[Ardrid]

I got a quick question for you guys. I noticed that the X800 is supposed to support OGL 2.0. My question is, how are they supporting a spec that doesn't exist/isn't finalized yet? Are they supporting certain features that are finalized? What's the deal?[/quote]

[Reverend]

ATI's OGL2 support isn't finalized yet.

[Rodéric]

[Ardrid]

Originally Posted by Reverend

ATI's OGL2 support isn't finalized yet.

Thanks Rev.

Btw, anyone know when ATI's new OGL drivers are supposed to debut?

[anaqer]

Originally Posted by Ardrid

Btw, anyone know when ATI's new OGL drivers are supposed to debut?

That's been kinda the Million Dollar Question ever since we heard of it.
(EDIT : so no, we don't know eg. those who know won't tell )

[Star_Hunter]

Originally Posted by anaqer

That's been kinda the Million Dollar Question ever since we heard of it.
(EDIT : so no, we don't know eg. those who know won't tell )

my guess would be in 3-6 months...partly based on the beta 4.9 betas being used in the doom 3 benchmarks... which is like 6 weeks away.... or maybe they are hiding it and its just not active since they are still working on it

[Ray Adams]

But what about information from OpenGL Extention Viewer?
There are 4 extention must be supported for OGL 2.0
ARB_fragment_shader
ARB_shader_object
ARB_shader_language_100
ARB_vertex_shader.
And all of them supported in R3xx and up.
---------
Is it OGL 2.0?

[Humus]

That's GLSL, which sort of is what people think of when you say GL2.0. I don't know if any final decision have been made on what the final GL2.0 API will look like, but GLSL will probably be in if nothing extraordinary happens, but there's more:
http://www.opengl.org/about/arb/note...2.html#oglnext

[Rolf N]

Originally Posted by Ray Adams

But what about information from OpenGL Extention Viewer?

That extension viewer is a highly misleading piece of software, to keep it polite. In particular it doesn't display any useful information about GL versions ...

[Ostsol]

Originally Posted by zeckensack

That extension viewer is a highly misleading piece of software, to keep it polite. In particular it doesn't display any useful information about GL versions ...

Indeed. It's also wrong in some cases as to what extensions are required for a particular version. It states, for example, that ARB_vertex_program is required for 1.4 and that ARB_fragment_program is required for 1.5. This is entirely false. No 1.x specification requires a programmable vertex or fragment processing. They are expected to be widely available, but are not core requirements. I'm guessing that OpenGL 2.0 will be the first spec to require such programmability. If I may make a generalization, the 1.x specs describe an API core that is pretty much fixed-function.

[anaqer]

Originally Posted by Humus

That's GLSL, which sort of is what people think of when you say GL2.0.

Too bad, IMO. I'm almost more interested in the "purification" process and the virtualized memory related improvements.

[JD]

At best ati hw supports subpar of glsl features. For example, it doesn't support texture access from vertex shader, etc. Glsl has flags that you can query to figure out what's supported and what isn't. I also found that extension viewer errorsome.

[Razor1]

yeah thats true, hopefully they will add support for more GLSL features, but at least now code can be written and when ATi does support it should autmaticlly work, but then agian their cards need sm 3.0 support as well.

[Humus]

Originally Posted by JD

At best ati hw supports subpar of glsl features.

You mean "subset"?

[JD]

yes, sorry for the typo.

[swaaye]

Do OGL versions roughly correlate to DX versions? Like what are the OGL limits of the R7500 (DX7), 8500 (DX8.1), 9500+(DX9), etc.?

OpenGL versions are sort of low-key identifications. I hadn't thought of them at all until recently noticing KOTOR's requirement for OGL 1.4.

[arjan de lumens]

Unextended OpenGL vs DX versions (AFAIK):

• OpenGL 1.1 roughly matches DX5, except that it supports hardware T&L.
• OpenGL 1.2 falls somewhere between DX6 and DX7 (except that it has 3d textures and projective textures, which IIRC didn't appear until DX8)
• OpenGL 1.3 rather closely matches feature-complete DX7 (adds Cube-Mapping, compressed textures, Anti-Aliasing, DOT3 over 1.2)
• OpenGL 1.4 falls somewhere between DX7 and DX8 (no shaders, but adds auto-mipmap generation, depth textures, and a whole lot of smaller features)
• OpenGL 1.5 also falls between DX7 and DX8 (still no shaders, but occlusion queries and vertex buffer objects)
• OpenGL 2.0 looks as if it will go a bit beyond full DX9 (full shader support; the GLSL has a number of constructs not found in DX9's SM3.0, such as noise textures, atan, while-loops, unbounded shader length/temporaries etc. Also pixel buffer objects, which can be used for render-to-vertex-array support and IIRC have no direct3d equivalent).

In practice, OpenGL 1.4 and 1.5 implementations usually come with vertex and pixel shader extensions, usually corresponding to about DX8 and DX9 (SM2.0) respectively.

[swaaye]

Thanks. That's a very informative list.

[Rolf N]

Originally Posted by swaaye

Thanks. That's a very informative list.

Watch out. It's a very misleading list. Totally not worth remembering, just like that caps viewer program. In practice you will never find an unextended OpenGL implementation.

If a card can do "shaders", you will have access to them through OpenGL. End of story. Forget versions.

[Chalnoth]

Particularly since Windows still only supports OpenGL 1.1

[Ostsol]

Originally Posted by Chalnoth

Particularly since Windows still only supports OpenGL 1.1

One hope I have for OpenGL 2.0 is an ARB supported DLL that will change that. Either that or a requirement for IHVs to ship one in their drivers.

[Chalnoth]

It doesn't just require the DLL, but the compiler libraries for said DLL. I don't really see IHV's or the ARB supporting different compilers.