The ARB announced OpenGL 3.0 and GLSL 1.30 today

[CatDog]

The issues are that 3.0 did nothing for API bloat, did not simplify driver writing, and delivered none of it's promises.

If you judge "API bloat" by the size of the header file, you're right. But that is of no interest I think. What really matters is that you now can and should avoid deprecated features. These are only there to provide support for older software. So you've got it there, in black and white: DON'T USE THIS ANYMORE. That's what I wanted for ages.

Does this simplify driver writing? I don't know... but what I know is, that nVidia already came up with their first beta driver! This seems due to the fact, that they could take over their codebase in complete. Do you think that would have happened with Longs Peak also?

And promises... what promises? They tried to build a new fancy API and failed. Reasons known. These are technical reasons! Maybe they are much more disappointed themselves then you think.

Also, 3.0 is not strictly backwards-compatible. It requires DX10 level hardware.

Surprise!? It uses DX10 features, so it needs DX10 hardware. An application written against GL2.1 won't run on GL1.5 hardware. But I can compile my old GL1.5 application using the GL3.0 API. So where is the difference? Maybe I'm missing something?

GL3 exposes DX10 features (in particular on XP!). That's good, isn't it?

Oh yes, I am pissed by the Great Silence. But this shouldn't influence the appraisal of what we've been offered now.

CatDog

[bobvodka]

Considering what as on offer and what we got; yes it should influence the appraisal. It's like a car salesman telling you he'll exchange your 4door car for a supercar, going away for 10 months and not returning phone calls and finally turning up with your old car tuned up a bit with a polish. Sure, it's nice to have a car back and the tune up is all well and good but where is the sports car?

As for NV releasing drivers, there is a good reason why; 99.9% of what is 'new' in OpenGL3.0 they had in extensions for ages now. So they didn't have to do much of anything.

AMD/ATI on the other hand have had poor GL support and have NOT had those function in their code base for eons; afaik they don't have GL3.0 drivers, even in beta, yet. Why am I not shocked?

[Korval]

And promises... what promises? They tried to build a new fancy API and failed.

Yes, and in failing to do what they promised, in every newsletter published thus far, they broke their promises.

At no time did the ARB ever suggest that LP was only a "possibility." They led the community to believe that it was a "come hell or high-water" certainty. Even if it didn't assume the form that LP was shown to be, the ARB never once suggested that they were simply dump the idea of a new API and go back to square 1.

GL3 exposes DX10 features (in particular on XP!). That's good, isn't it?

No, it is not. OpenGL has had that for years through extensions. That an extension is promoted to core is functionally meaningless; the functionality was already provided.

Even without GL 3.0, ATi would have provided implementations for those functions. And that is because they wouldn't want to hear millions of Starcraft II players asking why their newly purchased game pops up with a message saying that, "Sorry, your graphics card doesn't support this game."

afaik they don't have GL3.0 drivers, even in beta, yet. Why am I not shocked?

Starcraft II isn't out yet. They'll have GL 3.0 drivers for its release. And that's the only reason for them having GL 3.0 drivers of any kind.

[Gauss]

In my opinion OpenGl 3.0 is by far not the big failure as many people here seem to believe.

A lot of functionaliy that up to now was only available by NVIDIAs G80 extensions are finally part of the core. It seems to me that many people here oversee the large advantage this has.
This means that all this functionality will show up definitely in AMDs drivers soon and also in Intels upcoming hardware that is able to support them. Because of marketing reasons alone they will have no choice but to support this functionality in OpenGL in order to be able to put this "Supports OpenGl 3.0" phrase on their box.
If extensions are only available by one vendor this is nice for prototyping purposes or for hobby programmer but only if these extensions are supported by at least AMD and NVIDIA they become valuable for a product.

A lot of functionality is depreciated and they have specified a way to create a context where i will be not able to use this depreciated stuff. If i really want to one can ignore all those depreciated functionality and can work with an API that is pretty lean and mean.

I would have also preferred if they had come up with an OpenGL 3.0 that had satisfied all the promises they made, but if i had to choose between what we have received now and a version that satisfies all promises but is available only in 3 years in the future i definitely think the ARB made the right decision.

However, there is one point where i believe the ARB made a big mistake. I think there should be - beside the full OpenGL 3.0 spec - also a forward looking OpenGL 3.0 spec around without all that depreciated stuff (a spec that does not contain that depreciated stuff not just a spec what the depreciated functionality is written in another color). If the ARB had presented such a spec i am pretty sure that many people here would be more happy with what the ARB has presented.

[CatDog]

As for NV releasing drivers, there is a good reason why; 99.9% of what is 'new' in OpenGL3.0 they had in extensions for ages now. So they didn't have to do much of anything.

Of course, that's what I said. But what is so bad about it? Sounds like you blame them for being clever and doing their homework.

No, it is not. OpenGL has had that for years through extensions. That an extension is promoted to core is functionally meaningless; the functionality was already provided.

What kind of logic is that? Everything an API is about is to define *the way* functionality is provided. Therefore promoting extensions to core is one of the most important actions, since only then this functionality becomes part of the specification.

