Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

OpenGL 3.0 Released, Developers Furious

ScuttleMonkey posted more than 5 years ago | from the community-management-derailed dept.

Graphics 643

ikol writes "After over a year of delays, the OpenGL ARB (part of the Khronos industry group) today released the long-awaited spec for OpenGL 3.0 as part of the SIGGRAPH 2008 proceedings. Unfortunately it turns out not to be the major rewrite that was promised to developers. The developer community is generally furious, with many game developers intending to jump ship to DX10. Is this the end of cross-platform 3d on the cutting edge?"

cancel ×

643 comments

KDE? (5, Funny)

PacketShaper (917017) | more than 5 years ago | (#24561465)

Everyone knows x.0 releases are Beta anyway.

OpenGL 3.1 will rock

/ducks

Re:KDE? (5, Funny)

Malevolyn (776946) | more than 5 years ago | (#24561591)

I'd be careful what you say if I were you. With a name like PacketShaper you won't have it easy here on Slashdot.

Re:KDE? (5, Funny)

larpon (974081) | more than 5 years ago | (#24561797)

No no no no dude...

OpenGL 3.5.9 will rock

/ducks even lower

Question (5, Insightful)

Narpak (961733) | more than 5 years ago | (#24561469)

Is this the end of cross-platform 3d on the cutting edge?"

Probably not. As long as DX remains solely in the hands of MicroSoft; there will be use for other forms of cross-platform 3D. More so as the "none-MS" OSes continue to grow in numbers.

Re:Question (4, Informative)

TheRealMindChild (743925) | more than 5 years ago | (#24561485)

Yes and No. WINE has a very nice implementation of DirectX 9 that seems to run my games very bloody well. And no, I am not using real windows binaries.

Re:Question (5, Insightful)

Narpak (961733) | more than 5 years ago | (#24561559)

Indeed. But preferably games should be possible to play without Wine. Hopefully as Linux, and other OSes, continue to get better and become more "newbie" friendly; it will become interesting for more companies to invest in Linux versions of their games.

The Chicken and the Egg (5, Informative)

westlake (615356) | more than 5 years ago | (#24561979)

Hopefully as Linux...continue to get better and become more "newbie" friendly; it will become interesting for more companies to invest in Linux versions of their games.
.

Vista is approaching 20% of the market. Top Operating System Share Trend [hitslink.com] You can't expect expect Linux ports if entry level DX9l/DX10 outperforms OGL.

Re:Question (2, Insightful)

Thyrteen (1084963) | more than 5 years ago | (#24562003)

Yeah,I've tried wine with a bunch of stuff, and I've gotta say that I'm really, really not keen on using it to run games. especially on my desktop with sli and such. Enough games have bugs in windows, let alone under an emulator. I'd hate to have to get support. Granted, I play very few games, but I'd hate to see opengl go, and I don't think it's going anywhere. It's just too used already, and very practical for lots of stuff. Besides, despite a few game programmers dropping it, what about all the open source programmers that use it for linux and/or windows tasks?

Re:Question (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24562113)

That may be, but the Linux _desktop_ crowd hasn't yet demonstrated their ability to invest in software or respect intellectual property in general. Also, lets face it - shipping **COMMERCIAL** software on linux is a huge pain with all the different packaging systems and distros. AFAIK you cannot use the dependency resolution logic of apt or yum or w/e without also divulging the source code something which is never going to happen with commercial s/w.

To add to this most game shops are already stretched thin with simultaneous PC & Console releases, I don't think they want to add linux to the mix.

That leads to a general question for the /. audience...

Supposing the OS market was fractured between windows - osx - linux - pick your os, how do you propose software vendors tackle releasing software ? Do you think its going to be even conceivable to maintain several different code bases and then bugfix and maintain them individually?

Re:Question (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24561563)

WINE's Direct3D sits on top of native linux OpenGL.

I don't think most developers are "furious". When OpenGL 3.0 was described as a backward-incompatible rewrite, they were a bit closer to furious. They spoke, and said they wanted backward compatibility retained a while longer. And lo, Khronos delivered, while providing a mechanism for migration to the new architectural constructs (buffer objects, shaders, moar buffer objects, moar shaders), and a way to build your code so that deprecated constructs fail.

Seriously, most people in the OpenGL community are fairly happy (though there's some grumbling over the still-wide OpenGL / OpenGL ES split).

Re:Question (5, Interesting)

hr.wien (986516) | more than 5 years ago | (#24561799)

That certainly isn't my experience. Most people on the OGL discussion boards were very much looking forward to the changes to the API. The previews Khronos posted in the Pipeline newsletter looked bloody amazing.

But when those previews are followed by almost a year of complete silence and then finally an API which is nothing at all like the one they promised, but rather some more spit and polish on the mess that is OGL 2.1 (much like OGL 2.0 was really just 1.6 with a new name), people got pissed off. And rightfully so.

The only ones pleased with this change as far as I've been able to gather are the CAD people wanting to continue to run their old, stale OpenGL bases code until the end of time. For new development, using OpenGL is a pain in the back side, which is why I just began bringing my renderer up in D3D10.

Re:Question (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24561905)

The previews Khronos posted in the Pipeline newsletter looked bloody amazing.

