Part of the Khronos Group
OpenGL.org

The Industry's Foundation for High Performance Graphics

from games to virtual reality, mobile phones to supercomputers

Page 9 of 17 FirstFirst ... 7891011 ... LastLast
Results 81 to 90 of 166

Thread: Official feedback on OpenGL 3.1 thread

  1. #81
    Intern Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    90

    Re: Official feedback on OpenGL 3.1 thread

    The interest in OpenGL is declining, the community has lost faith in the Khronos group regarding OpenGL. Just check the size of this thread vs the size of the OpenGL 3.0 release.

    Just to put thing in perspective check the following link:
    http://web.archive.org/web/199707071...ww.opengl.org/
    It says "Fast Gaming Graphics"!!! - just hope the Khronos will understand this, gaming is the driving force.

    My two cents.
    Ido

  2. #82
    Advanced Member Frequent Contributor
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Posts
    566

    Re: Official feedback on OpenGL 3.1 thread

    Well no doubt OpenGL out performs Direct3D at some areas. We just don't want a bare minimum API with no good support. At least 2.1 has all these nice CAD features that we all loved. and don't tell me the way hardware works changed and these nice features are no longer exist in the new hardware arena. If this is the case then it's another API that imposed and forcing these changes in the HW. And if this is true, then there's no hope.

  3. #83
    Member Regular Contributor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    352

    Re: Official feedback on OpenGL 3.1 thread

    GlFreak, what are you talking about? Of course the hardware has changed. The API *needs* to change to reflect that, otherwise it's useless.

    Do you remember Quake 2? Its OpenGL renderer pushed single triangles in immediate mode. This is simply no longer possible.

    OpenGL is not playing solely for the CAD market, either (where, interestingly, D3D is making good inroads). It's main strengths are a) cross-platform support and b) extensions for large-scale rendering: VR, CAVE systems, scientific visualizations, this kind of things. And, frankly, those are the only advantages it has over D3D. Do you seriously think anyone would use OpenGL, if D3D could do quad-stereo (and swap groups) and was avalaible on Unix?

    Maybe I'm overreacting, but I think the trend is evident on these boards and elsewhere. Drivers are the weakest spot: the API is so bloated and the interactions between extensions so complex that it is next to impossible to write a solid driver (it's 2009 and we *still* don't have stable FBOs - just try to blit a 24/32 bit depth buffer). What sane game developer would use an API with problems like that? (1. Blizzard and 2. ID. Hmm...)

    OpenGL 3.0 was the first step in the correct path, 3.1 added much needed functionality, there are promising features avalaible as extensions (DSA) and OpenCL interop is going to be great. We are still missing (the oft-requested) shader blobs, a reliable way to issue commands from secondary threads (e.g. compile a shader without blocking the main thread) and a way to optimize state changes (something like lightweight display lists). And we are sorely lacking in driver stability.

    Ok, end of rant. There's progress now and I would dearly love to see OpenGL make a comeback.
    [The Open Toolkit library: C# OpenGL 4.4, OpenGL ES 3.1, OpenAL 1.1 for Mono/.Net]

  4. #84
    Advanced Member Frequent Contributor
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Posts
    566

    Re: Official feedback on OpenGL 3.1 thread

    I said that before and I will keep say it again in hope of a change, though currently all my work is being ported to D3D for the stability and contemporary feature access.

    OpenGL should be more than just a specification. 80% of its implementation should be taken care by the responsible group for its sepc, doing the deprecated features on top of accelerated core, and in software, provide full support fallback and implement the core on top of the IHV minimal drivers that exposes required functionality for the core.

    No IHV is willing to spend their lives implementing full robust API, while they can expose their HW through drivers that an API operates on.

    This is the way D3D works.

    Even if u bring the spec to version 10, the problem will remain in the drivers, and stability on both sides, the performance and specification.

  5. #85
    Intern Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    90

    Re: Official feedback on OpenGL 3.1 thread

    I love OpenGL, I started working with DirectX (5-7) and quickly moved to OpenGL because I love Open Standard, loved the ARB discussion that were posted on the site, love the API.
    I know "love" is a strong word for a tool that you use for work, but I truly love it. I just want it to work.

    OpenGL 3.1 is better then 2.1/3 but still If we move to a "new" API, I want the old one dead and not influencing me.
    Some deprecated stuff in OpenGL should not be removed: thick lines and display list to name a few, but we must move to a cleaner API.

    A utility kit like the DXUtil that support math, basic shaders, meshes etc, is also very needed, especially for beginners and to those who want to migrate to OpenGL 3.1 with ease (Maybe the nvMath could be extended and standardized?)

    I truly hope OpenGL can have a comeback.
    Ido

  6. #86
    Intern Newbie
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Russia, Moscow
    Posts
    40

    Re: Official feedback on OpenGL 3.1 thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Ido Ilan
    I love OpenGL, I started working with DirectX (5-7) and quickly moved to OpenGL because I love Open Standard, loved the ARB discussion that were posted on the site, love the API.

    I know "love" is a strong word for a tool that you use for work, but I truly love it. I just want it to work.
    Thank you, very much I agree with you. DX5-7 was terrible, no order, no way, only crazy zigzag


    For one who admit DX10\11 - Do you remember 2000 year ? There 5-6 vendors were on the PC market! Bugs, bugs, bugs...

    Microsoft made so stable product (DX9, DX10 )cause one reason - there are ONLY TWO VENDORS on PC market. If will be 3-5 vendors , I think it will not be to easy to reach agreement

  7. #87
    Intern Newbie
    Join Date
    Feb 2000
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    42

    Re: Official feedback on OpenGL 3.1 thread

    IMO it seems pretty fair to say most of the issues people face are indicative of the overriding issue in commercial software development per-se.

