They are implementing them but I think the idea is you can write your own as well. Otherwise there would be absolutely no point.
They are implementing them but I think the idea is you can write your own as well. Otherwise there would be absolutely no point.
You seem to be misunderstanding that Khronos/ARB does not make implementations, but specifications. Putting OpenGL into seperate dlls is an implementation detail and beyond the scope of the ARB.Originally Posted by Eckos
Henri H.
Why don't you just run us over with a tank if our protestations are so unpalatable?Originally Posted by Khronos_webmaster
The ARB are looking more and more like a communist dictatorship today.
As for someone, who has been watching the progress of OpenGL for many years even thought I haven't done any serious 3D graphics programming for some time now, OpenGL 3.0 is a bit dissapointing for me too.
Like it has been said in these threads before, OpenGL is in need of complete clean-up of the API. I was looking forward for the new object system and fixing a lot of ancient legacy like the plan seemed to be in the beginning, but alas, we did not get that. A hope is that the new upcoming versions will eventually fix these problems, but OpenGL is really lagging behind Direct3D now.
Henri H.
Replies like these are childish and unnecessary. Please try to master your emotions.Originally Posted by knackered
Henri H.
I guess the crux of all of this is that Khronos has no interest in providing an API for game graphics. I mean, they had John Carmack onboard at one point, and then I rememeber he moved his research to DirectX, at what must have been the time this new (mis)direction came to be. If they were interested in games they would have done whatever they could have to keep him interested. John has always been a fan of MS alternatives, and it's not like lack of interest on his part kept him away; he would use OpenGL3 if it wasn't detrimental to his company.
So they are saying "sure, you can use OpenGL for games, if you want" but their real interests lie elsewhere. If that is what they want to do, that's fine, but what you must understand is all the real-time developers here do not mean anything to them. They have no aspirations of high-end realtime graphics, so we should not expect it.
i can remember that we were told the ARB members were meeting 5 times per week (face to face or on the phone).
so what were they talking about?
Khronos OpenGL ARB is a community of member parties with different interests. Sometimes the interests may collide. This time we see that the outcome of these colliding interests was not to radically push the API forward, unlike the original plan was. From a game developer's point of view, a pity.I guess the crux of all of this is that Khronos has no interest in providing an API for game graphics. I mean, they had John Carmack onboard at one point, and then I rememeber he moved his research to DirectX, at what must have been the time this new (mis)direction came to be. If they were interested in games they would have done whatever they could have to keep him interested. John has always been a fan of MS alternatives, and it's not like lack of interest on his part kept him away; he would use OpenGL3 if it wasn't detrimental to his company.
So they are saying "sure, you can use OpenGL for games, if you want" but their real interests lie elsewhere. If that is what they want to do, that's fine, but what you must understand is all the real-time developers here do not mean anything to them. They have no aspirations of high-end realtime graphics, so we should not expect it.
Henri H.
My understanding is that Larrabee will have a software OpenGL implementation on top of their native interface, but you could program to the native interface or use a 3rd party library that is just as 'to the metal' as the OpenGL implementation.Originally Posted by Korval
Cass Everitt -- cass@xyzw.us
even from a researchers point of view a pity... such a big pitty to lookout for the only valid alternative.