Funny, I thought they looked kinda stupid, actively throwing away simplicity and ease of use. I'm glad they listened to the movers and shakers instead of the whiners on internet fora.

why I just began bringing my renderer up in D3D10

Direct3D: irrelevant on all interesting platforms. Shrug. Your choice.

Re:Question (1)

uzytkownik (1104181) | more than 5 years ago | (#24561993)

The only ones pleased with this change as far as I've been able to gather are the CAD people wanting to continue to run their old, stale OpenGL bases code until the end of time. For new development, using OpenGL is a pain in the back side, which is why I just began bringing my renderer up in D3D10.

The last time I try to learn DX it was painful. Is it changed in DX 10?

Re:Question (4, Informative)

hr.wien (986516) | more than 5 years ago | (#24562057)

Well, it is a Microsoft product, so it's not without its flaws (The Vista dependency for one), but over all it's a good API for taking advantage of modern hardware without all the legacy crud that plagues OpenGL.

If you've used D3D8 or older, you'll find it a massive improvement.

Re:Question (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24562103)

"The CAD people" are the bread and butter of OpenGL. It's incredibly important to keep those high-margin dudes happy. Direct3D totally fails at addressing CAD + grownups' visualisation needs, so killing OpenGL's core and basically captive market to keep low-margin gamer devs happy would be superdumb.

But wait, legacy-free OpenGL ES also exists, catering specifically to gaming+embedded markets! How about that!

Re:Question (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24562137)

Plus the card vendors would love to segment the market again, so that OpenGL = CAD = Pro prices.

Oh, and if you're using Mac or *nix, you're ripe for the plucking too.

Re:Question (2, Insightful)

Malevolyn (776946) | more than 5 years ago | (#24561575)

I considered that as well, but I think these game developers are just overreactiing and throwing a collective temper tantrum. So they didn't rewrite OpenGL (quite a feat), big deal. They still released a new version. Then again I'm one to prefer that something exist and not be quite as good, as opposed to it not existing at all.

Re:Question (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24561897)

That's most of the problem though... they did rewrite OpenGL, then they scrapped it. So in the process, we got a few years of the new version not existing. And a year of communication (from ARB/Khronos) not existing, particularly frustrating after they'd spent the previous year saying they were going to work on communications and transparency.

Even better, GL2 was supposed to be a cleaned up API, so this was the second time they promised a rewrite and scrapped it.

So either they were completely wrong about the justification for the rewrite both times (which doesn't bode well for the group in charge of the API) or we are missing out on the benefits the rewritten API would have provided.

Probably the biggest problem was the communications though, if they'd admitted the problems as they happened, there probably would have been less backlash. As it is, everyone was still pretty much expecting the original 3.0 design, so not getting that, on top of a year's worth of promised status updated, on top of the previous poor communication the promised status updates were supposed to fix, on top of the promised-then-scrapped 2.0 update, etc. leads to unhappy community.

(For those not following the situation, advertised benefits included:

simpler api = simpler drivers = better conformance + fewer driver bugs

new object model = less need for consistency checking in drivers = faster drivers with fewer bugs

getting rid of outdated code paths = easier to understand the api, easier to tell what will be fast

probably some more I forgot)

Re:Question (4, Informative)

qbwiz (87077) | more than 5 years ago | (#24561531)

Cross-platform 3D is useful, but OpenGL stopped being cutting-edge many years ago. The model that it uses is falling farther and farther from the model that the hardware supports, and many new extensions and features are not supported on many platforms (particularly ATI). It has become increasingly difficult to write cutting-edge graphics software, and OpenGL 3 does little to fix that.

Re:Question (2, Interesting)

Penguinisto (415985) | more than 5 years ago | (#24561673)

Question is, what does OSX currently have handy that would replace it? (it's been way too long, my memory sucks, so let me take a stab here... Quartz, Core Graphics, whatever-it's-called-nowadays?)

Either way, any developer having to keep two separate code branches for two separate library sets is (okay, just IMHO) begging for pain.

/P

No it doesn't (5, Informative)

Sycraft-fu (314770) | more than 5 years ago | (#24561783)

Part of the reason for DX's success is that nobody else seems interested in developing anything to compete with it. OpenGL is the only cross platform 3D API I'm aware of and it and DX are all that there is these days. GLs problem is that it isn't keeping up with the hardware. The "just use vendor specific extensions" isn't a realistic solution in most cases. Thus GL is suffering and DX is winning by default.

If someone like Apple did develop a good 3D API, it might do well. However nobody seems interested.

Re:No it doesn't (0)

wealthychef (584778) | more than 5 years ago | (#24561827)

Maybe Apple will just implement a DX version if DX suffocates GL. Apple might try to foist their own GL on the world, and it will be excellent and nobody will useit.

Re:No it doesn't (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24561967)

For the same reason that people do not want to use the DirectX 10 Engine, because it is proprietary and serves little (except in this case, where it would likely serve no) purpose outside of the hardware and operating system it was built to run efficiently on.

And besides, look at games like World of Warcraft and Half Life, they've managed to port (What I'm assuming to be) C-based code over and implement it on the Mac with no relative drop in performance (if not a relative gain compared to similar PC hardware, as is my experience with World of Warcraft). It's not that MacOS doesn't NEED a 3D Engine implemented, it's just that people are already working around the lack thereof already, with good success, leaving Apple as a company little incentive to do such a thing.

