Beta
×

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 4.0 Spec Released

CmdrTaco posted more than 4 years ago | from the bounce-them-spheres dept.

Graphics 166

tbcpp writes "The Khronos Group has announced the release of the OpenGL 4.0 specification. Among the new features: two new shader stages that enable the GPU to offload geometry tessellation from the CPU; per-sample fragment shaders and programmable fragment shader input positions; drawing of data generated by OpenGL, or external APIs such as OpenCL, without CPU intervention; shader subroutines for significantly increased programming flexibility; 64-bit, double-precision, floating-point shader operations and inputs/outputs for increased rendering accuracy and quality. Khronos has also released an OpenGL 3.3 specification, together with a set of ARB extensions, to enable as much OpenGL 4.0 functionality as possible on previous-generation GPU hardware."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Patent problems still there? (4, Interesting)

H4x0r Jim Duggan (757476) | more than 4 years ago | (#31439238)

Any chance the patent problems of OpenGL 3 [swpat.org] have been fixed?

Re:Patent problems still there? (4, Informative)

binarylarry (1338699) | more than 4 years ago | (#31439290)

It's not really a huge problem in practice.

All the major graphics IHV's provide that extension anyway. It would nice if it was in GL's core spec, but since it's included for any device that matters, it's not a practical concern.

That's not was the Mesa devs say (3, Informative)

H4x0r Jim Duggan (757476) | more than 4 years ago | (#31439878)

> it's not a practical concern.

According to the references linked from that en.swpat.org page, it seems the developers of the free software Mesa project think it's indeed a practical concern.

Re:That's not was the Mesa devs say (2, Informative)

binarylarry (1338699) | more than 4 years ago | (#31440074)

How many products are shipped with Mesa as an important, primary component?

If you're using OpenGL, 99% of the products are going to want real hardware acceleration, not Mesa.

Mesa is a great project though, don't get me wrong.

Re:That's not was the Mesa devs say (4, Informative)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 4 years ago | (#31440262)

Mesa is used in a lot of X.org drivers. It provides the OpenGL state tracker for Gallium3D, so it will be used a lot more in future.

Re:That's not was the Mesa devs say (2, Insightful)

binarylarry (1338699) | more than 4 years ago | (#31440378)

Yeah, but anyone using OpenGL with X is going to be using either the Nvidia proprietary drivers or ATI proprietary drivers.

The OSS offerings do not provide nearly the same level of performance, unfortunately.

So again, from a real world practical standpoint, Mesa isn't in use anyway.

Re:That's not was the Mesa devs say (4, Informative)

malloc (30902) | more than 4 years ago | (#31440918)

Yeah, but anyone using OpenGL with X is going to be using either the Nvidia proprietary drivers or ATI proprietary drivers.

The OSS offerings do not provide nearly the same level of performance, unfortunately.

So again, from a real world practical standpoint, Mesa isn't in use anyway.

Unless you meant to say "OpenGL 3.0" This is absolutely not accurate. Has your "real world" been isolated to workstation CAD and/or heavy gaming users? Those are the only groups where binary non-mesa drivers are used almost universally, but they are a minority. Intel, which has over half the graphics market [ngohq.com] only uses mesa. Your default Fedora and upcoming Ubuntu 10.4 installs use mesa for both amd and nvidia chips. AMD actively supports the open driver and is working to make that the main driver.

The continued development on gallium points to mesa gaining more traction. I think the trend is for binary drivers to become less and less common in the future.

-Malloc

Re:That's not was the Mesa devs say (1)

binarylarry (1338699) | more than 4 years ago | (#31441016)

I hope you're right, I'm not for the proprietary drivers at all.

But gallium and the open source drivers aren't really ready for prime time, they're theoretical. I'm talking about practicalities. Right now, the open source drivers only exist to keep X running long enough to get the proprietary drivers installed.

No one is going to need S3TC compressed texture support for things like compiz anyway.

Re:That's not was the Mesa devs say (1)

Ltap (1572175) | more than 4 years ago | (#31440942)

But it will be. Ultimately, once performance improves, the OSS drivers will supplant the proprietary ones. Then this will become a concern.

Re:That's not was the Mesa devs say (1)

ultranova (717540) | more than 4 years ago | (#31440326)

How many products are shipped with Mesa as an important, primary component?

If you're using OpenGL, 99% of the products are going to want real hardware acceleration, not Mesa.

According to Linux From Scratch [linuxfromscratch.org] , Mesa is used to as the userspace component of OpenGL acceleration in X.org, at least with DRI drivers. In other words, if Mesa doesn't have it, FOSS drivers in Linux won't have it.

Of course the real solution is to move the project over to software patent free part of the world, rather than meekly remove the "offending" portion, but still...

Re:Patent problems still there? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31439354)

what about the fact that software patents are not valid in EU? Cant Khronos just release the spec in EU and screw US?

