nVidia-focused developing in ogl

[mech]

I have an nVidia card. I want (and supposed to) write code compatible with any (or most) consumer (read: average gamer) cards. These, as far as I see, beside nVidia cards include at least ATi cards, and other companies seem to rise from the slumber and make nVidia competition (e.g. SiS Xabre, Matrox Parhelia). I ain't John Carmack and I don't have a cart full of different ATi, nVidia and who's-else cards to test my code on them. In fact, in OpenGL I don't have to TEST, but write same effect in different ways and using different extensions for ATi, nVidia, etc cards, then test. Well, and how am I supposed to do that on nVidia? No problem, I can buy Radeon, something else, but it is obviously stupid to switch them in one machine, so I must have a whole park of machines for simple code-wrighting, not testing?

Conclusion: (if you disprove it I will be grateful)
OpenGL is very loosely standardized API, and, though I like OpenGL's interface much more than D3D's, it seems that I must switch to D3D. In D3D, everything is standardized, and if my code works on some card, it will work on any card with same hardware capabilities, no matter who's the vendor. In OpenGL, anyone who designs a new card, can think up a whole bunch of extensions (GL_VASYA_PUPKINS_COOL_FEATURE), do I need them? In real programs? nVidia dominated the market for some years, yes, but now it is not so obvious, and I can't assume that most of my end-users run nVidia hardware.

Question #1:
Where is standard extensions for shaders? It's been long time since D3D8 appeared, and it has standard interface...

Question #2:
What is the sense in using OpenGL for _real_ game coding, not some tech-demos?

[Eric]

This problem of standardization is much discussed in most of the latest looooooong threads...

There is no doubt that GL is behind D3D in terms of standardization but the fact that each vendor can produce his own extension is for me one of the advantages of GL (although it can be a pain with pixel/vertex shaders): you usually get to use the latest features of the latest cards in GL before you can use them in D3D.

One advantage of OpenGL is still that it is multi-platform.

The standard extension for pixel shaders may be included in GL1.5 (GL1.4 should have something standard for vertex programs). GL2.0 is a proposal that offers what you are looking for (although it is far from being ready whatever other people can say).

I don't quite get your 2nd question since you mentioned John Carmack in the very same post (doesn't he develop _real_ games with OpenGL ???).

All in all, I am not sure whether switching to D3D will solve all of your problems but if you think so, then why not !

Regards.

Eric

[davepermen]

nope, eric, carmack only codes techdemos. others use them then for games..

[Robbo]

Lol Perman - that was kinda-funny. hehe.

[mech]

2Eric:

Well, I must've meant real games using shaders

Switching to D3D not only won't solve my problems, but will add furhter headache, IMHO D3D is over-object-oriented, I mean object-driven interface is of course convenient, but everything has some limit

Despite all present shader limitations, I found them (particularly vertex shaders) to be very efficient way of generating animation. Well, it works OK using NV_VERTEX_PROGRAM_1_1, but it's NV! So nothing except NV will run it correctly, while Direct3D shaders run fine (even their software emulation is fast enough) on any card.

As for Mr. Carmack's _real_ games, I read through his notes on doom engine, he says: "Well, this card screwed my console renderer, hence it is not good (GF4MX)... Radeon can use more textures simultaneously than GF, so I rewrote [some effect] to use Radeon's multitexturing, and it is good"

So, it seems he writes his doom not for opengl, but for different cards' extensions. He meants some fallbacks for cards not capable of doing something in hardware, like using multi-pass instead of multi-texture for older cards, but it doesn't matter.

As far as I see, he focuses not on generic hardware capabilities, but on particular implementation of this capabilities by some vendor.

btw, isn't doom a tech-demo right now?


[This message has been edited by mech (edited 07-08-2002).]

[knackered]

Originally posted by Eric:
One advantage of OpenGL is still that it is multi-platform.

Yes, this is true. There is an opengl implementation on the Gamecube, I'm led to believe. But you can guarantee what extensions are available to you on that platform, unlike the PC or Mac.

[V-man]

>>>Conclusion: (if you disprove it I will be grateful)
OpenGL is very loosely standardized API, and, though I like OpenGL's interface much more than D3D's, it seems that I must switch to D3D. In D3D, everything is standardized, and if my code works on some card, it will work on any card with same hardware capabilities, no matter who's the vendor. In OpenGL, anyone who designs a new card, can think up a whole bunch of extensions (GL_VASYA_PUPKINS_COOL_FEATURE), do I need them? In real programs? nVidia dominated the market for some years, yes, but now it is not so obvious, and I can't assume that most of my end-users run nVidia hardware.
<<<<

I don't think OpenGL is loosely standardized. Standard OpenGL is well founded, while D3D was evolving piece by piece. Extensions give vendors the power to offer something special.

Anyway, what's the point of talking about this. It sounds like you know your tools, and you know what your goals are.

This post belongs in the suggestions forum. Just go and say, "OpenGL sucks because it doesn't have a standardized pixel + vertex shader".

V-man

[mech]

OpenGL does not suck Just guys from ARB are a bit slow

[Nutty]

Gamecube has opengl? Thats a new one on me. I think whoever told you that is getting confused with the main API, that is based on GL. It's practically the same but with the gl prefix changed. Also it's got alot more stricter things, due to the hardware.

But it isn't really opengl. Just looks like it.

[V-man]

Apparently, Nintendo chose opengl instead of using its own proprietary API to ensure 3rd party games releases quicker. Remember how N64 didn't have many games and wasn't a great seller?

Some job offers I see ask for opengl + gamecube, so it must be true that they are using gl.

PS2 has its own thing still, I think. The XBox is on the wrong side of the street

V-man