Re:No it doesn't (1)

AndrewNeo (979708) | more than 5 years ago | (#24562129)

Er, what's this about Half-Life on the Mac? Correct me if I'm wrong, but there's no Mac version of Half-Life 1.. and even if there was, HL1 supports software, OpenGL and DirectX rendering paths.

Re:No it doesn't (1)

Stormwatch (703920) | more than 5 years ago | (#24562183)

There is no Half Life for Mac.

Re:No it doesn't (2, Funny)

Stormwatch (703920) | more than 5 years ago | (#24562167)

Apple once did have their own API, QuickDraw 3D.

Re:Question (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24561887)

Are you saying that Rage from id Software, which uses an OpenGL renderer, is not cutting-edge or what?

Re:Question (5, Interesting)

JohnyDog (129809) | more than 5 years ago | (#24561889)

This has however everything to with ATI and nothing really with OpenGL, as it is the hardware manufacturer who ultimately decides which capabilities will they expose in the drivers. ATI's OpenGL drivers was *always* bad, buggy, and badly performing (go on, search for some old benchmarks, you will see that ATI cards that easily outperform their NVidia counterparts in DirectX falls heavily behind when it comes to OpenGL apps and games).

The developers' expectations here was that if OpenGL 3.0 will include all the newest stuff in core spec, ATI (and Intel and others) will be forced to support them (so they can pass the certification and be able to call their products compliant), however the same expectation for improved OpenGL drivers was there when ATI was bought by AMD, and that too never really materialized. ATI simply doesn't care enough about OpenGL, their main focus was always DirectX, and i don't see that changing in nearby future.

As for OpenGL 3.0, the rage is that Khronos group promised us moisty delicious cake (whole new API, yay!), but after long long wait delivered only small biscuit. I didn't expect much so i'm not disappointed and overall the spec is good step (deprecation model for lots of old stuff, FBO finally promoted to core, direct access extension), but just like KDE 4.0, it is only first step, and it *really* depends on where it will go from now.

Re:Question (1)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 5 years ago | (#24561541)

He did say *cutting edge*, which may play into this.

Re:Question (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24562121)

true... OpenGL may not make it but there are others such as SDL which works well with Linux from what I understand.

www.libsdl.org

I think the question is this (1)

avandesande (143899) | more than 5 years ago | (#24561479)

Is the end of interest in cutting edge 3d? It seems like most of the low hanging fruit in 3d graphics has been picked.

Disappointing (1)

Lord Lode (1290856) | more than 5 years ago | (#24561487)

Well, this is just very disappointing to me, for two reasons. First because I was hoping for something new in Linux graphics development. Secondly, because the behaviour of the ARB here isn't really a positive sign. I hope that there is some light in future OpenGL specifications here. If not, what can I use on Linux to have the ability to use all features of modern graphics cards? What about the future platforms like Larrabee? It seems DirectX is going stronger in all these areas, but it being closed source and Microsoft-platform only is a very big problem imho.

Typical F/OSS Failure (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24561509)

Another staggering failure of the open source community.

Re:Typical F/OSS Failure (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24561759)

OpenGL isn't from the open source community, actually. It's "open" is the old "open systems" open, which is rather less open.

While people might say linux uses opengl, a lot of the time it's using mesa, which implements the opengl specifications but is NOT a certified opengl implementation.

(This revised 3.0 might be good news for mesa, as the originally threatened backward-incompatible 3.0, that, perhaps contrary to this slashdot "story" most opengl folk decided they didn't like, looks like it might be implementable without certain patent issues biting).

This can't be good. (5, Insightful)

SanityInAnarchy (655584) | more than 5 years ago | (#24561517)

Jumping ship to DX10 would be nice, if it were cross-platform. (No, Xbox + PC does not count as "cross-platform".)

Unfortunately for those of us on Linux/Mac, a lot of Windows developers don't care.

Unfortunately for those of you who think you don't care about this, consider that porting an app generally improves it, and can shake out bugs which aren't as apparent on the other platform -- which means potentially less reliable games, even if you're only on Windows.

And unfortunately for those of us who hate Vista, that's kind of a requirement for DirectX 10. At least with OpenGL, those in charge have no agenda to push Vista -- so an OpenGL 3.0 game should run on XP, if it runs on anything.

Re:This can't be good. (2, Interesting)

Lord Lode (1290856) | more than 5 years ago | (#24561555)

How about the creation of a fully operational open source, cross platform, DX10 or DX11 implementation, not created by Microsoft but by the community, and fully working natively (not through Wine) and supported by NVidia and ATI drivers? Possible, or impossible?

Re:This can't be good. (4, Interesting)

SanityInAnarchy (655584) | more than 5 years ago | (#24561629)

How about the creation of a fully operational open source, cross platform, DX10 or DX11 implementation, not created by Microsoft but by the community,

Wine will do this, eventually.

and fully working natively (not through Wine)

That's a bit harder, because it requires driver support.

and supported by NVidia and ATI drivers?

The official ones? Never going to happen. Anyone want to guess how many patents Microsoft has on DirectX tech?

And the unofficial ones haven't even gotten GL right, yet, and you're proposing they try to support another interface?

More importantly, you're assuming this is a good idea -- that we should be working to clone a Microsoft technology, instead of improving on one which has been open from the start (GL).

Re:This can't be good. (2, Insightful)

Lord Lode (1290856) | more than 5 years ago | (#24561709)

More importantly, you're assuming this is a good idea

If not for the reasons stated above, then at least for the reason of being able to suddenly convert a lot more games natively for other platforms than Windows more easily.

that we should be working to clone a Microsoft technology, instead of improving on one which has been open from the start (GL).

But, how can we improve on it? Just wait?

Re:This can't be good. (2, Insightful)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 5 years ago | (#24562185)

But, how can we improve on it? Just wait?

We can't. OpenGL evolution is controlled by the people who build hardware. If the hardware guys add a new feature, they can add an extension to OpenGL to support it. If they can persuade someone else to add the same feature, they can propose it as a standard extensions, and then propose it to be a required part of the next version of the spec.

The thing OpenGL is typically bad at is removing legacy stuff. OpenGL ES is, in many ways, a nicer API - it is designed for embedded systems and removes a lot of the older stuff (and adds some stuff that's only really relevant on low-power devices). Vincent provides an open source implementation of OpenGL ES, but I don't know of any accelerated versions on any desktop platforms.

Re:This can't be good. (4, Interesting)

HappySmileMan (1088123) | more than 5 years ago | (#24561711)

How about the creation of a fully operational open source, cross platform, DX10 or DX11 implementation, not created by Microsoft but by the community,

Wine will do this, eventually.

Wine uses OpenGL to do the actual rendering AFAIK, it reads the DirectX function calls, but it doesn't interface with the hardware itself, it basically just implements the functions with OpenGL calls.

So while the OpenGL dependency may be less obvious for the user or casual developer, it's still there, and a bad OpenGL release means a bad DirectX implementation in Wine

I'm no expert though, correct me if I'm wrong about this

Re:This can't be good. (0, Flamebait)

Ilgaz (86384) | more than 5 years ago | (#24561717)

If I know MS, they should have taken every step to tie DirectX to Windows in deepest level.

Even if you code it with their own help, with ridiculous patents forced to users? Well, there is an example. Open source .NET implementation is at Version 1.x level while Windows .NET is at 3.x level. All commercial developers ship .NET 3.x code now. So what was the point?

Wine lives its full glory at wrong place. Except truly high end games which even PowerPC G5 won't be able to handle, all "Macintosh, Intel only" games you see are Windows games on OS X scene. Yes, Apple switched to Intel , they got some amazing marketshare (for Apple), they solved the endian problem, Altivec problem (!), i386 ASM will work too... What happened? MS Puppet EA games happily ships expensive Windows games masquerading as OS X .apps.

It is basic. MS puppets who has no plans (or coding quality?) to code multi platform in age of PS3/ Wii/iPhone/OpenGL ES will keep DirectX. True game developers who sees the real market will code OpenGL.
   

Re:This can't be good. (1)

uzytkownik (1104181) | more than 5 years ago | (#24562043)

Open-source implementation of .Net is on the 2.x (mono stable branch) level with some support of the 3.x (mono dev branch 1.9.x). It is not full implementation of .Net library - especially the MS-extensions (not standarised).

Re:This can't be good. (2, Insightful)

qbwiz (87077) | more than 5 years ago | (#24561767)

There are two basic problems with this:
1) Direct3D is tied to Windows pretty well, so making it crossplatform would be difficult (your DX10 implementation may need to include a lot of Wine).
2) You'll need the graphics vendors to support the API. With Intel and ATI opening up their specs, we're closer to having a way for the community to make up-to-date graphics drivers, but there's still the problem of NVIDIA. Without them, no one's going to try to write software with this new API, and it seems unlikely that they will ever be bothered to support some new API - remember that they're a member of the ARB, and they decided to go with this OpenGL spec.

Re:This can't be good. (5, Insightful)

commrade (79346) | more than 5 years ago | (#24561809)

Gallium3d [tungstengraphics.com] will enable just that. The Wikipedia [wikipedia.org] page even mentions DirectX and wine.

That said, I don't think the uproar over OpenGL 3.0 is as widespread as the summary would have you believe. OpenGL's grave will likely be right next to Unix, X, vi and C (ie. no time soon).

Re:This can't be good. (2, Insightful)

fm6 (162816) | more than 5 years ago | (#24561607)

Even with a cross-platform graphics layer, we're not seeing a lot high-performance games that run on all of Windows, Linux, and Mac. The problems of developing and debugging this kind of software are big enough to discourage people doing it for multiple platforms in any case.

Re:This can't be good. (1)

Bert64 (520050) | more than 5 years ago | (#24562087)

What we really need, are not just compile time APIs, but an ability to compile a single binary and run it on multiple platforms...
Like java, but with native code...

Wine does it to an extent, but most programs don't target wine directly and often have compatibility problems. Apps written specifically for wine should do the job, but it wouldn't be the cleanest method.

Re:This can't be good. (2)

ozphx (1061292) | more than 5 years ago | (#24562205)

You mean like .Net? *ducks*

Re:This can't be good. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24561739)

That's ok, DX10 buys you almost nothing over DX9, so there's no push to get DX10 and hence Vista.