Re:Patent problems still there? (1)

N Monkey (313423) | more than 4 years ago | (#31439956)

what about the fact that software patents are not valid in EU? Cant Khronos just release the spec in EU and screw US?

What makes you assume "software" solutions to technological problems are not patentable in the EU? Have a look at probably any computer related patent (e.g picking the first one from ARM I could find [espacenet.com] ) and I suspect you will find both "apparatus" and "method of" versions of the claims. The latter generally refers to a software-based implementation of the invention.

Now, the issue is whether something is obvious and/or trivial and there are certainly a number of granted US patents which have some outrageous claims that haven't got past the EPO examiners.

Re:Patent problems still there? (3, Insightful)

amorsen (7485) | more than 4 years ago | (#31440096)

What makes you assume "software" solutions to technological problems are not patentable in the EU?

It says so right in the law... However, the European Patent Office are able to read between the lines and divine what the lawmakers REALLY meant, so they allow software patents.

So far there is (AFAIK) absolutely zero case law about software patents in the EU, so the courts haven't decided whether EPO's reading is correct. Companies seem content with doing their patent fights in the US. Why bother with dealing with a troublesome case making a precedent in the EU when the defendant is likely selling the exact same software in the US where software patents have been involved in numerous cases?

Re:Patent problems still there? (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 4 years ago | (#31440104)

what about the fact that software patents are not valid in EU? Cant Khronos just release the spec in EU and screw US?

No, because Khronos doesn't have the cash to sponsor every US resident's emigration.

Re:Patent problems still there? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31440414)

Surely they could release the full spec in EU and the one without patent in US. Why cripple the whole world when it's just the US that cripples itself?
It should be enough for Khronos (not all of its participants) to move to EU and let the EU gov to do the fight like Airbus vs EADS (meaning lasting ages and without resolution).

Re:Patent problems still there? (1)

ZaphDingbat (451843) | more than 4 years ago | (#31439420)

I keep hoping I can get half textures/framebuffers in Mesa. SGI or Microsoft still has the patent on that one.

Re:Patent problems still there? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31439812)

I keep hoping I can get half textures/framebuffers in Mesa. SGI or Microsoft still has the patent on that one.

Don't worry, Microsoft (R)(TM)(C) has patented many half-assed things in an effort to create synergy and deliver a more popular* customer experience.



* More popular does not necessarily mean better. c.f. botnets

Re:Patent problems still there? (1)

Hurricane78 (562437) | more than 4 years ago | (#31440766)

You mean: Microsoft’s problem of nobody taking them serious, and everybody doing it anyway, without MS being able to do anything about what they “believe” they have? (Remember: The companies implementing and supporting OpenGL can simply shut off Windows from their cards, end cooperation, and kill MS in the blink of an eye.

Stop buying into every shit and criminal makes up to gain power over you!

OpenGL on par with Direct3D11 (5, Informative)

Thunderbird2k (1753946) | more than 4 years ago | (#31439244)

To give an idea to non-OpenGL developers, OpenGL 4.0 closes the feature gap with Direct3D11. If you want to use OpenGL 4.0 you need to wait a couple of weeks before drivers will be out. In case of Nvidia, the drivers will be launched together with their new GTX4*0 GPUs which are the first Nvidia GPUs with Direct3D11/OpenGL 4.0 support. AMD might release new drivers before Nvidia since their hardware is Direct3D11 capable already.

Re:OpenGL on par with Direct3D11 (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31439430)

Be careful when you tout it as being "on par with Direct3D 11". That claim would also imply that there are mature, well-tested .NET bindings available that allow for all of the new features to be used. I sincerely doubt that this is the case.

Re:OpenGL on par with Direct3D11 (0, Flamebait)

calibre-not-output (1736770) | more than 4 years ago | (#31439550)

Does your post imply that .NET is mature? Or well-tested? I almost spilled my coffee..

Re:OpenGL on par with Direct3D11 (1)

binarylarry (1338699) | more than 4 years ago | (#31439576)

There are well tested, production ready OpenGL bindings for Java: http://lwjgl.org/ [lwjgl.org]

Java fits better with OpenGL anyway, being cross platform and open in the same vein as OpenGL.

Re:OpenGL on par with Direct3D11 (-1, Flamebait)

JamesP (688957) | more than 4 years ago | (#31439790)

There are well tested, production ready OpenGL bindings for Java: http://lwjgl.org/ [lwjgl.org]

HOW ABOUT NO

Java fits better with OpenGL anyway, being cross platform and open in the same vein as OpenGL.

You owe me a new keyboard.

Ok, to be serious now, I can't think of a worse match to OpenGL than Java

You need to work with pictures, access to buffers. Also, speed.

Re:OpenGL on par with Direct3D11 (1)

binarylarry (1338699) | more than 4 years ago | (#31439928)

You need to work with pictures, access to buffers. Also, speed.

