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 64 of 173 FirstFirst ... 1454626364656674114164 ... LastLast
Results 631 to 640 of 1724

Thread: OpenGL 3 Updates

  1. #631
    Intern Contributor
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    86

    Re: OpenGL 3 Updates

    Quote Originally Posted by Khronos_webmaster
    Let's move back on topic of OpenGL 3 Updates.
    What updates? ;-)

  2. #632
    Junior Member Regular Contributor
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    121

    Re: OpenGL 3 Updates

    @ Khronos_webmaster : Where are you in Montreal? Maybe I could swing by and have some questions answered?

  3. #633
    Senior Member OpenGL Guru knackered's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,833

    Re: OpenGL 3 Updates

    Did I miss an update on GL3?
    I don't see how that's possible, I've been constantly hitting F5 since 2006.

  4. #634
    Advanced Member Frequent Contributor Mars_999's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    Sioux Falls, SD, USA
    Posts
    519

    Re: OpenGL 3 Updates

    I think part of the reason why this is taking so long for GL3.0 to come out is, with GLSL the way they call each shader type void main(void) is causing a head ache vs. void mainVS(void), void mainFS(void), void mainGS(void). They would like to make a .fx file like HLSL uses name it .glx or whatever you like. I am assuming they will have to break some legacy code to do this?

  5. #635
    Senior Member OpenGL Guru
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Posts
    3,575

    Re: OpenGL 3 Updates

    Come to the OpenGL BoF at SIGGRAPH, and you will find the answers you seek.
    Oh, I'll find the answers I seek? Somehow, I doubt that.

    Because I don't want to know what GL 3 is like anymore. I've accepted that it will be a marketplace failure. It doesn't matter how good the API is, or how easy to write drivers it will be. ATi and Intel will not support it in any significant way. They have proven that they do not care to provide any meaningful support for OpenGL (crappy drivers are not meaningful support). Without the support of 2/3rds of the video hardware out there, GL 3 will die. Apple and Linux may use the API, but only because they write drivers explicitly for it. Or because Apple can make their IHVs write decent drivers for the API.

    But as far as the Windows ecosystem is concerned, OpenGL 3.0 will be stillborn. I've come to terms with this fact (which is one reason I haven't been active on these boards recently). If you want to write stable applications that use 3D graphics on Windows, applications that can be run on multiple systems and hardware without much concern for breakage, be prepared to use Direct3D. End of story.

    What I want is an explanation. I want to know why GL 3.0 was promised in September of last year and not delivered. And I mean a detailed explanation too, not a "we wanted to make it better." I want to know how a group of reasonably intelligent people can completely and utterly fail to develop a rendering API in 12 months. I want to know why no explanation for the delay has been given more than 8 months after the initial delay. I want to know why no progress updates have been given almost a year after the previous updates.

    The OpenGL community deserves an explanation. This API has been mishandled too often too frequently for us not to get one. First, it was the original GL 2.0, which was the rewrite that we're getting now. If we'd just taken the hit back then, we wouldn't have a problem now. But no, we decided to drop that. Next, it was VBO; there was no excuse for the ARB not to provide some mechanism like this earlier (and it still has problems). Then, it was FBO; the ARB spent a year on a design that they discarded in favor of FBO, which took another year to crank out. And it still isn't widely supported. And now this rewrite, which is basically 6 years late, but 8 months in more forgiving terms.

    The OpenGL BoF needs to address these points. It's that simple. The OpenGL community deserves to know why the ARB has so mishandled and mismanaged this API.

  6. #636
    Senior Member OpenGL Guru knackered's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,833

    Re: OpenGL 3 Updates

    Quote Originally Posted by Korval
    The OpenGL community deserves to know why the ARB has so mishandled and mismanaged this API.
    ...or in other words, why they buried this API. It stinks of Microsoft dirty tactics.

  7. #637
    Member Regular Contributor
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    420

    Re: OpenGL 3 Updates

    I agree firmly with Korval, there isnt' really much more I can add to it.

    I also wanted to thank everyone for the 'lulz' regarding C#, XNA and all manner of garbage which got rattled off in the last few pages; I needed something amusing to read when I got back from my weekend away

  8. #638
    Junior Member Regular Contributor
    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Posts
    180

    Re: OpenGL 3 Updates

    Quote Originally Posted by knackered
    It stinks of Microsoft dirty tactics.
    From what I can gather, Khronos doesn't have a clear "command hierarchy" (inside the Promoter group), and as such I fear that they've managed to drop the ball all by themselves. I've seen this happen in other "flat" democratic communities.

  9. #639
    Senior Member OpenGL Guru
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Posts
    3,575

    Re: OpenGL 3 Updates

    It stinks of Microsoft dirty tactics.
    I don't see how you can play the "Microsoft did it" card on GL 3.0. By what power could Microsoft affect the ARB? They're not even on it anymore. They might have screwed up GL 2.0's rewrite (and I freely admit that 3D Labs's initial proposal needed work) and maybe VBO. But by the time that render-to-texture was under discussion, Microsoft had left the ARB.

    The only possible leverage they might have is some IP claim. But what? Glslang is sufficiently different from any of Microsoft's shading languages to make any such pressure invalid.

    From what I can gather, Khronos doesn't have a clear "command hierarchy" (inside the Promoter group), and as such I fear that they've managed to drop the ball all by themselves. I've seen this happen in other "flat" democratic communities.
    I'm not sure what the Promoter group could have to do with the GL ARB. I don't know what the Khronos hierarchy is like, so I don't understand the reference. As far as I understood it, each Khronos working group is on their own separate timetable.

    BTW, I bet you that C++0x will have a full draft specification before GL 3.0 ships. Allow me to explain in some detail how stupid that makes the ARB.

    In the time it took the OpenGL ARB (who supposedly have phonecall meetings 5 times a week) to make a graphics API, a council that meets 3 times a year will have sifted through thousands of proposals for C++ language and library extensions, pruning the weak and enhancing the strong. They will have had to merge incompatible specifications, resolve how one specification influences another, revise all of their old library components to properly use the new features, add all new library components that properly use the new features, and so forth.

    In the same time it took the GL ARB to make a graphics API. At this point, the only explanation besides, "We're all incompetent" is, "We wrote two new low level and high level shading language from scratch." And even that one's pushing things.

  10. #640
    Senior Member OpenGL Pro
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Prombaatu
    Posts
    1,386

    Re: OpenGL 3 Updates

    I think Lord_crc's point about lack of a clear leader in the decision making process may be a good one. If say Nvidia had been given the reins from the get go they'd likely have driven this thing into the end zone pretty quickly, and in a form I think most of us would be very happy with.

    There were some allusions to "contention" among Khronos members earlier in the thread that support that line of reasoning.

    P.S. I know many folks have been waiting a long time for a major revision, but in all fairness is 1 year that long to wait from the date of inception? I'm on the edge of my seat like everyone else, but let's be reasonable ... even DX revisions take a year or longer.

Posting Permissions

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