Look at any number of reviews of games in DX10 vs DX9 mode. Differences are minimal to nonresistant to the eyes of most people.

That being said, most developers seem happier writing for DX9 than OpenGL, so I'll be quite content with DX9 on XP.

really ask carmack then I'll listen (0)

johnjones (14274) | more than 5 years ago | (#24561521)

I'm sorry but I dont believe you and I have not read it myself

the entire GL board seems to be NVidia or ATI....

until there is a game published that uses it then it's kind of pointless to say these kind of things

I mean it's got to be dead after all MacOS uses OpenGL...

regards

John Jones

Re:really ask carmack then I'll listen (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24561721)

Why ask Carmack? He'll do whatever Nintendo tells him to do. Check it:

http://www.edge-online.com/news/id-%E2%80%9Cno-longer-makes-decisions-around-pc%E2%80%9D

Re:really ask carmack then I'll listen (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24561777)

Ask Carmack? What a waste of time.

http://www.edge-online.com/news/id-%E2%80%9Cno-longer-makes-decisions-around-pc%E2%80%9D

What ever happened to libGLw? (1)

LM741N (258038) | more than 5 years ago | (#24561547)

I have programs that use that library to compile programs, plus I need the associated headers. Some OS's seem to have it and some don't. The latest Mesa release that I checked didn't have them. Perhaps they get installed via Xorg.

Re:What ever happened to libGLw? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24561785)

libGLw is the Motif toolkit "canvas"-type widget for GL. It shouldn't be used by any program not using Motif/openmotif/lesstif. It's still in the mesa tree, most likely your distribution has moved it into a separate package.

Is this the end? (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24561603)

jump ship to DX10

And when they do they wander into Direct/Input/Sound/Video/Play/etc. OpenGL does 3D rendering. The rest? Cobble it together from whatever other obsolete scraps are available.

The non-Microsoft "stacks" suck. Bottom line.

The concept of a 2D "layer" still hasn't impinged on the basic SDL API. Couldn't believe it when I learned that.

I guess professional game developers don't care that Microsoft owns the machinery of their livelihoods. They sure aren't contributing to their own independence in any noticeable way.

Re:Is this the end? (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24561871)

Sorry my anonymous brethren, but you're exaggerating a bit. First off, DirectDraw (DirectX 2d API), DirectInput, and DirectPlay are all deprecated for other APIs. Granted, the other APIs are Microsoft but even they aren't always consistent across MS platforms. For example, DirectInput [wikipedia.org] is replaced by one API on the 360 and a different one for the PC.

SDL handles cross-platform input and some basic platform functionality on the open side. Not that you could expect it to run on a console, but it should run on a Mac, Linux, or Windows.

The open equivalent of DirectSound is OpenAL, which looks a lot like OpenGL in usage. Of course, that's more of a negative, since they both need an overhaul. It *is* cross-platform and supports 3d sound though.

The other APIs aren't nearly as important for game development.

Re:Is this the end? (0, Flamebait)

oGMo (379) | more than 5 years ago | (#24561873)

The non-Microsoft "stacks" suck. Bottom line.

Spoken like a true cluebie. Simple Directmedia Layer [libsdl.org] is actually a much better solution and runs on everything under the sun. Super simple to use (especially compared to DX), OpenGL works right alongside, and it supports "all those other things" you need for making games and not just doing 3D.

Err, yeah. (5, Interesting)

Penguinisto (415985) | more than 5 years ago | (#24561617)

Heh - Games developers may have that luxury, but 3D/GC vendors certainly don't. So unless someone decides to port DX10 to OSX (*snort*) or Linux (sing it with me now: "render farms!"), OpenGL will continue to have a decently-sized userbase for a very long time.

IMHO, anyone making the claim that they're going to suddenly jump to DX10 is only making noise; nobody is dumb enough to cut off the fastest-growing consumer market sectors.

(...besides, doesn't the PS3 use OGL, or do they use some other home-brewed library set? Not sure there...)

/P

Re:Err, yeah. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24561775)

PS3 uses OpenGL ES. This version has already had the API stripped down and the fixed function pipeline removed. The only problem is that there are no drivers for it on the desktop.

Re:Err, yeah. (4, Informative)

n dot l (1099033) | more than 5 years ago | (#24561849)

The PS3 uses OpenGL ES for basic rendering (GL with all the ancient cruft ripped out) and NVIDIA's Cg for the actual shaders.

Re:Err, yeah. (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24562193)

OpenGL ES (PSGL) is provided, but I don't think anyone is seriously using it except to do initial porting efforts.

Sony supply an alternative low level api called libGcm.

Re:Err, yeah. (4, Interesting)

ducomputergeek (595742) | more than 5 years ago | (#24562091)

Render farms don't use OpenGL or DX for rendering in programs such as Lightwave/Maya/blender, the frames are rendered by the CPU not GPU. (there are a couple exceptions to this).

The only place the video comes into play is when you are running the 3D app and modelling of huge poly objects. I can slow Blender down to a crawl in big scenes on my older powerbook with only 64MB of video ram, but it runs smooth in my old G4 tower with 256MB of video ram, yet the render times on the same frame are about the same. (1.5Ghz vs. 2x1Ghz G4 CPU's., both with 1.25GB of Ram).

