their features from the beginning.
[Resist Windows XP''s Invasive Production Activation Technology!]
In my (personal) opinion ... as much as i love OpenGL compared to D3D ... D3D will win unless the ARB becomes FAR more proatice with regard to the extension problem. It''s very easy to promote such extensions, but unless every card manufacture adheres to the basic structure, this thing is for nothing. It''s about time that card manufacturers got together and decided upon a common policy which sidelined the ARB and produced a single interface to sell OpenGL. Otherwise, like I said, OpenGL will become defunct.
I never thought I''d say this, but I''m now looking at D3D as a viable alternative - and D3D has so many problems it isn''t true - but it''s still more viable at the moment.
I never thought I''d say this, but I''m now looking at D3D as a viable alternative - and D3D has so many problems it isn''t true - but it''s still more viable at the moment.
OpenGL does have a "single interface," that''s why all the extensions have the same ''style''. However, their potential uniqueness is the whole reason behind them! You can get more out of an NVidia or ATI or whatever video card through extensions than you can through DirectX (by the word of both NVidia and ATI). If you''re worried about programmable shaders, those should be standardize in the near future, since ATI and NVidia are finally agreeing with each other about them (read the ARB notes).
OpenGL 1.3 does have a lot of the extensions turned into standard functions, but Windows doesn''t support OpenGL 1.3. Almost every other OS does. Microsoft is simply trying to suppress OpenGL.
[Resist Windows XP''s Invasive Production Activation Technology!]
OpenGL 1.3 does have a lot of the extensions turned into standard functions, but Windows doesn''t support OpenGL 1.3. Almost every other OS does. Microsoft is simply trying to suppress OpenGL.
[Resist Windows XP''s Invasive Production Activation Technology!]
N and V ...
Actually you''re kinda wrong and right at the same time - OpenGL (and extensions) have been around for a while now, and no one has aggreed to agree! It''s up to the ARB to force this kind of common policy, but I don''t see it happening for at least 2 years, maybe more. I wish that wasn''t the case ... but I fear it is. The ARB is a VERY slow acting organisation, whereas at least D3D is owned by one company and developed for it''s own purposes - I wish this wasn''t the case, but I fear it''s true.
Actually you''re kinda wrong and right at the same time - OpenGL (and extensions) have been around for a while now, and no one has aggreed to agree! It''s up to the ARB to force this kind of common policy, but I don''t see it happening for at least 2 years, maybe more. I wish that wasn''t the case ... but I fear it is. The ARB is a VERY slow acting organisation, whereas at least D3D is owned by one company and developed for it''s own purposes - I wish this wasn''t the case, but I fear it''s true.
quote:Original post by Shag
N and V ...
Actually you''re kinda wrong and right at the same time - OpenGL (and extensions) have been around for a while now, and no one has aggreed to agree! It''s up to the ARB to force this kind of common policy, but I don''t see it happening for at least 2 years, maybe more. I wish that wasn''t the case ... but I fear it is. The ARB is a VERY slow acting organisation, whereas at least D3D is owned by one company and developed for it''s own purposes - I wish this wasn''t the case, but I fear it''s true.
In that case, why don''t you just use D3D instead of arguing about OGL''s future?
I don''t mean to be harsh or anything but if you don''t see a future for OGL, why in heck do you use it?
"And that''s the bottom line cause I said so!"
Cyberdrek
Headhunter Soft
A division of DLC Multimedia
Resist Windows XP''s Invasive Production Activation Technology!
"gitty up" -- Kramer
Why the heck do I use it?
Because it''s wonderful to use, and i care about it''s future. I just don''t won''t OpenGL to end up on the scrap pile because it couldn''t compete. That would be the biggest shame ever! Can you imagine Microsoft seeing off another BETTER technology?
Rest my case ...
Because it''s wonderful to use, and i care about it''s future. I just don''t won''t OpenGL to end up on the scrap pile because it couldn''t compete. That would be the biggest shame ever! Can you imagine Microsoft seeing off another BETTER technology?
Rest my case ...
quote:Original post by Shag
Actually you''re kinda wrong and right at the same time...
I know, it''s a weird topic
. [Resist Windows XP''s Invasive Production Activation Technology!]
This topic is closed to new replies.
Advertisement
Popular Topics
Advertisement