    Meaning the fact that more often than not commercial software is released, (often costing > 1000 per license in the case of many 3D animation packages) but is generally far from stable. GL is no different from this.

    Just about every artist and animator that I know all have their own mystic methods to circumvent crashes and bugs within the software they use, as do many graphics programmers working with drivers on various cards. How the software industry carries on like this I have no idea, however that's another issue entirely...

    MS are also well known for releasing 'Flagship Operating Systems' with similar issues, however with DX there is generally very strong support from all IHVs, and their API has without doubt become very competitive over the last few years.

    DX support is a pretty unique situation in graphics software, and is a bit of a shining light in that respect. That's perhaps one reason why everyone wants these qualities in GL. However what it comes down to is the bottom line - cash. Until there is a really good reason for all IHVs to pump more money into their GL development, to the point where they have parity with DX in terms of features and stability, it will likely conform to the same cycle of dropping behind, then gaining a slight lead in features but loss of parity, dropping behind, etc.

    MS have an extremely strong position in this respect, and IHVs have to conform to the new spec. (in the most part) when it's released. There simply doesn't seem to be the same amount of urgency with OpenGL. I am generally impressed with Nvidia's support, however the same can't be said for the others.

    For me as I write cross platform, there simply is no choice at the moment. If the future (re)turns to hardware accelerated software rasterizers as Intel are pushing all this may change, however for the moment, and it looks like the medium term future at least, there will likely be niggles with GL for many people working on the bleeding edge.

    Having said all that I am still happy with the new release, whether it will inspire more games developers to get on board, which would help instigate IHVs to compete with said features and stability remains to be seen. However, there is more hope now.


  8. #88
    Junior Member Newbie
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    2

    Re: Official feedback on OpenGL 3.1 thread

    Hello, this is my first post here in these forums.

    I think the main reason for OpenGL's decline is the main vendros' decision to apply market control through the api. How can you expect people to trust Khronos when the main hardware vendors behave like this towards their customers?

    There are vast differences between pro and consumer boards in terms of performance and behaviour. How can you expect developers to trust an api that behaves differently based on the amount of money you _pay_, and _not_ based on the _chips_ you use?

    Please, be honest and play nice (this goes to the main hardware vendors). Don't release two OpenGL drivers anymore. If you want to sell workstation products, do it with providing better support and hardware and not with destroying an api. This will allow faster and more valid feedback with the driver teams and restore people's trust in OpenGL and Khronos.

    Small companies that don't have the resources for maintaining QA departments for testing drivers will not use OpenGL anymore. Even some major CAD developers are moving away from OpenGL exactly with this argument. OpenGL now exists only for linux/mac. Especially in the context of the global economic crisis, where companies are firing people and cutting expenses, cross-platform developing is a luxury now and not a choice. If you compare the performance of libraries that use both OpenGL and D3D on the most widely used boards (and these boards are consumer boards and _not_ worksation ones) you will see that Direct3D is performing better that OpenGL (see irrlicht and hoops3d).

    I used OpenGL for 5 years now, and i'm fed up with the state OpenGL has got itself into. I don't want to cope with bugs anymore and I want an api that is predicatable in terms of performance on any supported hardware. I'm learning D3D10 now. This is not whinning nor trolling, this is just how the situation is and it is not going to change if there is not honesty between all the involved parties.

  9. #89
    Junior Member Regular Contributor Heiko's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    the Netherlands
    Posts
    170

    Re: Official feedback on OpenGL 3.1 thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Ido Ilan
    The interest in OpenGL is declining, the community has lost faith in the Khronos group regarding OpenGL. Just check the size of this thread vs the size of the OpenGL 3.0 release.
    The main reason this thread is much smaller is that people who are visiting this forum are (for the largest part) not as outraged by the new specification as they were when OpenGL 3.0 arrived. People tend to complain massively on the internet when they don't like something (like getting an API that didn't look like anything they were promised after a year of silence). But when something good happens, or something on which people don't have a strong opinion, they are mostly silent.

    Like now: OpenGL 3.1 has arrived, for most of us a surprise because we weren't expecting it this soon. So thats the first positive point. Second, the changes were not very big compared with OpenGL 3.0, so little to complain about. Some nice new features were put in the API, so another positive point. By putting all deprecated stuff in an extension, Khronos has shown they are moving away from the old stuff. Most people will like that, only some of them think putting it in an extension is not the way to go and some others don't like removing the old features. But these people are a minority I think. So, only a few people don't like this move, others are positive about it and some others don't care that much. Again, nothing to rant on on a forum.

    Basically: OpenGL 3.0 had a lot of bad in it according to many people and it wasn't what they expected. So lots of things to rant about. OpenGL 3.1 has some nice new features, it is in line with what most people expected, little to rant on, a much smaller thread on the forum.

    That is how the internet works...
    Nothing to do with less interest in OpenGL.

    My personal opinion is that OpenGL is moving in the right direction. The deprecation model makes the way free for a clean api. A clean api makes the way free for an rewritten api (the one that was promised). But even if that rewritten api wouldn't come, I am happy with the clean api we have now (there is still room for some nice features though, all mentioned already in this topic).

  10. #90
    Intern Newbie
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Russia, Moscow
    Posts
    40

    Re: Official feedback on OpenGL 3.1 thread

    Quote Originally Posted by delighter
    I want an api that is predicatable in terms of performance on any supported hardware. I'm learning D3D10 now.
    There is true in your words
    But, explain me <Why NVIDIA dont support DX10.1 ?>
    Do you belive what will not be DX11.1, DX11.2 and ect ?
    Do you belive what Microsoft dont ask for new OS for new DX versions ?
    Do you belive what will not be problem with notebooks with D10\D11 ?

    I dont.






Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •