PDA

View Full Version : Long Peaks



V-man
05-29-2007, 02:37 PM
Anyone looked a the front page?
So is Long Peaks going to be only for SM 3.0 hw and beyond?

http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=39846

Korval
05-29-2007, 02:56 PM
So is Long Peaks going to be only for SM 3.0 hw and beyond?I see nothing in the article about any specific hardware requirements for LP, (which they feel will be called "OpenGL 2.X") but everything we've been led to believe promotes the following requirements:

* Shader-aware hardware. R300/NV30 or better.
* FBO-capable hardware. Same as above.
* VBO-capable hardware. Pretty much anything.

Mt Evans (apparently, the article thinks it will be called "OpenGL 3.0) will have the stricter hardware requirements.

The article isn't a very good one. It doesn't even mention the fact that those DX10 features are already available in OpenGL now through extensions.

Indeed, the only interesting thing in that article are the new names: OpenGL 2.x and OpenGL 3.0. Which I find to be... wierd.

I mean, I understand the principle of the argument. Longs Peak, while a major change to the user of OpenGL, ultimately provides no greater power for anyone using an LP-capable GL application. Whereas Mt. Evans, being about features more than API, will provide a substantial increase in visual quality for anyone using a Mt. Evans-capable GL app.

A GL 3.0 application compared to a GL 2.x sounds much more advanced than a GL 3.1 application compared to a GL 3.0. As such, the version name for LP is diminutive compared to Mt. Evans.

Even so, it's entirely inappropriate for users of OpenGL. For us, 2.x is a major change, while 3.0 is just some new functions.

knackered
05-29-2007, 05:42 PM
I think they should rename the api to OpenGI, the 'I' standing for Interface rather than library.

Brolingstanz
05-29-2007, 06:07 PM
I think Mr. Leech's words were that LP was just a recasting of 2.0. There's been no mention of specific hardware requirements that I'm aware of.

Now for Mt. Evans, I think it probably reasonable to assume a SM4 hardware requirement, which for most of the extensions we're talking about is guaranteed by D3D10. But I think SM3 would be difficult to guarantee at this point.

P.S. V-man, not to put too fine a point on it, but I think there's just one peak, and it's Long(')s. Long Peaks sounds like a daytime drama ;-)

V-man
05-29-2007, 08:01 PM
Well, I hope that Long Peaks (I am interested in the Lean and mean profile) will be available on all SM 2.0 hw.

So what exactly is added in Evans?
There is some stuff about long peaks but I haven't seen anything about Evans.

http://www.opengl.org/pipeline/vol003/
"Using the Longs Peak Object Model"

Korval
05-29-2007, 10:25 PM
V-Man, it's all there in Volume 3: http://www.opengl.org/pipeline/article/vol003_5/

Overmind
05-30-2007, 01:18 AM
OpenGL 2.x and OpenGL 3.0. Which I find to be... wierd.It makes sense from a marketing point of view. Then you can say "OpenGL 3.0 hardware" instead of "DX10 hardware". And this sounds a lot better than "OpenGL 3.1 hardware" ;)

knackered
05-30-2007, 03:00 AM
they really did shoot themselves in the foot by using up 2.0 when they did. The 2.0 label should have been reserved for a complete API refactor such as this, not just for a flurry of handy extensions.
Still, hindsight is 20/20 as they say.
The API definitely needs a completely new name - it just isn't OpenGL any more. I don't see what difference it will make from a marketing standpoint - it's only really developers that know or care about OpenGL, and they will follow the change in name quite easily.

Overmind
05-30-2007, 06:51 AM
I'm not a marketing specialist, but I think it's easier to sell a "better version" of OpenGL than something completely new. It doesn't have anything to do with what it really is. Marketing rarely does have anything to do with what it really is ;)

elFarto
05-30-2007, 07:27 AM
It may not be the old OpenGL, but it will be 'the' OpenGL. They'd be silly to throw away the OpenGL name.

Personally I think Longs Peak should be OpenGL 3.0 and Mount Evans should be 3.1.

Regards
elFarto

bobvodka
05-30-2007, 08:01 AM
personally, given the 'source' of the information seems to be The Inquirer I'm not putting too much faith in it...

k_szczech
05-30-2007, 08:04 AM
OpenGI?
Gee... ;)

When I first heard of 2.0 I expected some serious API changes - perhaps not as much as Longs Peak will bring but still many. At least a proper render to texture functionality. Note that FBO's arrived as extension some time after OpenGL 2.0.