Now there is also an elegant method for removing deprecated functionality. I hope they make use of it.

Starcraft II isn't out yet. They'll have GL 3.0 drivers for its release. And that's the only reason for them having GL 3.0 drivers of any kind.

Maybe you're right. But do you really think ATIs attitude towards OpenGL would be more constructive, if they had to implement a new API *from scratch*, namely Longs Peak?

*edit*

not just a spec what the depreciated functionality is written in another color

I only saw the one that emphasized the *new* stuff! There's a document with the *deprecated* stuff in another color? Where?

CatDog

[pudman]

What really matters is that you now can and should avoid deprecated features. These are only there to provide support for older software. So you've got it there, in black and white: DON'T USE THIS ANYMORE. That's what I wanted for ages.

I think a new API that didn't include those features would have given you exactly the same thing with the added benefit of not even including those features you shouldn't use.

I personally have been avoiding most of those deprecated features anyway. I didn't need it explicitly spelled out by the ARB to know that the FFP is going to go away someday.

I like bobvodka's car analogy. I think many of us could come up with some fun ones:

It's like the plumbing in my house. It's been there since the house was built and the only toilets I can install are MegaForce Flushers because they are the only company that makes pipe adapters for my old plumbing system. I would really love get rid of all that old piping (it's rusty, leaky, takes up a lot of space, etc) and be able to install those CrossFlusher X2 toilets I've been reading all about. Luckily for a while now my plumber has been telling me all about his plan for redoing my piping. It's awesome! All copper, no more adapter issues, and I don't even have to upgrade my city water connector!

Guess what my plumber did a few weeks ago? He came and installed more of the crap piping in my house, bypassing some of the old stuff. The advantage is that I no longer need MegaFlusher adapters. Oh, and there's a bunch of piping that's no longer going to leak anymore (because it's not used). My plumber said he'll remove that old pipe someday.

Still can't use CrossFlusher X2's because they haven't come out with their model that connects to this new system (at least they won't need an adapter).

But hey, at least I can still take a dump.

[pudman]

What kind of logic is that? Everything an API is about is to define *the way* functionality is provided.

I believe you made the point of: One can use DX10 features in XP! To which Korval replied: Um, you already could do that.

Until AMD puts out a 3.0 driver the situation remains the same on XP. 3.0 hasn't changed that. Also, AMD *could* have released extensions to have done the same thing. 2.1 definitely didn't prevent that.

Everyone who "oohs" and "aahs" over the "new" features in 3.0 comes across as ignorant of what 2.1 (with extensions) provided. Sure, it's now "core", but from a coder's perspective that actually makes very little difference.

But do you really think ATIs attitude towards OpenGL would be more constructive, if they had to implement a new API *from scratch*, namely Longs Peak?

I think the general perception on these forums is that AMD is probably having to write a GL driver from scratch anyway. At least, if it was relatively easy to incorporate the 3.0 changes into their driver then why did they never release DX10 feature extensions?

[Korval]

Of course, that's what I said. But what is so bad about it? Sounds like you blame them for being clever and doing their homework.

He's undercutting your argument that nVidia having a beta GL 3.0 is meaningful in some way. Because nVidia's 2.1 implementation was 95% of 3.0 already, the presence of beta GL 3.0 drivers is not meaningful in terms of how GL 3.0 will impact the world.

In short, if you were using an nVidia implementation, you already could do everything that GL 3.0 allows. So you didn't get any improvement except for the meaningless "promotion to core."

Therefore promoting extensions to core is one of the most important actions, since only then this functionality becomes part of the specification.

The purpose of extensions is to extend the functionality of an implementation. If an extension is widely supported, then it is de-facto core, even if it isn't core. The S3TC extension isn't core, but everybody supports it and everyone pretty much assumes that it is available.

In short, if ATi had supported the extensions promoted to GL 3.0 core, then 3.0 would have been almost entirely without purpose. And until they actually support 3.0, the release of the spec is entirely without meaning.

But do you really think ATIs attitude towards OpenGL would be more constructive, if they had to implement a new API *from scratch*, namely Longs Peak?

Well, it wouldn't have been less constructive. And it would have been more constructive for anyone wanting to write a good GL implementation (hello, Intel). Remember that? One of the purposes behind LP was to make the job of IHVs easier. GL 3.0 does nothing towards that goal.

[Leadwerks]

You guys that are complaining a lot (like myself), just take an afternoon and play with the DX10 SDK examples. They're pretty good, and it does feel good to be a part of the "mainstream" or whatever you want to call it.

[CatDog]

One of the purposes behind LP was to make the job of IHVs easier.

Obviously, GL3 made the job for at least one IHV easy. Maybe it is in fact nVidias new own graphics API. The one knackered is watching out for.

*edit*

Until AMD puts out a 3.0 driver the situation remains the same on XP. 3.0 hasn't changed that. Also, AMD *could* have released extensions to have done the same thing. 2.1 definitely didn't prevent that.

Until now they could. Now they *must*. That's exactly one of the things GL3 has changed.

Peace, CatDog