OpenGL 4.0

[pcchen]

Khronos released OpenGL 4.0 and OpenGL 3.3 specifications at GDC. The press release (http://www.khronos.org/news/press/releases/khronos-unleashes-cutting-edge-cross-platform-graphics-acceleration-opengl4) summaries some major new additions.

[rpg.314]

Yummy. Good job Khronos. Hopefully, we'll see webgl this gdc.

[Still going thru specs]

[rpg.314]

The feedback thread @ogl forums

http://www.opengl.org/discussion_boards/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=273669&page=1

[Npl]

Wow, I totally lost hope for OpenGL but new versions are popping up fast now.
Is the reason there is an OpenGL 4.0 now that it wont work for pre DX11 Hardware (or non-double-supporting) ? If its fully backwards-compatible I dont understand why OpenGL3.3 was released aswell.

If thats the case its getting a bit cluttered IMHO.
DX 9 Hardware - use OpenGL 2.x or OpenGL3.x in "non-pure" mode (or however that was called)
DX 10 Hardware - use OpenGL 3.x while having some features like geometry shaders only as extensions
DX 11 Hardware - use OpenGL 4.0

Would be a mess having to support all that at once.

[arjan de lumens]

Wow, I totally lost hope for OpenGL but new versions are popping up fast now.
Is the reason there is an OpenGL 4.0 now that it wont work for pre DX11 Hardware (or non-double-supporting) ? If its fully backwards-compatible I dont understand why OpenGL3.3 was released aswell.

As it looks to me, OpenGL 3.3 is intended for DirectX10-class devices, exposing features common among such devices that somehow didn't make it into previous 3.x revisions (instancing with divisors, sampler objects and dual-source blending being the biggest ones). This feature set was evidently large enough to justify producing this revision alongside 4.0 .

[rpg.314]

Has OGL4.0 caught up with DX11? I mean is there any missing functionality now, apart from multi-threading? My guess is that ARB expects devs to create different contexts on different threads and then share stuff amongst them. Is that possible?

[GLX]

As it looks to me, OpenGL 3.3 is intended for DirectX10-class devices, exposing features common among such devices that somehow didn't make it into previous 3.x revisions (instancing with divisors, sampler objects and dual-source blending being the biggest ones). This feature set was evidently large enough to justify producing this revision alongside 4.0 .

Everything from GL 3.0 through 3.3 requires DX10-class (SM4) hardware.

[arjan de lumens]

Has OGL4.0 caught up with DX11? I mean is there any missing functionality now, apart from multi-threading? My guess is that ARB expects devs to create different contexts on different threads and then share stuff amongst them. Is that possible?

There are a handful of smaller features that DirectX11 supports that the OpenGL 4.0 core spec still hasn't got support for:

Atomic operations and Unordered-Access-View accesses from the Pixel Shader (presumably useful for order-independent transparency; no OpenGL extension appears to exist)
BC6H and BC7 compressed texture formats (available as ARB extension)
Texture operations: gather4 and LOD-query (available as ARB extension)
Neither OpenGL nor OpenCL have any constructs equivalent to DirectX11's append/consume buffers.

Still, it's much better than what was the case with OpenGL 3.0 - which targeted DX10-class devices, but lacked major headline features (e.g. Geometry Shading).

There will probably be an OpenGL 4.1 somewhere down the line to tie up some of these loose ends.

[rpg.314]

There are a handful of smaller features that DirectX11 supports that the OpenGL 4.0 core spec still hasn't got support for:
[list]
Atomic operations and Unordered-Access-View accesses from the Pixel Shader (presumably useful for order-independent transparency; no OpenGL extension appears to exist)
I think they expect this to be covered by OCL.

Lacking texture format support is disappointing. Why drop it from spec when all the hw you are targeting supports them?

[Richard]

Yeah, the new BCT formats not being core are a disappointment, but it's an ARB ext at least. Also, very glad to see new versions of OGL coming out a lot closer to the DX version they're meant to compete with but I don't know how Khronos can state "most widely adopted 2D and 3D graphics API" without any contextualisation like "in the super high-end CAD market" and keep a straight face. OTOH, they pretty much yielded the 3D games field to DX so perhaps it's not ye olde spin. Not that it matters much.

Did anyone read the checked version? I wonder if the original 3.0 deprecation model couldn't just be erased from all history books like a bad memory. Is anyone not using a forward context without 3.2> compatibility profile?

Pet Deprecation Missed Feature: What are people using instead of line_width > 1?

[Jawed]

I know it's not really on topic: Valve is using OGL to implement its games on OSX.

http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/2010/03/valve-goes-full-steam-ahead-on-mac-os-x.ars

With OGL ES for mobile (not that I know much about that whole topic), there's a degree of synergy in OGL that looks pretty promising.

Jawed

[rpg.314]

I know it's not really on topic: Valve is using OGL to implement its games on OSX.

http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/2010/03/valve-goes-full-steam-ahead-on-mac-os-x.ars

With OGL ES for mobile (not that I know much about that whole topic), there's a degree of synergy in OGL that looks pretty promising.

Jawed

Well, on OS X, you don't have a choice, unless you can get SJ's approval to ship mac compatible D3D drivers for all the gpu's with your game. :lol:

[argor]

Well, on OS X, you don't have a choice, unless you can get SJ's approval to ship mac compatible D3D drivers for all the gpu's with your game. :lol:
or wine :lol2: :twisted: :razz:

[orca7]

I have watched the 3d and gaming industry for a long time and truly believe that developing in OpenGL is going to more important in the long haul. Unfortunately most new developers are being herded into learning strictly DirectX, I feel that OpenGL has such a longer history and it's open source nature make it something that will always be better, maybe not the first drivers for some games or video cards but a more complete API in general. Most video card manufacturers have built their rush demos using OpenGL, I think that is a very important point to consider. Along with the fact that Microsoft's dominance in the OS business has been eroding over time. I am also a big fan of Linux so there is some bias, but what an OS Linux is...it can be scaled down to run on a cell phone! When developers are thinking about building systems that are ultra fast and stable, Linux and Unix variants like OpenBSD come to mind. Even the MAC runs linux at the core and that says a great deal. Not that I use Linux on a regular basis, I am primarily a Windows IT specialist, and all the 3d and compositing I do with Windows programs. I have been around long enough to remember how advanced SGI was with their development of OpenGL, and I think there are many pieces of legacy technology that have been overlooked from their work.

[guardian]

I feel that OpenGL has such a longer history and it's open source nature make it something that will always be better

OpenGL is not open source per se.

[Gunhead]

Even the MAC runs linux at the core and that says a great deal.

If you mean Apple's Macs, OS X has lots of FreeBSD in it, but not Linux.

I have been around long enough to remember how advanced SGI was with their development of OpenGL, and I think there are many pieces of legacy technology that have been overlooked from their work.

Agreed, turning the IrisGL library into the OpenGL open specification was definitely a massive Good Thing, but what overlooked pieces do you mean?

[Andrew Lauritzen]

Unfortunately most new developers are being herded into learning strictly DirectX, I feel that OpenGL has such a longer history and it's open source nature make it something that will always be better, maybe not the first drivers for some games or video cards but a more complete API in general.
The issue is that OpenGL has just been too far behind the times over the past few years. I'm not talking mainly in terms of features (which OpenGL 4.0 adds most of) but more in terms of the basic API itself... from that point of view I was disappointed to see that no overhaul of the state management mechanism made it into 4.0 (although they have been talking about direct state access and other proposals which is a good sign).

So it's great to see OpenGL catching up "more quickly" than in the past but I'd love to see them take a leadership role - say with some speculative features or maybe go to a fully functional-style API. Right now they're doing an okay job of providing a "DirectX for other platforms" (assuming driver support is swift, which I expect that it will be considering they're just following DX at this point), but there's still no compelling reason to use it on Windows.

[darkblu]

So it's great to see OpenGL catching up "more quickly" than in the past but I'd love to see them take a leadership role - say with some speculative features or maybe go to a fully functional-style API. Right now they're doing an okay job of providing a "DirectX for other platforms" (assuming driver support is swift, which I expect that it will be considering they're just following DX at this point), but there's still no compelling reason to use it on Windows.
It seems like at this stage the sitution is somewhat like a mirrored version of the DX7 days - back then D3D was catching up fast as (a) it had a model to follow, and (b) it was gaining audience. These days GL is gaining audience on the non-windows desktops ('look, mom, I can play games on non-windows!'), has a model to follow, and the GL ES synergy surely helps with a nudge there too.