In current situation I think 2.x and 3.0 are just fine. I simply agree with Overmind's point of view. As developers we really shoudn't care.

knackered
05-30-2007, 08:34 AM
for me, opengl now has a bad reputation - no longer something to be proud of. It's renowned for its clumsy, overly complicated, outdated and non-standardised extension mess. When 2.0 came out it was clear that the version number was no indicator of progress, and people will think the same of 3.0.
We all know that longs peak will be a completely new API, but everybody else will assume it's just another minor update.

Brolingstanz
05-30-2007, 10:45 AM
To hell with the naysayers!

"OpenGL is back, and this API is all piss and vinegar."
-- The Frugal API

"OpenGL 3.0 opens a whole new six-pack of API kick ass."
-- Graphics Practitioner's Weekly

"OpenGL 3.0 marks the return of the greatest graphics API the world has ever known."
-- Patron, Joe's Bar and Grill

"Two thumbs up."
-- Eguart and Raster

...

Zengar
05-30-2007, 11:28 AM
I'm with k_szczech and Overmind. Still I think one shouldn't drop the codenames. I mean "OpenGL 2.x" doesn't sound as nice as "OpenGL 2.x Longs Peak" :D

knackered
05-30-2007, 01:04 PM
I don't really care, you know. I'm just procrastinating over my own stuff again. We can milk this discussion a bit more, can't we?

Jan
05-30-2007, 02:29 PM
Originally posted by knackered:
for me, opengl now has a bad reputation - no longer something to be proud of. It's renowned for its clumsy, overly complicated, outdated and non-standardised extension mess. When 2.0 came out it was clear that the version number was no indicator of progress, and people will think the same of 3.0.
We all know that longs peak will be a completely new API, but everybody else will assume it's just another minor update. "Everybody else" doesn't know what OpenGL is, at all. It's only us developers, who actually care, what 2.0, 2.x, 3.0, ... really means. For everybody else it's just, "hey my card supports OpenGL 3.0, great!" and then "what is OpenGL anyway?" (actually i didn't make this up, i really overheard someone saying that, if you substitute OpenGL with TnL).

As a developer one thing you usually learn early, is to ignore PR-stuff. And renaming OpenGL into OpenGI or whatever would be just that, PR. It does not change a thing for the people who actually make use of it.

Although i agree, that Long's Peak should be 3.0.

Jan.

knackered
05-30-2007, 02:35 PM
"although I reserve the right to contradict myself at the end of my speech"

ZbuffeR
05-30-2007, 02:52 PM
I think Longs Peak should be OpenGL 2.5 and Mount Evans should be 3.0 : why ?
- same features as 2.1, heavy changes in the API : increment the minor version number a lot.
- new features/new hardware : increment the major version number.

V-man
05-30-2007, 03:56 PM
I think if GL can make describing a video card as easy as DX does, it would be finally worth it to mention the version number.

"Hey, I have a GL 2.0 card"
"Hey I have a GL 3.0 card"

Right now, from Radeon 9500 to the X2900 and from Geforce FX 5200 to Geforce 8800, they are all GL 2.1 cards, even though some of those don't have GL 2.1 drivers due to laziness from the IHV.

GL 2.1 covers 3 generation of shader model.

Meanwhile, in the D3D world. There is SM 2.0 (is this Dx9A?)
SM 2.x (I think DX9b)
SM 3.0 (DX9c)
SM 4.0 (DX10)

knackered
05-30-2007, 04:32 PM
I think that's perhaps an issue for the hardware vendors to come up with a classification independent of the drawing api. Personally I look at the nv chipset revision number as an indicator of capabilities...never look at the dx shader model number - mind you, we do exclusively use nvidia hardware so it's simple that way.
The version number in GL has historically not been used to describe a hardware revision until 2.0 came along. It was used to describe an API revision.
Longs Peak is a completely new API, not a modified version of an older one - therefore it really should have a new name. Calling it version 2.5 or 3.0 is suggesting it's the same API, when it simply isn't by any stretch of the imagination.

Korval
05-30-2007, 04:51 PM
GL 2.1 covers 3 generation of shader model.That's what a good hardware abstraction does.

It abstracts the hardware so that you don't have to care (much) about what "shader model" the hardware uses.

In the DX10 world, I can't really use "SM2.0" hardware because it can't do everything DX10 requires it to do. Even if all I want is to write DX10 code that only uses "SM2.0" features. I'd have to write a DX9 version of my rendering system.

With OpenGL 2.x/Longs Peak, that's not even a concern. If I limit myself to a certain feature set for a particular card, then the code will work on that card and everything that is better than it, automatically.

A hardware abstraction should not describe the hardware it abstracts in any detailed way. It most certainly shouldn't specify things to the level that Direct3D does.


