The ARB announced OpenGL 3.0 and GLSL 1.30 today

[Mars_999]

Can someone explain to me a few items here,

1. How do I get into this driver mode? Do you need to call a new version of wglCreateContext()? And for me I use SDL so I am going to assume that SDL will need to be updated to allow this?

3/ A 3.0_Forward_Compatible Context which is the "Real" version 3.0 with the legacy stuff removed.

2. What are you all talking about when glMatrixMode() and what about using glTranslatef() glRotatef() ect... do we need to keep track of matrices ourselves now? Like DX?

[LogicalError]

I haven't had time to read it all yet, but it seems that what was delivered as OpenGL 3.0 now, would have been nice had it been released as OpenGL 2.0.

Considering that OpenGL 2.0 was actually more like OpenGL 1.7, shouldn't OpenGL 3.0 be more something like OpenGL 1.8?

[dor00]

I am losing time watching that opengl3 topics.
I will stop here.
RIP OpenGL, thanks Khronos/ARB who made it possible.

[Timothy Farrar]

Can someone explain to me a few items here,

2. What are you all talking about when glMatrixMode() and what about using glTranslatef() glRotatef() ect... do we need to keep track of matrices ourselves now? Like DX?

Looks like most (if not all) fixed function vertex stuff is going away in the future including glMatrixMode(), etc. Best to read the spec, on page 404 (section E.1. PROFILES AND DEPRECIATED FEATURES OF OPENGL 3.0). So if you want to do matrix math you do it application side outside GL. Then either pass the matrix in as a uniform, fetch it via vertex texture fetch, or have it sent to you via vertex buffer (ie if you had one matrix per vertex).

As for profiles, I think you may find this useful,
http://www.opengl.org/registry/specs...te_context.txt

HGLRC wglCreateContextAttribsARB(HDC hDC, HGLRC hshareContext, const int *attribList);

"If the WGL_CONTEXT_FORWARD_COMPATIBLE_BIT_ARB is set in WGL_CONTEXT_FLAGS_ARB, then a <forward-compatible> context will be created. Forward-compatible contexts are defined only for OpenGL versions 3.0 and later."

[linenoise]

I would like to preface this post with "I know nothing."

It seems like the ARB is not doing a good job. How difficult would it be to fork like the xorg folks did when the oversight organization lost it's mind?

[Korval]

How difficult would it be to fork like the xorg folks did when the oversight organization lost it's mind?

Um, very?

ATi, nVidia, and Intel are holding all the cards here. You can't just end-run around them like with Cairo.

They're the ones with the in-depth knowledge of how to write graphics drivers. They're the ones with the ability to provide certified drivers, which are the only kinds of drivers that Vista64 will accept (for good reason, mind you). Likely, Windows7 will not accept uncertified drivers of any kind, again for good reason.

We're beholden to these three companies for their interface to their hardware. Yes, even for Larrabee; I doubt a few hobbyists are going to come close to Intel's drivers in performance.

So no, we can't do an end-run around them.

[PkK]

OpenGL 3.0?
You mean 2.2, that's more like it.

OpenGL 2.2?
You mean 1.8. We've been through "major version" once allready.

Well, GL 2.0 delivered some major improvements, most important shaders. IMO using the number 2.0 was okay. However 3.0 isn't. It doesn't even give geometry shaders. 2.2 would have been the right number for this. A long time ago would have been the right release date.

Philipp

[CrazyButcher]

I wonder why everyone is so obsessed with geometry shaders, if it was stated multiple times that the hardware just isn't good enough yet, also think of the game consoles being fixed at pseudo sm3 level for a few years to come, and that will be the main relevance for games.
I'd rather see gl3.0 possible on sm3 hardware for that reason, than cutting to the smaller market of sm4+ only. However I have no idea whether texturearrays and all that would be possible on sm3.

[Korval]

I wonder why everyone is so obsessed with geometry shaders, if it was stated multiple times that the hardware just isn't good enough yet

Personally, I don't care. Transform feedback was the part of geometry shaders that I ever cared about. It's the lack of uniform buffers (which is something that implementations could lie about and "implement" in non-conformant hardware) that honks me off.

However I have no idea whether texturearrays and all that would be possible on sm3.

They aren't. The ARB picked the most meaningless D3D 10 features (seriously, I have no idea why anyone cares about integer textures) to give to GL "3.0", while missing the most important (uniform buffers).

[MZ]

I have just dusted off old document, titled "SIGGRAPH 2007 bof".

Page 9:

OpenGL 3 is a reality
- You all will get a t-shirt during the party!
* OpenGL 3 is a great increase in efficiency of an already great API
* OpenGL 3 provides a solid, consistent, well thought out basis for the future
* OpenGL 3 is a true industry effort with broad support
* The spec is almost ready
- Michael Gold and Jon Leech are the spec editors
* The ARB will finalize open issues end of August

I think this deserves a minute of silence.

.

.

.

.


Ok. How about splitting GL to OpenCADL and OpenIBHL?

(IBH = Id+Blizzard+Hobbyst)