Oh, I've used OpenGL quite a while, in a few languages. I haven't ran across the "PICTURES" extension. Could you kindly point out the api doc on that one? I'm very interested now, because you sound like a very competent programmer.

"Access to buffers," you mean VBO's? lwjgl seems to support those. And Java supports in VM buffers, as well as out of VM native buffers via NIO. Maybe I'm off here, you seem to be a pretty up to date and with it programmer.

Oh and speed, you must have missed that memo: Java is pretty fast now, faster than statically compiled OO for sure.

Re:OpenGL on par with Direct3D11 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31440180)

LOL? I hope you didn't really buy into that marketing BS...

Re:OpenGL on par with Direct3D11 (1)

JamesP (688957) | more than 4 years ago | (#31440196)

You need to work with pictures, access to buffers. Also, speed.

Oh, I've used OpenGL quite a while, in a few languages. I haven't ran across the "PICTURES" extension.

What I meant is loading a picture and using it as a texture.

"Access to buffers," you mean VBO's? lwjgl seems to support those. And Java supports in VM buffers, as well as out of VM native buffers via NIO.

Interesting. Still, you're going to need to read a model from a file or create its geometry.

Oh and speed, you must have missed that memo: Java is pretty fast now, faster than statically compiled OO for sure.

Yeah, but I wouldn't advocate Java for 'real time' apps also the kind of geometry processing OpenGL requires. (which is what you'll probably be doing apart from the OpenGL triangle demo)

Please type 'java floating point' into google and check the first article

Re:OpenGL on par with Direct3D11 (3, Informative)

binarylarry (1338699) | more than 4 years ago | (#31440484)

What I meant is loading a picture and using it as a texture.

Oh, so how does this even matter from a language/platform/execution standpoint? In the case of loading a texture from disk, you're going to be limited by IO wait anyway, which means even something like Bash would work initiating the transfer and waiting while it's finished.

Interesting. Still, you're going to need to read a model from a file or create its geometry.

Again, you're talking about IO wait, which isn't really limited by your application's execution speed anyway. I'm sure you knew that though, you seem like a very experienced and capable programmer.

Yeah, but I wouldn't advocate Java for 'real time' apps also the kind of geometry processing OpenGL requires. (which is what you'll probably be doing apart from the OpenGL triangle demo)

Your application doesn't usually "process" geometry, in any sane application you just send off a big chunk of data to the server and the OpenGL implementation handles it from there. Regardless, Java is fast, so if you're generating the geometry it's fine anyway. Java lets you use OO development techniques and still get great performance and it works fine for "real time" applications.

Please type 'java floating point' into google and check the first article

I hate to be the one to break this to you, but floating point is fraught with all types of these issues. It's not a data type to be used for any application requiring exact calculations, which is why fixed point alternatives exist.

Besides that, OpenGL is going to mangle your floats and turn them into yet another representation on the GPU server side anyway.

I mean look at SIMD with something like SSE on an x86 chip. It will also *mangle* your floating point values, chomping off lots of data and return skewed values. It's just the nature of floating point.

Re:OpenGL on par with Direct3D11 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31440602)

Regardless, Java is fast, so if you're generating the geometry it's fine anyway.

Lots all credibility right there.

Java lets you use OO development techniques and still get great performance and it works fine for "real time" applications.

Wow just like C++ and C#, both vastly superior languages to Java. You sound like a fucking salesman.

Re:OpenGL on par with Direct3D11 (0, Redundant)

binarylarry (1338699) | more than 4 years ago | (#31440646)

C++ a superior language? LOL WUT?

C# is slightly better than Java, but it's basically Java with some nicer features tacked on.

Re:OpenGL on par with Direct3D11 (1)

JamesP (688957) | more than 4 years ago | (#31440864)

What I meant is loading a picture and using it as a texture.

Oh, so how does this even matter from a language/platform/execution standpoint?

Libraries. Format conversions. Also, try doing live texture manipulation (which is the basis of 3d-desktop effects for example)

Interesting. Still, you're going to need to read a model from a file or create its geometry.

Again, you're talking about IO wait, which isn't really limited by your application's execution speed anyway. I'm sure you knew that though, you seem like a very experienced and capable programmer.

No. What about conversion of geometric models, prunning, etc

Your experience shows through.

Java lets you use OO development techniques and still get great performance and it works fine for "real time" applications.

Talk is cheap, and marketing speak even more so.

Besides that, OpenGL is going to mangle your floats and turn them into yet another representation on the GPU server side anyway.

That's not the problem, and actually Java mangles things for a good reason. But it slows things down and it takes control from the developer , like the fp control word.

Re:OpenGL on par with Direct3D11 (1)

binarylarry (1338699) | more than 4 years ago | (#31440980)

Libraries. Format conversions. Also, try doing live texture manipulation (which is the basis of 3d-desktop effects for example)

Java has more libraries and a larger developer community than any other programming language or platform on the planet. Fucking google it, I'm not your mama.