Longs Peak is a completely new API, not a modified version of an older one - therefore it really should have a new name.Direct3D alone has gone through, what, 5 major API revisions (DX3, DX5/6, DX7, DX8/9, DX10). We're not just talking about a couple of different function names or adding a parameter here or there. We're talking about substantial, "rewrite your graphics code" level changes.

Yet Microsoft still calls each one Direct3D. I see no reason why GL needs a new name just because it's a fundamentally different API.

Overmind
05-31-2007, 01:38 AM
"Everybody else" doesn't know what OpenGL is, at all.I can't really agree with that. Many gamers (and that's a not so insignificant part of the market) "know" OpenGL. Some of them definitely "know" that OpenGL is better than Direct3D. Some of them "know" exactly the opposite. Even though nobody really knows anything about those two APIs except that you can choose which one to use in Half-Life, most have an opinion in the matter :p

def
05-31-2007, 02:37 AM
I have heard the same thing from alot of people:

"I have a DirectX card, it doesn't do OpenGL."

And those were people doing work at least somewhat related to realtime graphics and/or gaming (not developers).

I haven't seen a graphics card being advertised featuring OpenGL in a looooong time. Only ShaderModel and DirectX versions are being mentioned. So, how should non developers know about OpenGL.
It's just Microsoft doing its thing...

V-man
05-31-2007, 03:37 AM
Originally posted by Korval:

In the DX10 world, I can't really use "SM2.0" hardware because it can't do everything DX10 requires it to do. Even if all I want is to write DX10 code that only uses "SM2.0" features. I'd have to write a DX9 version of my rendering system.
I thought you could use SM 2.0
I heard 1.x stuff is eliminated.

Also, from a developer's POV, sure it is fine if GL can abstract well, but from a PR POV, it's different.



I haven't seen a graphics card being advertised featuring OpenGL in a looooong time. Only ShaderModel and DirectX versions are being mentioned. So, how should non developers know about OpenGL.
It's just Microsoft doing its thing...
I have seen GL 2.0 mentioned quite often on hw sites that ...actually sell.
But not anymore. I only see DX 10 for the new generation of cards.

For games, it is different. I haven't seen any game mention GL. DCC software like 3DSmax have developed there DX backend quite a bit. The way I see it. I don't know about Carmack. He will likely never use DX.

elFarto
05-31-2007, 04:25 AM
http://www.gameinformer.com/News/Story/200701/N07.0109.1737.15034.htm

Carmack likes DirectX9.

...we'll have todo something about that... ;)

Regards
elFarto

knackered
05-31-2007, 04:27 AM
think of how cool a card with "OpenGI" written on the box would look. Something new and fresh, and more importantly distinctive.

Brolingstanz
05-31-2007, 05:56 AM
Things are also a bit different than they were some years ago, before the Xbox. DirectX is now "cross-platform", at least within its own microcosm. That's an enormous additional incentive to use DX, if you plan on targeting Windows anyway.

But it looks to me like OpenGL 3.0 is going to counter with the GL/ES combo, and I think this looks awesome, potentially even better than D3D9/10, since you get all of the PC and Mac space, plus the handhelds and PS3 (but no Xbox, if that matters).

P.S. Most of the cards I see on sale mention OpenGL 2.0 support.

Demirug
05-31-2007, 07:28 AM
Originally posted by V-man:
I thought you could use SM 2.0
I heard 1.x stuff is eliminated.D3D10 supports only SM 4.0.

They dropped PS 1.x support for the Direct3D 9 HLSL compiler that is part of D3DX.

Demirug
05-31-2007, 07:32 AM
Originally posted by F. 'bonehead' Leghorn:
But it looks to me like OpenGL 3.0 is going to counter with the GL/ES combo, and I think this looks awesome, potentially even better than D3D9/10, since you get all of the PC and Mac space, plus the handhelds and PS3 (but no Xbox, if that matters). Remove the PS3 from your list. OpenGL is not the preferred graphic API for the PS3.

For D3D add Windows CE/Mobile.

Jan
05-31-2007, 09:02 AM
Interesting. What API does the PS3 then use? I always thought one uses OpenGL ES for the PS3.

ZbuffeR
05-31-2007, 09:59 AM
PS3:
From the horse's mouth :
http://www.cg.tuwien.ac.at/events/EG06/gmgfiles/perthuis-talkeg2006.ppt

Basically you get an extended GL/ES+Cg as high level API with the SDK.
You can use the libGCM for low level access to the RSX.
And most game developers use some higher level game engine build on top of this low-level API.

Overmind
06-06-2007, 12:41 AM
DirectX is now "cross-platform", at least within its own microcosmYou can remove Windows 2k/XP from the DirectX list. DX10 is not even cross platform on all windows platforms :p

Brolingstanz
06-11-2007, 01:39 PM
:p