Apropos, I notice many talented developers from the new generations choose to use GL on windows. The rationale is simple - if you even envision your code running on non-windows, GL is the only choice. This is before we even consider multiplatform and embedded developers (like me) for whom going DX could be anything from moronic to suisidal.

[Dave Baumann]

However, AMD's ogl driver support usually is quite late compared to nv. :sad:

Sorry? (http://support.amd.com/us/kbarticles/Pages/Catalyst-OpenGL-preview-driver.aspx) ;)

[Dave Baumann]

For those with Evergreen based products that want to try out OpenGL 4.0 we have a preview driver available:

http://support.amd.com/us/kbarticles/Pages/Catalyst-OpenGL-preview-driver.aspx

http://blogs.amd.com/developer/2010/03/25/ready-willing-and-able-%e2%80%93-amd-supports-opengl-3-3-and-opengl-4-0/

[Lonbjerg]

Sorry? (http://support.amd.com/us/kbarticles/Pages/Catalyst-OpenGL-preview-driver.aspx) ;)

I think he is reffering to all the hot-fixes that is needed due to the locked in iron driver schedule...or stuff like this:
http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3463&p=6


Maintaining a monthly driver release schedule is detrimental to AMD's ability to release quality drivers. This is not the first or only issue we've seen that could have been solved (or at least noticed) by expanded testing that isn't possible with such tight release deadlines. Yes, consistent and frequent driver releases to improve compatibility and performance are a necessity, but doing anything to excess is a very bad idea. Moderation is key and AMD severely needs a better balance here.
We've been mentioning this as an issue in passing when it pops up and causes us problems, but this is starting to get ridiculous. It is one thing when previous fixes are broken or when older games fall off the grid and are neglected. But when a major title like Far Cry 2 is released to incredibly poor driver support, it is time to wake up and realize that something is wrong. This is not the first time we've seen issues with a newly released game, but the problems we've had with AMD drivers and Far Cry 2 are some of the worst we've ever experienced.
And this time it isn't just us. This isn't prerelease hardware or a beta software package. This isn't a quick fix "oops I forgot something" kind of bug. Though we tend to see problems a lot more frequently than end users, we do see a lot more issues with AMD drivers than NVIDIA. Even though not all those issues are things that we need to bother end users with, the probability of hitting a bug that will affect end users is much higher when you've got a higher number of bugs to worry about in general.
Now don't get me wrong, AMD drivers are still much better than they were before Catalyst. Back during the transition to Vista, ATI drivers were hands and feet above NVIDIA drivers for a long time (and they didn't hang XP out to dry either). AMD has maintained a unified driver model where NVIDIA had to break up their driver for different hardware generations for a while.
And now it is time for AMD to learn from their mistakes and change over to a more manageable and sensible driver release policy. Double the time between driver releases, do much much more testing across hardware platforms and games, and maybe even regularly release partly QA'd beta drivers in between WHQL drivers if there's something that needs a quick fix.


You seem to always be behind NVIDIA when it comes to supporting games...or OpenGL.

A single "on time" dosn't make the other stuff go away.

[willardjuice]

Sorry? (http://support.amd.com/us/kbarticles/Pages/Catalyst-OpenGL-preview-driver.aspx) ;)

[off-topic] these newer than 10.3a?

[Dave Baumann]

[off-topic] these newer than 10.3a?
Yes and no. AFAIK its a somewhat different branch and some of the perf updates might not be in there. Use if you are interested in OGL dev, if not then stick with the currents. They will all be merged in a future WQHL post of course.

[rpg.314]

Whoa....

I don't recall AMD being this quick to support OGL in the past. BIG <3 for AMD ogl driver team.

And now, please port them to linux and add UVD for those afflicted with ssh and the commandline, who are pining for some driver luv from AMD.

[AlexV]

Whoa....

I don't recall AMD being this quick to support OGL in the past. BIG <3 for AMD ogl driver team.

And now, please port them to linux and add UVD for those afflicted with ssh and the commandline, who are pining for some driver luv from AMD.

The Linux build is on the linked page. I wouldn't hold my breath about UVD becoming all that interesting on Linux anytime soon though, and if you have an Evergreen I wouldn't hold my breath about it being exposed at all anytime soon.

