PDA

View Full Version : opengl2.0 curiosities -- thread not for the short tempered --



michagl
01-19-2005, 03:08 AM
i'm sure this query is totally inapropriate and will probably land me a lot of flac.

but devil may care, i would just like some straight answers.

i've been out of the loop for a little while... old opengl1.x has been fine for me. i recall back in the days people would talk about 2.0 like it was the "end of days"... many would blow trumpets, as many others would squall it would never come... just a legend.

but here we are, and it looks like 2.0 has arrived. i'm curious of its status... is it dependable, is is just the same as 1.x or have worthy extensions been adopted into the official cannon... i plan to read the specifications asap. but i would just like to know if i should drop everything and jump on it, or if there is reason to be weary, and if not what do i need to get started with c++? headers at the least i presume.

please spare my dependance your fruit, slings, and arrows.

sincerely,

michael

harsman
01-19-2005, 03:42 AM
I don't know of any publically available implementations as of yet, although it is possible that 3dLabs drivers support 2.0, I haven't got any of their hw so I'm not up to date on them. ATI and Nvidia are still at 1.5 although they support essentially all of the 2.0 functionality. So I'd say stick with 1.5 for a while longer.

Daniel Wesslen
01-19-2005, 04:21 AM
Sure, we have a GL version with the 2.0 label, but this is not the 2.0 that was talked about. Nothing has been removed, there is no "core GL" in terms of which the rest is implemented. We don't have überbuffers.

It's still the old GL we all know and love, not the new and exciting GL we were hoping for.

Don't get me wrong; I like OpenGL the way it is but a few cleanups would have been nice. Given what we were led to expect (or rolled our eyes at, depending on level of cynicism,) calling the current incarnation "2.0" feels like an insult. This is OpenGL 1.6. It's still great and it's an improvement over 1.5, but come on... we don't even have real render-to-vertex-array yet.

ffish
01-19-2005, 05:04 PM
It's basically Direct3D 9.0c. *shrug* I like it, but it won't change anything on Windows - whether the implementation supports OpenGL 2.0 or 1.1 with extensions is irrelevant really. Just a bit easier to query for 2.0 support with GLEW than querying all the individual extensions.

What do you need? A graphics card that supports it (NV4x does). Drivers that support it (forthcoming). Something like GLEW is helpful (no doubt GLEW supporting 2.0 will follow shortly after the driver implementations appear).

Obli
01-21-2005, 02:59 AM
Originally posted by Daniel Wesslen:
calling the current incarnation "2.0" feels like an insult. This is OpenGL 1.6. It's still great and it's an improvement over 1.5, but come on... we don't even have real render-to-vertex-array yet.I agree with that.

knackered
01-21-2005, 03:09 AM
Originally posted by ffish:
Just a bit easier to query for 2.0 support with GLEW than querying all the individual extensionsErr, you do know about glGetString(GL_VERSION) don't you?