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 15 of 22 FirstFirst ... 51314151617 ... LastLast
Results 141 to 150 of 212

Thread: Official feedback on OpenGL 3.2 thread

  1. #141
    Advanced Member Frequent Contributor
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    661

    Re: Official feedback on OpenGL 3.2 thread

    I created a new thread here:
    Using GL3 with Qt

  2. #142
    Advanced Member Frequent Contributor Mars_999's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    Sioux Falls, SD, USA
    Posts
    519

    Re: Official feedback on OpenGL 3.2 thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Eric Lengyel
    Quote Originally Posted by Mars_999
    Hey Eric, are you using glGenerateMipmaps()? or GL_GENERATE_MIPMAP?
    Neither. We generate the mipmaps off-line and store them in resources.

    Here's a test app (with source) for the array texture bug:

    http://www.terathon.com/c4engine/TextureArrayTest.zip

    Under working drivers, you'll see a quad on the screen that is half red and half green. With broken drivers, you'll just see black.
    Runs fine on my Mac mini 2009 with GF9400 under WinXP...

    Any other reason other than speeding up load times why you are doing it ahead of time vs. just allowing the GPU to mipmap them?

  3. #143
    Junior Member Regular Contributor
    Join Date
    Jul 2000
    Location
    Roseville, CA
    Posts
    159

    Re: Official feedback on OpenGL 3.2 thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Mars_999
    Runs fine on my Mac mini 2009 with GF9400 under WinXP...
    In other words, Nvidia's drivers work correctly. The test app was made for ATI devrel.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mars_999
    Any other reason other than speeding up load times why you are doing it ahead of time vs. just allowing the GPU to mipmap them?
    We do things to the mipmaps other than standard box/tent filtering.

  4. #144
    Senior Member OpenGL Pro
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Prombaatu
    Posts
    1,386

    Re: Official feedback on OpenGL 3.2 thread

    Quote Originally Posted by bobvodka
    As a side note; can anyone confirm GL3.1 support from AMD/ATI in the recent Cat drivers and if so on what OS?
    I can confirm that on Vista 9.7 reports a 3.0 and 3.1 beta, and that's as far as I've gone with it.

    (also, the text input box is HORRIBLY screwed when using IE8 on Win7, so much so once I got passed "what is coming in D3D11 hardware are not the same thing, the" I had to resort to finishing my post in notepad because the text box kept jumpping up and down as I typed.)
    I gave up on using IE here long, long ago ;-)

  5. #145
    Junior Member Regular Contributor Heiko's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    the Netherlands
    Posts
    170

    Re: Official feedback on OpenGL 3.2 thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Brolingstanz
    Quote Originally Posted by bobvodka
    As a side note; can anyone confirm GL3.1 support from AMD/ATI in the recent Cat drivers and if so on what OS?
    I can confirm that on Vista 9.7 reports a 3.0 and 3.1 beta, and that's as far as I've gone with it.
    Same with Linux 9.7.
    I wrote a small OpenGL 3.0 program a while ago. Just to make a context, try some VAO's, created my own matrix stack, etc. Fully forward compatible. That runs fine on Linux Catalyst 9.6 and 9.7. Didn't try very complex things though (basically: vao, fbo with 32 bits depth texture, and RGBA_16F color texture, just rendering the depth buffer of a rotating triangle to the screen).

  6. #146
    Junior Member Newbie
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Poland
    Posts
    26

    Re: Official feedback on OpenGL 3.2 thread

    aqnuep: Don't worry, I prefer development on ATI too If shader works on ATI, I know it will work on NVidia too, sadly it doesn't work both sides (nvidia allows "saturate" in GLSL shaders which is a CG function, ati doesn't). There are many cases like these and people often react as if nvidia was better because it is less strict.
    (i'm not talking about cases like Eric Lengyel posted, obviously it's a driver bug).

    Had everyone had success with newest beta drivers (190.56)?

  7. #147
    Junior Member Regular Contributor Heiko's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    the Netherlands
    Posts
    170

    Re: Official feedback on OpenGL 3.2 thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Jacek Nowak
    aqnuep: Don't worry, I prefer development on ATI too If shader works on ATI, I know it will work on NVidia too, sadly it doesn't work both sides (nvidia allows "saturate" in GLSL shaders which is a CG function, ati doesn't). There are many cases like these and people often react as if nvidia was better because it is less strict.
    (i'm not talking about cases like Eric Lengyel posted, obviously it's a driver bug).

    Had everyone had success with newest beta drivers (190.56)?
    Overhere another Ati/OpenGL and even a Linux user . I fully agree with Jacek, if it works on Ati, it will probably work on nVidia as well.

  8. #148
    Junior Member Regular Contributor
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    121

    Re: Official feedback on OpenGL 3.2 thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Jacek Nowak
    aqnuep: Don't worry, I prefer development on ATI too If shader works on ATI, I know it will work on NVidia too, sadly it doesn't work both sides (nvidia allows "saturate" in GLSL shaders which is a CG function, ati doesn't). There are many cases like these and people often react as if nvidia was better because it is less strict.
    NVIDIA publishes a utility called "nvemulate" which lets you set, among other things, a flag to ask for the GLSL compiler to adhere strictly to the language spec. The option is called "Generate Shader Portability Errors" and it will refuse to compile shaders that don't follow the OpenGL spec.

  9. #149
    Junior Member Newbie
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Poland
    Posts
    26

    Re: Official feedback on OpenGL 3.2 thread

    Really? I will try it immediately!

    Edit: Nope, I set Generate Shader Portability Errors to "enabled", Apply. Still no errors with line:
    float diffuse = saturate(dot(L, N));

    of course ATI bugs about undefined symbol saturate

  10. #150
    Junior Member Regular Contributor
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    121

    Re: Official feedback on OpenGL 3.2 thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Jacek Nowak
    Really? I will try it immediately!

    Edit: Nope, I set Generate Shader Portability Errors to "enabled", Apply. Still no errors with line:
    float diffuse = saturate(dot(L, N));

    of course ATI bugs about undefined symbol saturate
    Hmmm... That's weird. Did you put "#version 120" (or your specific version) at the top of the shader source? I can't get a shader to compile with the saturate() function with or without the "Generate Shader Portability Errors", but I put "#version 120" as the first source line.

    Also, make sure _no_ OpenGL context is opened while you change settings in NVEmulate (same goes for NV control panel settings)

    We used the portability flag to detect errors when implicit conversions between differently sized vecs were done by the compiler. These conversions were not defined in the GLSL spec so they did not compile on ATI and this allowed us to catch them.

Posting Permissions

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