There's a difference between "need" and "support".IMO SC2 will not need GL3.0
"Support" is like how Crysis supports DX10. It has a DX9 renderer too, but that doesn't stop it from having a DX10 renderer as an alternative.
"Need" is something different. "Need" is, "you can't run this without R300/NV30-class hardware." That's the baseline minimum these days.
Not so. Like most developers, id and Blizzard want the largest possible market and therefore need to support at least the previous generation hardware; therefore 3.0 will not be *required*. But I would wager they will take advantage of new functionality where they can, whether for performance or eye candy.Originally Posted by bobvodka
Rob Barris has invested considerable time and energy in GL3. There is no question in my mind but he'll use it.
And from the IHV perspective, nobody wants to be left behind. The drivers will come.
if you build it they will come.
except intel.
True, I *want* to own a Ferrari like my neighbor so people will love me as much as him. But it comes down to cost/benefit. If I spent all my money on one would the benefit be worth it?And from the IHV perspective, nobody wants to be left behind.
Intel: Not a major player in DX10 level graphics hardware, nor providing visualization solutions. They've been left behind in that field for a while now. Is it worth it to put effort into a 3.0 driver for all that previous and current generation hardware? Doubtful.
Larrabee, who knows. If they're writing the driver from scratch they might as well do a 3.0 one.
not until they can write one with all the depreciated features removed and STILL call it an OpenGL compliant card.
Until then we might as well expect walt disney to write a full 3.0 implementation (and he's dead, by the way).
About GPU capabilities... features not supported by GPU will be emulated? (like DX does?)
If we think well, DX is the reference of portability!!!
A power of OpenGL comes from extensions, but I see that itīs a hell too!!!
We canīt ensure that samples, tutorials,.. can run anywhere...
them's the breaks. One thing is for sure in this life: nothing is perfect. And like cigarettes, whiskey, and wild, wild women, expecting otherwise will drive you crazy... it'll drive you insane.
have you had a nervous breakdown recently, modus? Your comments are getting more and more off the wall (and funny, might I add).
I guess we've all taken this GL3 farce hard.
(my doctors tell me that, aside from a long held "delusion" that I am Brolingstanz the Omnipotent, ruler of the planet Prombaatu, I've never been better.)
I'd like to say that in my opinion the whining here is largely because people had over 1 year to wrap their minds around what was promised as Long Peaks and get their hopes up, and not so much because GL 3.0 is flawed. It was a mistake not to release any information in January when it was decided that Long Peaks wasn't going to happen anytime soon, but that's too late to fix now.
However the improvements to OpenGL are sane and sound, and I'll definitely continue using it for graphics.
Another thing that should be said is that Ati's OpenGL 2.1 drivers (Catalyst 8.x) are not as bad as their reputation is. VBO, FBO, GLSL all work fine with my 3870 card (have to admit that I haven't tried any weird GPGPU stuff, just rendering) and that it's obviously easier for Nvidia to release GL 3.0 drivers, since alot of the extensions that were promoted originate from them and have been in stable status for a while already. Without any doubt the Ati drivers will include the new extensions soon, it's just that Nvidia had a head start
Posting Permissions