"Live texture manipulation" is all done on the GPU with render to texture effects anyway. It's much slower to do it on the CPU, even if you're doing it in assembly written specifically to take advantage of the hardware.

No. What about conversion of geometric models, prunning, etc. Your experience shows through.

"conversion of geometric models" this is something you do offline anyway, even if Java was slow (which it isn't) it wouldn't matter from a "real time" or OpenGL perspective. I'm not sure what "prunning" is but it's probably because I haven't yet reached your level of programming mastery.

Talk is cheap, and marketing speak even more so.

So when I debunk the moronic, retarded things you say, that makes it "marketing speak." LOL, you're a pro.

That's not the problem, and actually Java mangles things for a good reason. But it slows things down and it takes control from the developer , like the fp control word.

What exactly is the problem then, I fail to see what you're even talking about in regard to OpenGL?

You seem to have no real understanding of performance, real time, java or even any programming concepts or techniques beyond trivial applications.

You are amazing.

Re:OpenGL on par with Direct3D11 (1)

JamesP (688957) | more than 4 years ago | (#31441170)

Java has more libraries and a larger developer community than any other programming language or platform on the planet. Fucking google it, I'm not your mama.

I know that of course.

Still, funny how most game developers are not using Java. And most sites. And most desktop apps.

I'm not sure what "prunning" is but it's probably because I haven't yet reached your level of programming mastery.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R-tree [wikipedia.org]

"Live texture manipulation" is all done on the GPU with render to texture effects anyway.

No

You didn't read what I wrote. "3D Desktop effects" do you know what that is? Do you know what that involves? And I don't mean the 'rotating cube' part, that's easy.

No, you're with the head so deep inside Java land it's not even funny.

Re:OpenGL on par with Direct3D11 (1)

Khyber (864651) | more than 4 years ago | (#31440202)

"PICTURES" extension is likely his mistaken naming for GL_TEXTURE_INTERNAL_FORMAT.

Re:OpenGL on par with Direct3D11 (1)

thePowerOfGrayskull (905905) | more than 4 years ago | (#31440190)

But in the context of "no .net bindings means it's not ready", Java bindings are perfectly relevant. Too, I haven't noticed any performance issues using opengl in Java.

Re:OpenGL on par with Direct3D11 (1)

Hurricane78 (562437) | more than 4 years ago | (#31441150)

There are well tested, production ready OpenGL bindings for Java: http://lwjgl.org/ [lwjgl.org]

HOW ABOUT NO

Wow, how well though-out properly founded, intelligent and logic arguments... ehrm... How about, you’re a dick!?

Java fits better with OpenGL anyway, being cross platform and open in the same vein as OpenGL.

You owe me a new keyboard.
Ok, to be serious now, I can't think of a worse match to OpenGL than Java
You need to work with pictures, access to buffers. Also, speed.

I have worked with OpenGL on Java. There is a ridiculously low overhead for the wrapper library. And in case you didn’t know it: For anything other than Swing GUI stuff, Java is nearly on par with C++.
Which is impressive, for a language that has all the checks and bounds built in, preventing errors that will fuck up your puny C/C++ game at every chance it can get. Build in those checks, and you will be slower than Java!

But you know which languages are really the best for OpenGL?
OCaml and Haskell!
C/C++ is a dinosaur. The COBOL of our days. But as nasty / error prone to code, as Visual Basic.
It literally feels dirty, to go to C/C++ after having worked in Haskell.

Re:OpenGL on par with Direct3D11 (1)

JamesP (688957) | more than 4 years ago | (#31441306)

Which is impressive, for a language that has all the checks and bounds built in, preventing errors that will fuck up your puny C/C++ game at every chance it can get. Build in those checks, and you will be slower than Java!

But you know which languages are really the best for OpenGL?

I would have to say C/C++ even though you are right about the checks (but there are ways to check your C++ program)

But I'd say Haskell's probably something to be looked into, since you mentioned it.

Re:OpenGL on par with Direct3D11 (1)

nobodylocalhost (1343981) | more than 4 years ago | (#31440642)

or jogl, but AA is a pain in either, and literally crawling in jogl. in lwjgl, it's rather corse. You can still see pixelated edges.

Re:OpenGL on par with Direct3D11 (1)

binarylarry (1338699) | more than 4 years ago | (#31440772)

AA has nothing to do with the gl interface you're using, it's an OpenGL feature (and usually by extension).

Re:OpenGL on par with Direct3D11 (1)

nobodylocalhost (1343981) | more than 4 years ago | (#31441092)

Can you explain then why jogl supports full screen AA while lwjgl doesn't? Shouldn't they be supporting the same OpenGL feature?

Re:OpenGL on par with Direct3D11 (1)

binarylarry (1338699) | more than 4 years ago | (#31441124)

If you have issues, come to irc #lwjgl on freenode. There are a lot of people there that can help you out (with jogl or lwjgl).

Re:OpenGL on par with Direct3D11 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31440674)

Where is the multithreaded command buffer creation ?

Re:OpenGL on par with Direct3D11 (0, Troll)

postmortem (906676) | more than 4 years ago | (#31440630)

on par or 'copy'? Interestingly how OpenGL in last 10 yrs is playing catch up game with directX. all these features were developed by AMD, Nvidia and Microsoft for directX, and now just made available for OpenGL.

Re:OpenGL on par with Direct3D11 (4, Insightful)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 4 years ago | (#31440792)

You seem to have misunderstood how OpenGL is meant to work. It is intended to standardise existing features; that's the entire point. Individual vendors add extensions, developers test them, and the useful ones are added to the next version of the spec.

Re:OpenGL on par with Direct3D11 (2, Interesting)

Hurricane78 (562437) | more than 4 years ago | (#31440932)

Only a loser would make his goal to get on par with the competition. Because at the time when he would reach that goal, the competition would already have moved on.

I want them to put DirectX to shame! New! Revolutionary! Impressive! Putting MS in the position to catch up!
Because when MS is in that position, they are known to fuck up. (They make the same error of not trying to surpass the competition.) ^^

Design a spec, that is every graphics card designer’s, every game developer’s and every player’s wet dream!

It’s like car racing: If you concentrate on the car in front of you, you will fall back. If you stop caring for him, and concentrate on your own goals and the track in front of you, you’ll suddenly find yourself left of him, passing by. :)
(The same is true for concentrating on cars following you.)

Hardware support (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31439246)

Since graphics cards are marketed with the DirectX version they support: OpenGL 4.0 = DirectX what?

Re:Hardware support (2, Informative)

binarylarry (1338699) | more than 4 years ago | (#31439334)

It's most similar to D3D 11.

DirectX is a larger set of development technologies and apis (most of which has been deprecated). Direct3d is it's "direct" analog to OpenGL.

Re:Hardware support (1)

somersault (912633) | more than 4 years ago | (#31439508)

That's kind of like asking "Windows 7 = Ubuntu what"?

They might do similar things, but they do them in different ways*. IMO OpenGL is always going to be better unless DirectX becomes more cross-platform friendly, but then again I'm not one of those idiots that cares more about graphics than gameplay.

But to vaguely answer your question based on what others are saying here: OpenGL 4.0 is close to Direct 3D 11 in terms of features though.

*I have to say that while I have played about with OpenGL in the past, I have never tried Direct3D, so I can't say how different they actually are.

Re:Hardware support (3, Funny)

tepples (727027) | more than 4 years ago | (#31440144)

IMO OpenGL is always going to be better unless DirectX becomes more cross-platform friendly

Direct3D is already cross-platform: Windows, Xbox 360, Zune, Windows Phone 7 Series. Among these is the only video game console open to indie development.

Re:Hardware support (2, Insightful)

binarylarry (1338699) | more than 4 years ago | (#31440182)

It's like Ford's Model-T: You could order in any color you wanted, so long as that color was black.

Re:Hardware support (1)

hduff (570443) | more than 4 years ago | (#31440796)

You can't use "cross platform" unless it ports to OSX or Linux or other non-Windows platforms. OpenGL is cross-platform; Direct3D is not. The term you're looking for is "Windows platforms only". Nothing wrong with that; just be honest in your characterization of it.

Re:Hardware support (-1, Flamebait)

tepples (727027) | more than 4 years ago | (#31440916)

The term you're looking for is "Windows platforms only".

But my point is that plenty of studios, not just Microsoft, can still make a lot of money by targeting "Windows platforms only". True, this leaves out people who have only a Mac and a Wii and people who have only a Linux box and a PS3, but most gamers have at least one Xbox 360 console or Windows gaming PC. The only console that legitimately runs indie games is one of these "Windows platforms".

Re:Hardware support (0)

Khyber (864651) | more than 4 years ago | (#31440238)

"OpenGL 4.0 is close to Direct 3D 11 in terms of features though."

not quite - OpenGL still has the edge in the fact you can always program in extra features - D3D is a set featureset and SUCKS, mainly because it's NOT direct to hardware like OpenGL is or 3dfx GLide was. most of it is purely dependent upon your CPU speed and thus one of the main bottleneck of D3D gaming is the CPU hardware, not the GPU.

Has been a problem since Unreal Tournament. Hasn't been fixed since then. Likely never will due to Microsoft's wish to dominate everything.

DOA for anything but pro gear (-1, Troll)

Gothmolly (148874) | more than 4 years ago | (#31439360)

DirectX won, because it does sound and HID input handling, and because its on every PC sold to every mouthbreathing, Best Buy shopping, banana eating customer.

Re:DOA for anything but pro gear (1)

binarylarry (1338699) | more than 4 years ago | (#31439410)

Yeah, that's why Valve just ported their games to Mac, which only supports OpenGL.

Because it's DOA for anything but "PRO GAMERZ."

Re:DOA for anything but pro gear (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31439568)

Except they didn't drop DirectX support from their games or engine. Their engine just now supports both DirectX and OpenGL.

Re:DOA for anything but pro gear (5, Informative)

Again (1351325) | more than 4 years ago | (#31439474)

DirectX won, because it does sound and HID input handling, and because its on every PC sold to every mouthbreathing, Best Buy shopping, banana eating customer.

I wouldn't be so quick to say that DirectX won. The xBox 360 is the only current generation console which uses DirectX.

Re:DOA for anything but pro gear (1, Troll)

Dan667 (564390) | more than 4 years ago | (#31439768)

consoles don't count.

Re:DOA for anything but pro gear (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31440054)

consoles don't count.

Why?

Because nobody develops graphic software for consoles?

Re:DOA for anything but pro gear (2, Interesting)

Lunix Nutcase (1092239) | more than 4 years ago | (#31440172)

You mean other than the fact that what the PS3 and Wii run aren't really OpenGL but proprietary derivatives of OpenGL ES?

Consoles Don't Count? (3, Informative)

medv4380 (1604309) | more than 4 years ago | (#31440344)

Really?

Given that the PC gaming market is really a joke compared to the console market I think DirectX is really rather meaningless.

When the Top 50 [vgchartz.com] selling games world wide contains only 3 PC games The Sims, World of Warcraft, and Starcraft it's time to say that DirectX for the PC is over rated.

Since the Wii and PS3 [wikipedia.org] use a custom modified version of OpenGL for their hardware I'd also have to side with OpenGL as at least being relevant to professional games.

Re:DOA for anything but pro gear (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31440086)

Heh, actually I wrote 80% of Direct3D for PS3 when I was porting a game across. It only took a couple of weeks. I wouldn't be surprised if others have done the same ... having the same API on all three major platforms is a boon.

Of course, my employer then decided to add an abstraction layer on top of that ... even though the abstraction layer was the same on all platforms ... go figure.

Re:DOA for anything but pro gear (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31440480)

If directx hasn't won, why do people always talk about how with every new release of opengl it closes the gap or implements features that directx has already had. If opengl was winning don't you think that microsoft would be trying to implement features into directx that opengl had for a while? The headlines would be directx 11 finally implements octoplet skin mapping a feature found in opengl 3.for over a year.

Re:DOA for anything but pro gear (1)

Tubal-Cain (1289912) | more than 4 years ago | (#31440954)

If directx hasn't won, why do people always talk about how with every new release of opengl it closes the gap or implements features that directx has already had.

DirectX wins when this stops happening.

Re:DOA for anything but pro gear (1)

makomk (752139) | more than 4 years ago | (#31441026)

And even the XBox 360 doesn't use DirectX's sound or input APIs...

Re:DOA for anything but pro gear (5, Interesting)

aristotle-dude (626586) | more than 4 years ago | (#31439498)

DirectX won, because it does sound and HID input handling, and because its on every PC sold to every mouthbreathing, Best Buy shopping, banana eating customer.

OpenGL is used on PS3, linux and OS X. It is also used on any game in windows that is cross platform compatible where they did not bother implementing a DirectX engine. Every platform now has HID handling and you can use OpenAL if you want to have the same sound effects engine on windows, OS X and possibly linux.

Now that Valve is porting Steam and related games to OS X and consequently OpenGL, expect to see more activity surrounding OpenGL.

Re:DOA for anything but pro gear (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31439722)

and you can use OpenAL if you want to have the same sound effects engine on windows

Especially Windows Vista and 7 since DirectSound acceleration doesn't exist anymore LOL

Re:DOA for anything but pro gear (2, Insightful)

Brian Feldman (350) | more than 4 years ago | (#31441134)

and you can use OpenAL if you want to have the same sound effects engine on windows

Especially Windows Vista and 7 since DirectSound acceleration doesn't exist anymore LOL

Yeah, sound processing is really quite intensive for a modern computer with some cores lying mostly unused by most video games even without sound turned on.

Re:DOA for anything but pro gear (0, Flamebait)

Lunix Nutcase (1092239) | more than 4 years ago | (#31439822)

OpenGL is used on PS3, linux and OS X.

So the loser of the next-gen console wars and two OSes with minority market shares? zOMG SUCCESS!!

Re:DOA for anything but pro gear (1)

Lunix Nutcase (1092239) | more than 4 years ago | (#31439846)

And before I get modded down by someone missing the point of my comment, there are much better examples to show that OpenGL has won over Direct3D than the poor examples used by the person above.

Re:DOA for anything but pro gear (1)

Khyber (864651) | more than 4 years ago | (#31440280)

"there are much better examples to show that OpenGL has won over Direct3D than the poor examples used by the person above."

Not to an average joe, who wouldn't give two flying fucks about your latest CAD program.

Re:DOA for anything but pro gear (0, Troll)

Lunix Nutcase (1092239) | more than 4 years ago | (#31440470)

Not to an average joe, who wouldn't give two flying fucks about your latest CAD program.

Who the fuck was talking about CAD? All you have to do is point them to mobile phones and Windows. Both are vastly huger OpenGL platforms than the PS3 and either Linux or Mac OS X could ever hope to be.

Re:DOA for anything but pro gear (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31440510)

Most Average joes don't give a fuck about 3d acceleration on phones. Just speaking as one that used to sell phones to other average joes. They care that it plays their mp3s, makes their phone calls, and lets them send sms to their naughty little bitch, NOTHING ELSE.

Re:DOA for anything but pro gear (0, Troll)

Lunix Nutcase (1092239) | more than 4 years ago | (#31440700)

And they supposedly will care about 3d acceleration anywhere else? Why the fuck has this boiled down to what an average joe thinks? The point remains that the examples used above are piss poor examples of OpenGL winning for a number of reasons.

Re:DOA for anything but pro gear (1)

hduff (570443) | more than 4 years ago | (#31440836)

Some citations will help your argument.

Re:DOA for anything but pro gear (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31439900)

DirectX is only on a couple of platforms, all of them created by Microsoft. Sure just one of those platforms grossly outnumbers all of the OpenGL platforms.
(OpenGL ES is not really OpenGL, so you can't count the millions of GLES enabled cell phones)

Re:DOA for anything but pro gear (1)

binarylarry (1338699) | more than 4 years ago | (#31439992)

Modern OpenGL (3+) has it's roots in OpenGL ES. Many of the changes and cleanups happened in OpenGL ES first and were later applied to OpenGL.

So you really should count OpenGL ES.

Re:DOA for anything but pro gear (1)

Khyber (864651) | more than 4 years ago | (#31440308)

WRONG.

OpenGL ES 1.1 is defined relative to the OpenGL 1.5 specification and emphasizes hardware acceleration of the API, but is fully backwards compatible with 1.0.

In fact, most of the changes to ES happened in GL first.

Re:DOA for anything but pro gear (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31440478)

Wow, you have no idea what you're talking about, no ? OpenGL ES 2.0 drastically cut on what was exposed from ES 1.1. It took that turn because programmability is not really the same model as fixed function (something GL 2.0 tried to hide). Now... Wait a bit, and suddenly, GL 3.1 comes and deprecates stuff. What exactly ? have a look at the list of things that got removed for ES 2.0 to find out (and yes, this is an exageration).

Re:DOA for anything but pro gear (1)

Khyber (864651) | more than 4 years ago | (#31440550)

You're a moron - direct from the OpenGL ES page:

"OpenGL ES 2.0 is defined relative to the OpenGL 2.0 specification"

As in OPENGL CAME FIRST, ES GETS DEFINED BY GL.

Clearly stated directly on the front fucking page of ES.

Re:DOA for anything but pro gear (-1, Flamebait)

binarylarry (1338699) | more than 4 years ago | (#31440814)

You're a moron, you've obviously some kind of fucking opengl newbie.

Re:DOA for anything but pro gear (1)

Lunix Nutcase (1092239) | more than 4 years ago | (#31440118)

Well even using the PS3 as an OpenGL platform is somewhat inaccurate because what PS3 runs is a derivative of OpenGL ES and Nvidia's CG programming language [wikipedia.org] . But if you wanted to show that OpenGL has won, you can easily point to every Windows box as it's pretty much impossible to find a video driver these days that doesn't have OpenGL support.

Re:DOA for anything but pro gear (3, Insightful)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 4 years ago | (#31439882)

Added to that, OpenGL ES, which is almost a direct subset of OpenGL (it adds a couple of things, but you can quite easily write code that is both valid OpenGL ES and OpenGL), is present on almost all mobile devices. If you want to write a 3D app or game that runs on a mobile phone, you use OpenGL ES. I think Wince has a DirectX implementation of some kind, but it has such a tiny market share that it's largely irrelevant.

OpenAL is also cross-platform; there's a software-only implementation that runs very nicely on Linux, *BSD, and Solaris; it's not just Windows and OS X. Creative provides OpenAL acceleration on a few other platforms, but I don't think anyone else does - there's not really much point these days in offloading sound processing, CPUs are more than fast enough.

Re:DOA for anything but pro gear (0)

ceoyoyo (59147) | more than 4 years ago | (#31440556)

"OpenAL is also cross-platform; there's a software-only implementation that runs very nicely on Linux, *BSD, and Solaris; it's not just Windows and OS X"

OpenAL is built into both OS X (since Tiger) and the iPhone OS (it is the recommended way of doing game/positional audio) and a Google search suggests Creative supports Windows.

Re:DOA for anything but pro gear (0)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 4 years ago | (#31440600)

Yes, that's what I said...

Re:DOA for anything but pro gear (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31440804)

No well-optimized PS3 game uses the shitty OpenGL implementation. Most games construct native GPU execute buffers directly and write to the mapped GPU registers to submit work (via the "libgcm" library). You can instantly double your frame rate doing this.

In fact, many actual developers did develop OpenGL engines, and had to re-write them, because of Sony's ridiculous PR on this matter.

Re:DOA for anything but pro gear (1)

Hurricane78 (562437) | more than 4 years ago | (#31441018)

Also, don’t forget, that mobile computers (phones, game consoles, etc) exclusively use OpenGL (ES). So porting games between them is much nicer if you start with OpenGL.

And OpenGL has an interface for pretty much every language known to man. Python, Perl, Object Pascal, Java, OCaml, even Haskell!
And for all those languages, nobody wants to implement a DirectX wrapper library. Since you can’t use it on any platform other than Windows anyway. And so it’s an annoying waste of time.

In the long run, DirectX will go the way of Internet Explorer 6.

Re:DOA for anything but pro gear (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31439516)

thats not what Valve [valvesoftware.com] said

Re:DOA for anything but pro gear (1)

91degrees (207121) | more than 4 years ago | (#31440058)

DirectInput, DirectSound and Direct3D don't require each other. You can replace any of these components without affecting the others.

And I've yet to see a PC that doesn't support OpenGL.

And why so dismissive of Pro gear? This is a decent sized market.

Re:DOA for anything but pro gear (4, Insightful)

ultranova (717540) | more than 4 years ago | (#31440554)

DirectX won, because it does sound and HID input handling, and because its on every PC sold to every mouthbreathing, Best Buy shopping, banana eating customer.

DirectX is indeed widely used on Windows, since it handles more things. OpenGL handles just graphics, but is cross-platform; with SDL it's close enough to DirectX that it's often used. And of course you could use OpenGL for graphics and DirectX for everything else.

I like the current situation where the two coexist and force each other to evolve to stay competitive. It's a bit like AMD forced Intel to get off its ass and make good and cost-effective processors again. We'll see if NVidia is able to respond to ATI/AMD's challenge too; but at least we won't see similar stagnation as with 3Dfx after initial Voodoo.

The only good thing about capitalism is that competition forces companies to get off their ass and evolve. A pity it doesn't work anywhere except the tech sector.

HOT DAMN!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31439476)

My life is finally complete. ;-)

Is there a OpenGL 3.x book? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31439482)

Is there one now or on it's way? Im only interested in the non fixed pipeline api part.

Re:Is there a OpenGL 3.x book? (1)

binarylarry (1338699) | more than 4 years ago | (#31439646)

They've been out for a while, check the out the Superbible (covers everything), the Red book (covers the client side API) and the Orange book (which covers GLSL, the OpenGL shading language).

Re:Is there a OpenGL 3.x book? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31439856)

Is not the superbible for opengl 2.1?

How much is different on the non fixed side between 2.x and 3.x that the SuperBible book dont cover?

Re:Is there a OpenGL 3.x book? (1)

binarylarry (1338699) | more than 4 years ago | (#31440050)

I'm sorry, yes it appears the Superbible hasn't been updated (but I'm positive about Red and Orange).

The differences are mainly superficial in terms of how you provide geometry to the GPU and the shading language itself. Buffer objects work the same way, shaders work much the same but some terminology has changed.

It's mainly been streamlined and not revamped from scratch.

The fixed function api doesn't exist in 3+.

michael (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31439596)

Your website is difficult for a Chinese like me!It is too professional!I have a new website:http://www.4yummy.com/ please give me some suggestion

Apple (-1, Redundant)

zonker (1158) | more than 4 years ago | (#31440248)

I wonder if/when 4.0 will be supported by OS X?

So.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31440388)

How does one get into using OpenGL?

Anyone have some links to tutorials? I'm ok with C++, and would be willing to learn a different language if it will let me play around with cross platform game dev.

Any references and help would be great.

Re:So.. (1)

medv4380 (1604309) | more than 4 years ago | (#31440634)

You need to find an SDK for the language you want to use opengl.org [opengl.org] should be a good starting point. That and you're graphics card needs to support the version you want to develop for.

Re:So.. (2, Interesting)

Chatterton (228704) | more than 4 years ago | (#31440854)

OpenGL tutorial [lmgtfy.com]

Compatibility? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31441212)

Can I use version 3 if I need to support older cards, for example by checking support and not using unsupported features? Or am I stuck with OpenGL 1.1 and extensions in that case?

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?