Hard to believe the new standards change anything (1)

heroine (1220) | more than 5 years ago | (#24561621)

Any redesign of the GLSL standard wouldn't make any difference since NVidia was the only brand to support OpenGL 2. Today, almost everything sold uses Intel GMA drivers which only do OpenGL 1. As for new standards bringing new functionality, there are over 1000 Java standards awaiting implementation too.

Re:Hard to believe the new standards change anythi (2, Informative)

Repossessed (1117929) | more than 5 years ago | (#24562133)

ATI supports openGL, Intel added full support as well when they implemented DX10 (only one chipset has these so far iirc though).

The apparent failure of OpenGL to provide a significant rival to DX10 sucks though, especially since the DX10 on Vista only might have provided game makers an incentive to jump ship in order to get bleeding edge graphics onto XP systems.

DX10 is not cross platform? (4, Funny)

One Louder (595430) | more than 5 years ago | (#24561665)

What do you means DirectX10 isn't cross platform? It runs in all six versions of Windows Vista!

Re:DX10 is not cross platform? (2, Funny)

54mc (897170) | more than 5 years ago | (#24561833)

What do you means DirectX10 isn't cross platform? It runs in all six versions of Windows Vista!

Shh! Don't let the MS devs hear that! They'll decide that the next version of windows should only have 3D capability on the expensive versions!

Re:DX10 is not cross platform? (1)

Firehed (942385) | more than 5 years ago | (#24562039)

They're already headed down that path, with Vista Home Basic not supporting Aero Glass...

Re:DX10 is not cross platform? (1)

DoofusOfDeath (636671) | more than 5 years ago | (#24561901)

It runs in all six versions of Windows Vista!

Country and Western?

Re:DX10 is not cross platform? (1)

narthollis (1022679) | more than 5 years ago | (#24562089)

Don't forget it's in Server 2008 as well!

OpenGL falling down a pit (4, Interesting)

mysidia (191772) | more than 5 years ago | (#24561689)

Not much unlike the one XFree86 fell down.

It needs to be forked. We need a fork of the 3D library, much like Xorg was forked.

The fork/rewrite should be more like DX10 than like OpenGL.

The library needs to be able to interoperate with current and future video hardware, so that all hardware acceleration features will be available to applications using the 3D library...

That means providing an underlying interface compatible with both the OpenGL and DX10 ABIs and conventional hardware drivers.

Re:OpenGL falling down a pit (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24561773)

I guess the problem is getting support from the graphic card designers.
If a fork is made, it would have to maintain compatibility with 'vanilla' OpenGL. Well, isn't that what Wine is doing? Translating DirectX calls to OpenGL ones?

Re:OpenGL falling down a pit (5, Insightful)

Ynot_82 (1023749) | more than 5 years ago | (#24561839)

"The library needs to be able to interoperate with current and future video hardware, so that all hardware acceleration features will be available to applications using the 3D library..."

Now, I know next to nothing about the nitty-gritty details of OpenGL or DirectX,
but I really thought they were pretty much equal (in terms of being able to fully utilise the hardware)

I was under the impression that MS wrote the DirectX API, and graphics hardware was expected to provide in interface to GPU operations as per MS's API spec

On the flip side, OpenGL being less centrally controlled,
instead graphics hardware provide their own API calls for new GPU operations, and provide this new API call to OpenGL via it's "extension" interface
and every so often, the OpenGL spec would be updated, with new GPU functions (currently using seperate, per-vendor extensions) would be standardised into a single implementation

Are developers really saying that OpenGL cannot do things DirectX can?
I thought as long as (say) Nvidia kept provided drivers, and software kept querying for the hardware's capabilities, DirectX & OpenGL were pretty much on a par with each other....

Can anyone provide a semi-layman's explanation?

Re:OpenGL falling down a pit (4, Insightful)

Zygfryd (856098) | more than 5 years ago | (#24561857)

If you're talking about forking OpenGL... how do you convince Nvidia, AMD, Intel, PowerVR, Apple, Microsoft and who knows how many other companies to implement your incompatible version of the API in their OpenGL stacks?

However if you're simply talking about GLX/Mesa then you'll be happy to know that it's being reimplemented in the Gallium3D project.

Re:OpenGL falling down a pit (5, Insightful)

hr.wien (986516) | more than 5 years ago | (#24561885)

You don't fork a spec. You create a new one and try to get it accepted by the industry (ATI, Nvidia and Intel in this case).

Good luck with that.

Re:OpenGL falling down a pit (1)

christurkel (520220) | more than 5 years ago | (#24561891)

You make it sound so easy.

Re:OpenGL falling down a pit (1)

Lord Crowface (1315695) | more than 5 years ago | (#24561941)

Actually, the situation with OpenGL is MUCH more like the situation with upstream X during the XFree86 era...

Re:OpenGL falling down a pit (2, Insightful)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 5 years ago | (#24561963)

OpenGL is forked. It's designed for forking. Every single vendor implements extensions. When two vendors have implemented their own extension then it can be proposed for inclusion in the standard.

The community at large was unhappy with the slow speed of development around OpenGL 2.0, so they let Khronos take over development of the next version. It seems that this didn't work very well, in hindsight.