[Richard]

Also Alex... hmmmm:

Some theorise that an OpenGL "revival" in the consumer space is on the verge of happening...

Citation needed! :twisted:

[wishiknew]

I'm confused by the AMD blog. Double precision coming to HD 5400, HD 5500, HD 5600 and HD 5700 later?

[rpg.314]

I wouldn't hold my breath about UVD becoming all that interesting on Linux anytime soon though, and if you have an Evergreen I wouldn't hold my breath about it being exposed at all anytime soon.

Ain't that a bitch.:evil:

Personally, I am very hot on hw video decode. I hope ihv's start treating it like a first class feature for the neglected OSes.

[CarstenS]

At least i cannot find anything publicly available on Nvidias site.
http://support.amd.com/us/kbarticles/Pages/Catalyst-OpenGL-preview-driver.aspx

Gonna give them a try later today. Does anyone know by chance, if they work together or maybe even include Open CL?

[cho]

http://developer.nvidia.com/object/opengl_driver.html

[XMAN26]

I think he is reffering to all the hot-fixes that is needed due to the locked in iron driver schedule...or stuff like this:
http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3463&p=6



You seem to always be behind NVIDIA when it comes to supporting games...or OpenGL.

A single "on time" dosn't make the other stuff go away.

Anand should rethink their statement about Nvidia Unified drivers. They had to drop support for previous gen cards with the launch of the G80 as the driver before that launch had support going back to the TNT when the unified driver first started, a good 4-5 years before ATI started theirs. Eventually, dead weight has to get dropped. Det driver 2.xx(1996/7) to Forceware 97.xx(2006/7), TNT thru 7x00 cards, thats over 10 years of GPUs. they had to draw the line somewhere.

[rpg.314]

Anand should rethink their statement about Nvidia Unified drivers. They had to drop support for previous gen cards with the launch of the G80 as the driver before that launch had support going back to the TNT when the unified driver first started, a good 4-5 years before ATI started theirs. Eventually, dead weight has to get dropped. Det driver 2.xx(1996/7) to Forceware 97.xx(2006/7), TNT thru 7x00 cards, thats over 10 years of GPUs. they had to draw the line somewhere.

I think they have a unified driver for all >=Geforce6 gpu's. All of those are still supported.

[Lonbjerg]

I think they have a unified driver for all >=Geforce6 gpu's. All of those are still supported.

Logically I would draw the line between fixed function(G7x) hardware and (G8x)unified hardware.

[rpg.314]

Logically I would draw the line between fixed function(G7x) hardware and (G8x)unified hardware.

G6x and newer have only programmable pipelines.

[MrGaribaldi]

True, but G8x unified the shaders, so still quite a difference between the models..

[rpg.314]

True, but G8x unified the shaders, so still quite a difference between the models..

Maybe, but the drivers are still unified. I guess unified shaders is a smaller change at the driver level than going from ff->programmable pipelines.

[Richard]

Having unified drivers was/is a measure to fight user ignorance. It shouldn't be based on the technical aspects of the parts covered by them. If nV was still releasing parts based on NV1 alongside the GF100 in a parallel universe those drivers still ought to be in the same driver download. By the same token, if there are no users with older parts you can leave them out of the unified package regardless of whether they follow or break or any technical architecture.

Having said all that, now that Windows Update is pushing video card drivers I'm not convinced we still need these unified bundles any more. Certainly, anyone that doesn't need WU to install any driver for them, can click the relevant download link for their respective hardware. id Software alongside the IHVs also fought against this for OpenGL with the venerable "GLSetup" program that was eventually made obsolete when IHVs started paying attention to end-user experience. Perhaps it's too soon and far too many people still use XP for it to be viable but I don't believe unified driver packages are as important now; in fact, I'd wager that having a single binary is of more interest to IHVs to ease development.

[Dave Baumann]

Are you sure that the Windows updates push all the components and not just those that are required for Windows operation? I'm not sure things like (for AMD drivers) CCC is included.

[XMAN26]

Having unified drivers was/is a measure to fight user ignorance. It shouldn't be based on the technical aspects of the parts covered by them. If nV was still releasing parts based on NV1 alongside the GF100 in a parallel universe those drivers still ought to be in the same driver download. By the same token, if there are no users with older parts you can leave them out of the unified package regardless of whether they follow or break or any technical architecture.

Having said all that, now that Windows Update is pushing video card drivers I'm not convinced we still need these unified bundles any more. Certainly, anyone that doesn't need WU to install any driver for them, can click the relevant download link for their respective hardware. id Software alongside the IHVs also fought against this for OpenGL with the venerable "GLSetup" program that was eventually made obsolete when IHVs started paying attention to end-user experience. Perhaps it's too soon and far too many people still use XP for it to be viable but I don't believe unified driver packages are as important now; in fact, I'd wager that having a single binary is of more interest to IHVs to ease development.

I'll agree with Dave and add that anyone who trusts MS driver updates for their video card is a loon. I've seen there "Recommended" drivers in those updates BSOD machines more than once for Nvidia, ATI and S3/Via based GPUs.

[Npl]

Are you sure that the Windows updates push all the components and not just those that are required for Windows operation? I'm not sure things like (for AMD drivers) CCC is included.No, CCC isnt included - but is it needed for casual users?
I know a couple users who are running on 78xG chipsets and there is no need for the CCC, multimonitor can be configured from Windows panels aswell. (And I dare to say that I wouldnt use CCC aslong there are alternatives)

On the Nvidia side the controlpanel is included, but physx and cuda isnt. Games using it install the runtime anyway so its no big deal either.

A possible advantage using unified drivers (binaries) could be when you are using multiple different cards (from the same vendor of course).

[Richard]

Are you sure that the Windows updates push all the components and not just those that are required for Windows operation? I'm not sure things like (for AMD drivers) CCC is included.

I believe you're right for AMD. My ATI system still has that epic X850XT PE you sent me. I keep it running with the MU drivers because it's too slow for games; or rather, most games now require SM3 - it's still faster than my SM3 NV card I have on my lappy but I digress. On my lappy it installs the NV control panel.

I'll agree with Dave and add that anyone who trusts MS driver updates for their video card is a loon. I've seen there "Recommended" drivers in those updates BSOD machines more than once for Nvidia, ATI and S3/Via based GPUs.

The drivers MS publishes through MU are the same WHQL-verified drivers IHV release on their own. If *those* have problems (and some do) MS should fix their WHQL process rather than the delivery mechanism.

[XMAN26]

I believe you're right for AMD. My ATI system still has that epic X850XT PE you sent me. I keep it running with the MU drivers because it's too slow for games; or rather, most games now require SM3 - it's still faster than my SM3 NV card I have on my lappy but I digress. On my lappy it installs the NV control panel.



The drivers MS publishes through MU are the same WHQL-verified drivers IHV release on their own. If *those* have problems (and some do) MS should fix their WHQL process rather than the delivery mechanism.

Its funny you mention that. As I've never had an issue with the same exact driver from the IHV that MS tries to push out. Go figure.

[Richard]

Its funny you mention that. As I've never had an issue with the same exact driver from the IHV that MS tries to push out. Go figure.

I'd never take you from someone who installs video drivers from MU. Didn't you call those people loons?

[XMAN26]

I'd never take you from someone who installs video drivers from MU. Didn't you call those people loons?

You've never run had windows update set to auto or have MS PUSH a driver on you have you?

[Argoon]

You've never run had windows update set to auto or have MS PUSH a driver on you have you?

Afaik drivers are optional so Microsoft can't push them on you.

[Albuquerque]

Afaik drivers are optional so Microsoft can't push them on you.

Indeed. They will always show up in the 'optional' category on WinVista and Win7; drivers were not offered via the update mechanism in XP unless you went through device manager and told it to look online.

[karlotta]

MS , did push drivers on you about four or more months ago.They where considered 'important" and where automatic if you had it set up that way. FACT. Ran into a few times helping the helpless.

[Albuquerque]

<snip> ... and where automatic if you had it set up that way </snip>

If you configure it to automatically install optional updates, yes, it will do this. Otherwise, no, it will not. Some vendor-supplied operating systems may have been configured this way, but OOBE it isn't.

[Davros]

Karlotta, we are trying to get xman256 to admit he's a loon. stop helping him to wriggle out of it :D

[karlotta]

If you configure it to automatically install optional updates, yes, it will do this. Otherwise, no, it will not. Some vendor-supplied operating systems may have been configured this way, but OOBE it isn't. It wasnt "optional" it was "important", It wasnt "Vendor", it was USER and it was pushed, and it was win7, and it has happened a few times on all MS OS's...

[AlexV]

Tools belong in the toolbox, not in people's posts. You're not getting what he's saying, try harder, or express yourself better. These PCs you debugged, they had configured Windows update to download updates but ask for user permission for install/check for updates and ask for user interaction for download and install, and yet it went rogue and started installing stuff? Because if that didn't happen, and the user opted to install something you don't have much of a point. If it did, you do. So, which way is it?

[Albuquerque]

It wasnt "optional" it was "important", It wasnt "Vendor", it was USER and it was pushed, and it was win7, and it has happened a few times on all MS OS's...

So the user opted to click OK? Because that's not what you were alluding to earlier. And I love your gross overgeneralization of "all MS OS's", especially since Vista was the first MS operating system to directly offer driver updates (as optional, mind you) via the standard Windows Update service. Microsoft could only offer you XP drivers over the internet if you specifically told it to via a forced driver update in device manager, or during a new hardware insertion where the "New Hardware" prompt was displayed and you chose "Automatically download online" or some such...

So by "all MS OS's" you actually meant to say NT6 and later, and by "wasn't optional' you meant to say that the user opted to install it? Because, uh, that's how it works in the real world. So I'm assuming that's what you really meant to say and are just somehow not able to get it completely through your keyboard.

[chavvdarrr]

A new version of Heaven benchmark was released http://unigine.com/products/heaven/ yesterday, with support fro OpenGL 4.0, yet in known issues there is:
Crash in wireframe mode on ATI Radeon HD 5xxx

Please don't use wireframe mode on this hardware with tessellation enabled.

Incorrect work of hardware tessellation in OpenGL on ATI cards
:?:

[Broken Hope]

Would that explain why ATI is so slow in OpenGL 4.0, or is there driver just really slow?

http://www.geeks3d.com/20100527/test-opengl-4-0-and-direct3d-11-tessellation-gtx-480-vs-gtx-470-vs-hd-5870-vs-hd-5770/

[rpg.314]

It is a sad to note that ogl 4.1 gets released and no body even posts a thread on it after so much time.

I myself got a shock when I landed on their spec page.

Get it here: http://www.opengl.org/registry/

[Dave Baumann]

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/AMD-Unlocks-3D-Internet-bw-2780949067.html?x=0&.v=1

FYI - We'll soon be supporting OpenGL ES 2.0 on Radeon's.

Edit: Driver available here (http://support.amd.com/us/kbarticles/Pages/GPU74ATICat107PreviewDriver.aspx)

[Novum]

Isn't GL ES just a defined subset of OpenGL?

[arjan de lumens]

Isn't GL ES just a defined subset of OpenGL?

Not quite (unless you count OpenGL 4.1, which was apparently released today); some GLES features that have traditionally not been part of GL include:

GL_FIXED: a 16:16 fixedpoint datatype for vertex data.
glShaderBinary(): The ability to get/set shaders in the form of binaries (as opposed to just source code)
Precision modifiers in the shading language ("lowp", "mediump", "highp", corresponding to FX10, FP16, FP24, respectively)

The biggest new feature of OpenGL 4.1 is that it now includes all of these features into the main OpenGL spec (even though it explicitly ignores the precision modifiers).

[rpg.314]

FYI - We'll soon be supporting OpenGL ES 2.0 on Radeon's.

That is good to hear. In principle, availability of OGLES2.0 on Windows should make projects like ANGLE redundant, right?

[Novum]

glShaderBinary(): The ability to get/set shaders in the form of binaries (as opposed to just source code)
Is that in GL 4.1? Finally!

That is good to hear. In principle, availability of OGLES2.0 on Windows should make projects like ANGLE redundant, right?
Not quite. Drivers provided with Windows and through Windows update don't include OpenGL at all, and most people don't update them manually.

[zed]

and most people don't update them manually.
well perhaps the general public (including ppl who just use the pc to surf the net) but if you see the largest hardware survey on the planet of game players (steam) you will see that a large percentage do in fact have recent drivers. Note - I cant see that info at present but last time I checked it was there