It's not about D3D10 features, it's about a new and clean API.
And as previously mentioned, based on the teasers we've had the GL3.0 API is functionally very close to D3D10.
It's not about D3D10 features, it's about a new and clean API.
And as previously mentioned, based on the teasers we've had the GL3.0 API is functionally very close to D3D10.
I would argue that it's both. While GL3 doesn't require D3D10 hardware it will most likely move some extension related to that hardware into the core feature set. At least, that has been what has occurred in the past with each new release of GL. That would mean that ATI couldn't continue to hold out on D3D10 features in their GL driver... or at least they would have an easier time implementing it.Originally Posted by bobvodka
A clean API would be nice/preferable. An API whose implementation included D3D10 features consistently across hardware (I'm looking at you ATI!) would be even more preferable.
I'm losing faith in those teasers. To say GL3 is functionally anything is laughable until it does, indeed, function.And as previously mentioned, based on the teasers we've had the GL3.0 API is functionally very close to D3D10.
D3D10 level features were slated for inclusions in a later update, Mt. Evans and I hope it still works that way; although I would also hope given the delay that Longs Peak Reloaded is simply folded into the GL3.0 spec as a delay for the minor upgrades it would bring would be daft and cause further divides.
The reason for the clear D3D9/D3D10 feature split is simple; while I might be happy to forgo D3D9 class hardware support for many people this isn't an option, yet a clean API would benifit them as well.
So, to have GL3.0 target D3D9 class hardware and have GL3.1 target D3D10 features makes sense. A clean split with a common enough API that adding extra features would be a smooth transition.
Also, to clarify what I meant; by 'functionally very close' I meant that the API teasers show a method of interacting with the hardware which is very much the same as D3D10.
Indeed, it would appear that some D3D10 hardware like features are being layed over the top of D3D9 hardware to allow for easier expansion into the future (thinks like constant buffers which are shared between shaders for example, enabling you to bind a uniform block once and have it reused across shaders).
At this point, there's no reason for Mt. Evans as a separate thing.. What we should get are levels of GL.D3D10 level features were slated for inclusions in a later update, Mt. Evans and I hope it still works that way; although I would also hope given the delay that Longs Peak Reloaded is simply folded into the GL3.0 spec as a delay for the minor upgrades it would bring would be daft and cause further divides.
GL 3.0 would be Longs Peak and LP Reloaded, which only exposes GL 2.1/DX9 features (with some parts of DX10). GL 3.1 (detectable by a query, much like regular GL version numbers) would contain geometry shaders and the bulk of DX10. I would also suggest that there would be a GL 3.2 that would have everything in DX10.1 (that isn't just DX10 with bigger limits, of course).
That is, they would all be released as one specification. None of this, "You get GL 3.0 now and in 6 months [read: 2 years], you get 3.1," stuff.
...and all I got for it was this stinkin' T-shirt
Yep. If nothing else, this serves to convince whoever/whatever's causing this that many OpenGL folk aren't easily bucked, and affirm to Khronos and the ARB that plenty of folks are "still" waiting and very interested in seeing real results...for now.
If they don't plan to, well, then I heartily encourage them to say so ASAP, so NVidia/ATI/Intel can pick up the cross and own the next-gen cross-platform graphics APIs. DX, by design, sure ain't it. At work we dev large (20-100 pipe) rendering systems on Linux/OpenGL, so how this issue is resolved is particularly important to us. Hopefully, that'll remain OpenGL. But if GL stalls and the vendors give us a better option, well... that's business.
I am not trying to attack you personally Bobvodka, I am just sick of all the people being negative towards the GL3.0 API, and wanting to leave. Because if everyone is leaving then lets get it over with so I can learn DX10 and be stuck with windows. The problem is I don't want to be limited to just Windows. So no hard feelings on my end.
What API? Oh yeah, right, it doesn't exist yet...I am just sick of all the people being negative towards the GL3.0 API
I think people are being negative at the birth process of GL3, Kronos/ARB in particular. Everyone was excited about what they told us GL3 would consist of. (excitement = positive)
People moan about leaving GL for DX not because GL3 will suck but because IT'S NOT HERE YET.
I know, but then my joke wouldn't have worked.Also, to clarify what I meant; by 'functionally very close' I meant that the API teasers show a method of interacting with the hardware which is very much the same as D3D10.
I agree with this. Putting out simply a pre-D3D10-hardware-compatible API makes GL once again seem dated. If they are going to do it, do it now and get it over with. Maybe this is what is causing the delay?At this point, there's no reason for Mt. Evans as a separate thing.. What we should get are levels of GL.
I wonder if peoples who "prepare" OpenGL3 read those threats.
Still not understand the silence.
If I hear "The squeaky wheel gets the grease" one more time...
It's been used in every moan about every bit of delayed GL functionality since the birth of christ.....
Posting Permissions