The article text is bullshit. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24561731)

DX-10 is Vista only among other issues.

people still make opengl games? (0, Flamebait)

timmarhy (659436) | more than 5 years ago | (#24561763)

frankly DX10 blows them out of the water. why don't the openGL guys try to compete on performance and technical merit rather than hiding behind the cross platform shield all the time....

Re:people still make opengl games? (1, Interesting)

HappySmileMan (1088123) | more than 5 years ago | (#24561841)

I've seen many, many studies showing that OpenGL2 beats DX9 in performance, (but only if you DON'T use Microsoft's implementation of OpenGL, which for some reason sucks ass.)

Obviously OpenGL2 vs. DX9 is very different to OpenGL3 vs. DX10, but to 90% of the market it's irrelevant since they don't run Vista and therefore don't have DX10, OpenGL is competing with DX9, not 10, and winning.

Re:people still make opengl games? (1)

timmarhy (659436) | more than 5 years ago | (#24561985)

A quick google does not confirm your statement. DX9 appears to blow gl2 away on features and matches it on speed. that is irrelevant though, since DX10 is the future platform for games, unless you live in some fantasy land in which vista isn't going to eventually over take XP. DX10 definately has better features and it's what new games are going to start targeting.

if openGL3 doesn't bring anything new to the table it's toast.

Re:people still make opengl games? (1)

HappySmileMan (1088123) | more than 5 years ago | (#24562097)

DX10 is the future platform for games, unless you live in some fantasy land in which vista isn't going to eventually over take XP.

Microsoft are pushing forward both Windows 7 and DX11 now (Not sure why DX11, but Windows 7 probably in response to how terrible Vista's reviews were), Windows 7 is set to be released in 2009 or early 2010, I honestly can't see Vista overtaking XP between now and then, and for that reason I can't see games developers cutting off XP users.
The way I see it, XP will be overtaken by Windows 7, not Vista, as long as Windows 7 doesn't get any significant delays, and DX9 will be overtaken by DX11

Re:people still make opengl games? (1)

kiddygrinder (605598) | more than 5 years ago | (#24562197)

Unless there's a major shakeup at ms i can't see them releasing windows 7 on time, it's a major re-write rather than the spit shine vista was. (Just my opinion, no hard facts were included in this post whatsoever)

Re:people still make opengl games? (1)

Caboosian (1096069) | more than 5 years ago | (#24562095)

89% of the market runs Microsoft's implementation* of OpenGL2 - so following your logic (DX10 is irrelevant), OpenGL is irrelevant. *Note: I don't understand how everything works in depth, and I'm assuming that Windows users run Microsoft's implementation by default. If I'm wrong in assuming that, please, correct me.

Re:people still make opengl games? (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24562141)

mmmmm... no. Don't make shit up. Even Carmack had great hopes for OGL, but after DX8.0 was released he pretty much ended up saying it was game over (no pun intended).

Look it up. Google's your friend.

Re:people still make opengl games? (1)

clintre (1078849) | more than 5 years ago | (#24562169)

That would be assuming that the best technology always wins these battles. I agree that in video OpenGL 2 versus DX9 is superior.

However as mentioned above the nice thing about DX is that it handles much more through it structure making it easier in some ways to develop video, sound, and input.

In my experience DX is easier and more robust when developing games, not necessarily better as far as video.

Personally I have hope for OpenGL as I would love to not ever have to boot up windows anything again.

Fork it (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24561807)

It's a specification, can't we diverge and create a new one by developers for developers? I.e. start a new consortium?

No. (5, Interesting)

unity100 (970058) | more than 5 years ago | (#24561829)

Is this the end of cross-platform 3d on the cutting edge?

it isnt. because OpenGL ARB is gonna play it nice, and revise their specs, therefore pleasing developers and therefore GAMERS as much as they can, and fix the matter, wont you now ? dont make us wait.

what we have here is a misunderstanding (1, Informative)

thermian (1267986) | more than 5 years ago | (#24561861)

DirectX is graphics, input, sound and peripherals interaction.

Opengl can only handle the graphics portion of a game, everything else needs other products. The unified nature of DirectX makes it superior in many ways.

The only bad thing about is that in its pure form its Windows and Xbox only, if we don't count Wine.

Re:what we have here is a misunderstanding (1)

Kaeles (971982) | more than 5 years ago | (#24562061)

I would not say that directX is superior due to the stacks being tied together. Opengl allows you to decide what you want to use to implement all those features instead of trying to force bloated software on you. It also allows you to pick libraries that have been made by experts in the area the lib focuses on. For example, openal, clam, etc for sound and whatever else for whatever else you are doing.

the misunderstanding is yours (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24562207)

That's an old perpetuated myth, that the value of D3D has anything to do with the satelite APis.

Let's confront it with facts:

- Direct3D is the absolutely dominant component of DirectX, in terms of received and deserved attention by users. As well as R&D effort by MSFT. It's the advancement of D3D that drives MSFT to release every next version of DirectX.

- Each component of DX is a completely indepependent API, sharing only design convention. OpenGL games on Windows use DirectInput for input, perfectly ignoring Direct3D.

- funnily, the satelite APIs are actually being phased out by MSFT. DirectPlay was always thoroughly ignored by the industry. For DirectSound and DirectInput there are replacement already. Not to mention the fate of hardware acceleration of DirectSound in Vista.

D3D and DX are de facto interchangable terms. Get over it.

Not handling sound/input by OpenGL is absolutely irrelevant in discussion about it's applicablity.

Calm down (1)

fobsta (989110) | more than 5 years ago | (#24561875)

When I was a student at SGI and OpenGL was replacing IrixGL? it was never pushed as cutting edge graphical porn. It was promoted as an easy to use, cross platform graphics language with emphasis on 3D apps that could also be used for games. Which it still is of course. Hands up I don't know what graphical advantages Direct3D has over OpenGL but I do know the games market probably doesn't care. PC games are dying on their arse. Witness the shrinking shelf space for PC games compared to the Wii in the Uk (I don't know about other countries). I have a hunch that OpenGL is good enough for Autodesk and good enough for most gamers.

Re:Calm down (4, Informative)

hr.wien (986516) | more than 5 years ago | (#24561947)

Thing is it's not even close to being easy to use anymore. Especially not if you're interested in performance.

Because of the two decades of crud that has accumulated, there are so many ways of falling off the fast path in OGL, and it's next to impossible to know beforehand what will and will not work. Drivers are also a bitch to develop and maintain because of the size of the thing, which makes things even worse since what works on Nvidia may not work on ATI and vice versa.

The only way to fix this is a good cleanup to bring it in line with modern hardware. What they did was add even more crud.

That sux. (1)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | more than 5 years ago | (#24561879)

Really. A lot of people depend on OpenGL.

Rather than grousing about it, how can we make it better?

tr0ll (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24561913)

but suufice it BSD managed to make 5Includes where you

OpenGL Not Really a DirectX Competitor (2, Interesting)

smist08 (1059006) | more than 5 years ago | (#24561959)

I never had the impression OpenGL was trying to be a games platform. I think there are two distinct 3D libraries needed. One for actuate rendering, where its ok to take several minutes (or days) to render an image, and then the games platforms. I would rather see OpenGL be mathematically correct and be a great rendering engine. Not a games engine. Then if we need a competitor to DirectX on Linux/Mac, maybe we could persuade Sony or Nintendo to open source their games engines. After all the PS3 and Wii are the main competitors to DirectX. Not sure what the chances are, but maybe open sourcing their environment would put more interest back into PS3 development (which really seems to be lacking).

GL is doomed in the short-to-medium term... (5, Informative)

Hortensia Patel (101296) | more than 5 years ago | (#24562047)

...and probably irrelevant in the longer term.

This is not the first time this has happened. GL2 was also supposed to be a cleanup, but turned out to be anything but. This latest fiasco is more significant as a failure of governance than of technology. All the right ideas were there; they were published in some detail over a year ago in the Pipeline newsletters. But the ARB very obviously a) can't agree to get anything meaningful done, and b) now has subzero credibility with developers. It's not coming back from that.

So yes, I think cutting-edge cross-platform 3D is dead for the next 2-3 years. Let's face it, it was never exactly healthy. It's not the end of the world. Linux share is currently growing mostly at the low end, netbooks etc, while the Mac seems to be thriving despite the fact that Apple doesn't give a flying fsck about gaming and never has.

Fast forward a couple of years, though, and things like Larrabee will be hitting the market; embarrassingly parallel hardware that can be programmed with standard languages and tools. The API's role as gatekeeper of functionality will be gone. And suddenly, 3D rendering libs can be written by anyone with the time and expertise, without having to go through Microsoft or the ARB or NV or AMD/ATi or Intel or anyone. Experimentation, competition, cross-fertilization, evolution. Remember Outcast's [wikipedia.org] voxel engine? Seen things like Anti-Grain [antigrain.com] ? This will happen.

(Or, yes, people could just reimplement the DXwhatever API directly, but that would be a little disappointing.)

Today was not a good day, by any stretch of the imagination. But it's not the end.

DirectX 11 (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24562049)

DirectX 11.0 will be released on nVision 2008, 25-27 augusti.

The OpenGL consortium had to release opengl now to be take the egde. Too bad it had to be "finished" in a hurry.

What is wrong with OpenGL3.0? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24562199)

What is wrong with OpenGL3.0?. It has no objects?, that is all?. Comparing OpenGL3.0 with DirectX10 is like comparing apples and oranges. Do you mean Direct3D 10?. If you are a serious game developer targeting PS3 and other game consoles you already do not use D3D 10, because D3D 10 only works in Vista, and the Vista market is very small, most Windows users own XP yet. If you are a serious application developer (CAD/sim/etc), OpenGL is the way to go. Also XBox hardware is obsolete for next generation games (no standard harddisk, no blu-ray, no 1080p), Microsoft is not the future, but if you write your game using OpenGL, it will run in windows too.

Double standards (0)

marco.antonio.costa (937534) | more than 5 years ago | (#24562201)

Microsoft releases a bullshit new DX that only runs in Vista, so all games are 20% slower in it and everyone is happy.

OpenGL dares not to completely rebuild itself, and people get furious, threaten to go to the proprietary, Vista-only load of horse shit.

Ya, that's rational.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...