I think it needs to be all simpler,
When I started with Opengl it was straitforward, simple. Now I get lost in all the extensions, and some extensions don’t work with others and stuff. I supose make a function for making user defined vertex attributes and stuff, and maybe a layer for multitextureing, such as designer doesn’t have to choose singlepass/multipass for multitexture depending on platform hardware, opengl should be configerable to do that for you.
use your judgement, make it the best. 
such as designer doesn’t have to choose singlepass/multipass for multitexture depending on platform hardware
In that case, make multitexturing your minimum requirement and assume the relevant extensions are there. Give the user a polite error message if that’s not the case.
Multitexturing has been part of the OpenGL core specs since version 1.2.1.
supose make a function for making user defined vertex attributes
You mean like ARB_vertex_program? User-defined vertex attributes aren’t really useful outside of shader land.
I thing a better implementation of GL Occulsion query and implementation of sse2 and 3dnow or whatever is there even on a celeron should be implemented. I am very alien to the coding vconcepts but am an avid user of the tools for benchmarking.
Originally posted by al_bob:
In that case, make multitexturing your minimum requirement and assume the relevant extensions are there. Give the user a polite error message if that’s not the case.
Multitexturing has been part of the OpenGL core specs since version 1.2.1.
In OpenGL 2.0 there should not be any major syntax differenced between single and multi texturing as it is today, if there is, well, i guess i’ll have to wait for OpenGL 3.0.
I hope they will write in the functionality for most extentions direcly on the OGL2 syntax.
[This message has been edited by lc_overlord (edited 01-12-2004).]
In OpenGL 2.0 there should not be any major syntax differenced between single and multi texturing as it is today
Is the difference that annoying to you? There’s just another parameter added to indicate which texture coordinate you are refering to.
Originally posted by al_bob:
Is the difference that annoying to you? There’s just another parameter added to indicate which texture coordinate you are refering to.[/b]
Not really, it’s ok as it is but it could be made simpler.
glActiveTextureARB(GL_TEXTURE0_ARB);
it’s pretty long.
why not just glEnable(GL_TEXTURE0); or something simmilar.
glMultiTexCoord2fARB(GL_TEXTURE0_ARB,u,v);
Same thing here, why have a separate function for multi and single tex coord’s?
try this instead glTexCoord2f(GL_TEXTURE0,u,v).
[This message has been edited by lc_overlord (edited 01-13-2004).]
Considering that multitexture is code, you should just have to write:
glActiveTexture(GL_TEXTURE0);
and
glMultiTexCoord2f(GL_TEXTURE0, s, t);
why not just glEnable(GL_TEXTURE0); or something simmilar.
Because that has an entirely different meaning. If you wanted to do that, you’ll need to augment all texture object handling functions to have an extra parameter for the texture unit.
Same thing here, why have a separate function for multi and single tex coord’s?
Because function overloading is rather difficult in C, and especially so when you need to cross DLL boundaries and support more than one language at the same time.
So what’s the problem it’s openGL2.0 not annother 1.x, it doesn’t have to be backwards compatible, but if you absolutley need that then just add a m after the i,iv,f,fv,d,dv ending.
I am not saying that you have to do it the way i suggest, just that it could be done in a simmilar way, and if you’r blaming function overloading and those thing’s, well, shame on you.
OpenGL2.0 should not just be another set of extentions.