Part of the Khronos Group
OpenGL.org

The Industry's Foundation for High Performance Graphics

from games to virtual reality, mobile phones to supercomputers

Page 12 of 173 FirstFirst ... 210111213142262112 ... LastLast
Results 111 to 120 of 1724

Thread: OpenGL 3 Updates

  1. #111
    Junior Member Newbie
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    4

    Re: OpenGL 3 Updates

    Quote Originally Posted by ector
    I just find it completely ridiculous that D3D10 is approaching 2 years
    As far as I can see, it's approaching 9 months or so. DX10 wasn't really available until what, january, february?

    and there's not even a working alpha version of OpenGL 3.0
    Well, GL3.0 isn't meant to compete with DX10 as such, is it?
    That sounds more like Mt.Evans to me.
    Shouldn't 3.0 be seen more as a major clean-up effort, than a "let's focus exclusively on G80 and later cards" like DX10 does.
    DX10 isn't very successful with that either. It'll probably become so, in a few years, but now? How many DX10-exclusive games have you seen? How many are under development?

    And seeing it not learning the lessons of D3D10 (cutting old junk like alpha test, specifying a reasonable minimum level of functionality) makes it even worse.
    Isn't the lesson from DX10 that cutting *all* old junk is a terrible idea that means no one will rely on your API for the next 4 years?
    You have to strike a balance. DX10 removes support for everything before G80, which makes it unviable to use now, tomorrow, or next year. On the other hand, they have DX9 as a fallback, so overall, DX is doing just fine. But 10 in particular isn't much good at the moment.

    GL tries to strike a different balance, one that doesn't require you to use a parallel legacy API for the foreseeable future. The goal with GL3.0 is that you should be able to switch to it and use it exclusively.
    Not switch to it for the 3% of the userbase who has the hardware for it, and fall back to GL2.1 for everyone else.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lindley
    Microsoft doesn't define standards. They just write code that everyone conforms to despite its non-standard-ness.
    How so? DirectX looks like a standard too. It's defined by Microsoft, and it specifies a standard behavior that GPU's conform to. Doesn't that make it a standard?

    Looking past all the MS-bashing, DirectX does have its advantages. It's a shame that there are zealots on both sides who refuse to even consider what's going on with the "opposite" standard.
    Wouldn't it be nice if OpenGL evolved as quickly as DX? (but still made the "right" decisions of course)
    Wouldn't it be nice to have access to tools like PIX for OpenGL development? That in particular, would rock.

  2. #112
    Intern Contributor
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    50

    Re: OpenGL 3 Updates

    Just for completeness.

    The first working tech preview for Direct3D 10 was part of the December 2005 SDK. It worked with the Vista December CTP. The following SDKs were updated to be in sync with the following Vista versions. The first RTM version was December 2006.

    Before this there was a very long planning phase.

  3. #113
    Member Regular Contributor
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    252

    Re: OpenGL 3 Updates

    Quote Originally Posted by Jalf_
    How so? DirectX looks like a standard too. It's defined by Microsoft, and it specifies a standard behavior that GPU's conform to. Doesn't that make it a standard?
    That makes it an API. It's pretty much the definition of an API, actually.

    A standard is, in a historical sense, a means of ensuring that competing systems are capable of working together. OpenGL is a standard because there are lots of compatible implementations; DirectX isn't because there's really only one per version. Or if it is a "standard", it's a pointless one for that reason.

    If Microsoft wants to make their own APIs, that's fine. But they do so with little regard to how others' implementations will interact with theirs. Hence the difficulty with creating all-browsers web pages; MS "helpfully" provides new programming options not in the standard, and suddenly all the standards-compliant browsers can't display some pages. It's called embrace-and-extend, and it's a very bad thing as far as standards go.

    What's worth more? A solid de-facto standard with working implementations, or a perfect formal academic standard with no implementations?
    Leading question which assumes those are the only two options.

    De facto standards are an inevitability; the QWERTY keyboard, for instance. But as long as there's reasonably high-profile competition to a given idea, you don't have a de facto standard. You have something that may try to pass itself off as such, but that's not the same thing.

  4. #114
    Junior Member Newbie
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    4

    Re: OpenGL 3 Updates

    [quote=Lindley]
    Quote Originally Posted by Jalf_
    A standard is, in a historical sense, a means of ensuring that competing systems are capable of working together. OpenGL is a standard because there are lots of compatible implementations; DirectX isn't because there's really only one per version. Or if it is a "standard", it's a pointless one for that reason.
    I disagree with that definition.
    True, there's only one implementation of DirectX (which is its main weakness). But there are multiple implementations of the driver backend, so perhaps the difference isn't *that* big after all?
    I'd say that DirectX is a standard for Windows development. It's not an *open* standard, true, not everyone can make their own implementations of it, but it's still a standard for the more limited scope that is "3d stuff on Windows". It's an API as well, yes, but it's a de facto standard that's hard to ignore.

    Hence the difficulty with creating all-browsers web pages; MS "helpfully" provides new programming options not in the standard, and suddenly all the standards-compliant browsers can't display some pages. It's called embrace-and-extend, and it's a very bad thing as far as standards go.
    True, but I don't see the relevance here. (And in the browser case, it doesn't help that the standards themselves are so utterly crappy ) But they're not exactly doing this with OpenGL. They just try to ignore that instead.

  5. #115
    Member Regular Contributor
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    252

    Re: OpenGL 3 Updates

    Oh, that was just an example. No real relevance to this particular case.

  6. #116
    Intern Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Posts
    85

    Re: OpenGL 3 Updates

    Quote Originally Posted by Korval
    Your pseudo-code is broken in precisely this way: it is ignorant of need.

    If your code needs feature X, not getting it should mean a hard break. It should not mean, "Keep trying until you return something". It should stop, return an error, throw an exception, anything but return something valid.
    It is precisely knowledgable of need - the need to efficiently determine the most capable supported format without blindly testing a linear list of acceptable results. The algorithm clearly does NOT indicate a REQUIREMENT of feature X so the rest of your response is moot. I still have to create the format object and handle potential failures, but I would like to do it more intelligently.

  7. #117
    Intern Contributor
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    52

    Re: OpenGL 3 Updates

    Whether the array texture and FBO functions will become the part of the core of GL3.0?

  8. #118
    Member Regular Contributor
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    252

    Re: OpenGL 3 Updates

    Quote Originally Posted by tranders
    The algorithm clearly does NOT indicate a REQUIREMENT of feature X so the rest of your response is moot.
    I think you misunderstood. It's the *problem* that indicates a requirement of Feature X. Hence, you'll be dealing a fairly small number of acceptable combinations in any event, so testing all of them isn't a major efficiency concern.

    I do think there's a better way to do it, but yours isn't it.

  9. #119
    Senior Member OpenGL Pro
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Prombaatu
    Posts
    1,386

    Re: OpenGL 3 Updates

    I think Mount Evans is going to require DX10 class hardware, so there will certainly be a level feature set when that wheels around the bend.

    GL3 isn't going to address any of this... it's just a recasting of GL2, a GL2++, if you will, a GL2 on steroids :-)

  10. #120
    Senior Member OpenGL Guru
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Posts
    3,576

    Re: OpenGL 3 Updates

    Whether the array texture and FBO functions will become the part of the core of GL3.0?
    Array textures are part of Mt Evans. FBOs are part of 3.0.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •