Quote:Original post by MARS_999 You need to read this, yes CAD is somewhat to blame coming from Trevett who works for Nvidia...
I trust the word of the person I know more than I trust a press release trying to take the heat off the ARB.
I also have it on good authority that the CAD claim is bullshit. I've been told unequivocally that those discussions never happened and it's just being used as a scapegoat.
You guys do understand the implications of this, right? It's not just that they lied to us for 8 months about what OpenGL 3 was going to be. It's that they're still lying to us, to cover their asses. Anyone who bothers to listen to them at all anymore is suffering from a severe RDF. Wait for OpenGL 3.1? Go to hell, ARB/Khronos.
This isn't exactly the boyscouts here promit. I think it goes without saying that whenever you bumble something as badly as they've managed to bumble OGL3, you don't stop lying until they put the guns down!
Quote:Original post by Matias Goldberg So... They took so much time (and delayed the launch) just for THIS???
I have a great idea!!! Next OpenGL 4.0 will be an object-oriented API that will actually wrap to Direct3D [lol][lol]
(oh... and if that doesn't work will just stick with OGL 2.3 and name it 4.0)
Seriously, If things keep going this way, we should make up a team that will be in charge of a new cross-plattform API. Not easy to do, as that would need support from Driver developers (aka NVIDIA, ATI, Intel); plus we need experienced people, and a lot of time to just design (not to mention coding). After that, it should have success into adoption. But at least we could try.
Well.... [sigh]
Dark Sylinc
Uhm...this was actually one of MS's first implementations of OGL...I'm not kidding either.
I think that the reaction to the 3.0 spec is kind of out or proportion, the spec does have LOTS of stuff in it, though I have not found mention of geometry shaders in it yet.. now in core is FBOs, including mixing formats and separate write masking, conditional rendering, lots of new texture formats, native integer support in shaders, including textures, transform feedback.. that is a lot of stuff.... the main gripes we have is that the new interface is not there; if the new interface was in place, there would be an equal number of people moaning: "the world is falling, I have to refactor so much stuff for the new interface.", the 3.0 spec gives a transition time and lets people choose to stay current and get rid the crud now, or be stuck in 2005 and extension hell.
Close this Gamedev account, I have outgrown Gamedev.
Quote:Original post by phantom I trust the word of the person I know more than I trust a press release trying to take the heat off the ARB.
I also have it on good authority that the CAD claim is bullshit. I've been told unequivocally that those discussions never happened and it's just being used as a scapegoat.
You guys do understand the implications of this, right? It's not just that they lied to us for 8 months about what OpenGL 3 was going to be. It's that they're still lying to us, to cover their asses. Anyone who bothers to listen to them at all anymore is suffering from a severe RDF. Wait for OpenGL 3.1? Go to hell, ARB/Khronos.
Promit, Neil Trevett is not lying, but his quote refers only to the deprecation mechanism. The Big Decision was explained on opengl.org - Longs Peak was taking longer than anticipated, and some within the ARB argued that new features were more important than a complete rewrite, given the schedule pressure. At face value, its a reasonable position... but clearly not a popular one.
Quote:Original post by gold Promit, Neil Trevett is not lying, but his quote refers only to the deprecation mechanism. The Big Decision was explained on opengl.org - Longs Peak was taking longer than anticipated, and some within the ARB argued that new features were more important than a complete rewrite, given the schedule pressure. At face value, its a reasonable position... but clearly not a popular one.
Don't try to use reason against emotion; it's immune and might counter you for massive damage.
still no 10% link from you btw. Don't assert "isn't something we've just pulled out of the air" if you dont have a link, ok? I didn't ever notice nvidia opengl people give any % values in articles on subject, too.
Quote:Original post by phantom I trust the word of the person I know more than I trust a press release trying to take the heat off the ARB.
I also have it on good authority that the CAD claim is bullshit. I've been told unequivocally that those discussions never happened and it's just being used as a scapegoat.
You guys do understand the implications of this, right? It's not just that they lied to us for 8 months about what OpenGL 3 was going to be. It's that they're still lying to us, to cover their asses. Anyone who bothers to listen to them at all anymore is suffering from a severe RDF. Wait for OpenGL 3.1? Go to hell, ARB/Khronos.
Promit, Neil Trevett is not lying, but his quote refers only to the deprecation mechanism. The Big Decision was explained on opengl.org - Longs Peak was taking longer than anticipated, and some within the ARB argued that new features were more important than a complete rewrite, given the schedule pressure. At face value, its a reasonable position... but clearly not a popular one.
Which still doesn't explain why if this decision was made in January it wasn't communicated at all until now. There's no excuse for that other than stupidity.
Quote:Original post by kRogue I think that the reaction to the 3.0 spec is kind of out or proportion, the spec does have LOTS of stuff in it, though I have not found mention of geometry shaders in it yet.. now in core is FBOs, including mixing formats and separate write masking, conditional rendering, lots of new texture formats, native integer support in shaders, including textures, transform feedback.. that is a lot of stuff.... the main gripes we have is that the new interface is not there; if the new interface was in place, there would be an equal number of people moaning: "the world is falling, I have to refactor so much stuff for the new interface.", the 3.0 spec gives a transition time and lets people choose to stay current and get rid the crud now, or be stuck in 2005 and extension hell.
Geometry shaders aren't there, which is another problem with it as it's neither one thing or the other. It's a half way house between DX10 and DX9 hardware, not completely one but too much required for the other.
Sure, the reason was 'we ran out of time', so instead of doing the logical thing of telling people what was going (which should have gone on back in Jan but that's another matter) on a spec which was half arsed was releasd instead.
Quote:Original post by dorbie Someone else spotted the following and posted it to another forum, I think it informs the discussion. The following document contains the following revision note:
"Version 10, 2008/04/08 - Changed "lite" to "preview" (still open for discussion however), and changed version "2.2" to "3.0" following the marketing TSG recommendation."
And as I said on the other forum; worse. recommendation. EVER.
Well I like to view this as good news, it gives me hope that there's the prospect of some change that amounts to something like a real OpenGL 3 still pending. Let's say for example that the deprecation mechanism kicks in with some teeth in 3.1 and we get some key features promoted to core. The landscape would look very different, assuming you're still on planet OpenGL.
