PDA

View Full Version : New OpenGl 2.0 papers at 3DLabs site



Carmacksutra
07-02-2002, 10:41 AM
http://www.3dlabs.com/support/developer/ogl2/index.htm

PH
07-02-2002, 10:49 AM
Cool, GL2 extension specs. Now all we need is some hardware with those extensions.

Bob
07-02-2002, 11:29 AM
Doesn't 3D Labs Wildcat VP (http://www.3dlabs.com/product/wildcatvp/index.htm) support these extensions?

PH
07-02-2002, 11:35 AM
I think you're right. It's mentioned in the Q&A section. I didn't know the P10 was
in stores already ( looks expensive though ). Perhaps the R300 and NV30 will implement the extensions but perhaps not until the specs are final.

V-man
07-03-2002, 05:07 AM
I guess Carmack is gone be the first with a GL2 coded game.

What does source code written with GL2 look like? How different is it from the GL we have right now?

I can see that there is a GL2 shading language compiler on 3dlabs, but how about some demo applications?

V-man

ScottManDeath
07-03-2002, 05:32 AM
Originally posted by Bob:
Doesn't 3D Labs Wildcat VP (http://www.3dlabs.com/product/wildcatvp/index.htm) support these extensions?

Hi

perhaps someone has access to a WildCard VP and could show us the GL_EXTENSIONS string ??

Bye
ScottManDeath

barthold
07-03-2002, 07:55 AM
Originally posted by Bob:
Doesn't 3D Labs Wildcat VP (http://www.3dlabs.com/product/wildcatvp/index.htm) support these extensions?

Yes, we have a prototype implementation for these three extensions. A beta driver will be available publicly very soon.

Barthold
3Dlabs

mcraighead
07-03-2002, 09:29 PM
[At the risk of wading into a patch of legal thorn bushes, and with the disclaimer that I'm not a lawyer, you should not use any information below in place of professional legal advice, and that I am only speaking to the best of my knowledge about these matters and that you should take this information with a grain of salt, and that I'm again straying into matters of personal opinion and saying things that may or may not reflect my employer's position on any particular issue,]

A small point that should be made clear is that until such point as the ARB votes and approves an "OpenGL 2.0" under ARB bylaws, officially speaking, no such thing exists, and as a result any particular proposal or extension would have to be subject to change.

This is confusing because (from what I understand) the extension names have the form "GL_GL2_foo_bar", not, say, "GL_3DLABS_foo_bar" or "GL_EXT_foo_bar". (Apologies if I've got this wrong.)

This gives the impression that these extensions are in some way analogous to ARB extensions or are otherwise official. While anyone or any group of vendors may create and ship vendor or EXT extensions, ARB extensions require a vote of all ARB members before they become official.

The ARB has (to the best of my knowledge) not voted on any concrete proposal or proposals for OpenGL 2.0. So one should not misintrepret the names of these extensions to suggest that they are officially blessed by the ARB. If the ARB were blessing an extension, it would probably be called "GL_ARB_foo_bar".

Indeed, if I were to be absolutely precise, it would be erroneous for me to speak of an OpenGL 1.4, and I should instead always speak of "current proposals for a future OpenGL 1.4" [and even that's a little vague, because _whose_ proposals?]. OpenGL is a trademark, after all, and it would take an official vote of the ARB to approve the existence of an OpenGL 1.4. The same applies to any ARB extension, although not quite the same trademark issues apply there.

- Matt

[I hate overkill disclaimers, but this post is basically a bunch of legal technicalities and so I would like to be 100% safe.]