'CineFX' Conference Call
- Thread starter Dave Baumann
- Start date
Doomtrooper
Veteran
MfA said:
Since the current compiler can't even output standard shading extensions with this demo why would anyone not running a Nvidia based card (yes there is other card manufacturers) really give a rats A$$ about CG ??
And no the other big player is not making a profile for another IHV's HLSL...see above posts for their solution.
Doomtrooper said:
If you don't give a rats arse, why do you insist on tearing it down by posting over and over and over and over and over, essentially the same information?
If some of us are interested in ferretting out the details, rather than incessantly poo-poo-ing it and drowning it in noise, please let the conversation happen so that at least some of us will gain a little bit of knowledge about something we find interesting.
Doomtrooper
Veteran
RussSchultz said:
Well I like to have choice, and the last thing I want to see when running a new game title is:
Hmph kinda contradicts this statement doesn't it...I seem to be missing alot of OpenGL 1.4 extensions
Does Cg replace OpenGL?
No, Cg operates as a layer above OpenGL. Cg Compilers output assembly code in the formats defined by OpenGL extensions such as ARB_vertex_program and NV_vertex_program, and in the format defined by OpenGL 1.4.
If people value choice then the concern is valid, obviously you like proprietary HLSL..thats your right but it doesn't make it RIGHT...Dig.
In short, ATI, Matrox and who ever can do squat with Cg until it is licensed from Nvidia. I am sure a person will create a backend compiler for a P10 here without having inside knowledge from 3Dlabs just for his own pleasure and use. Sorry, sharing that piece of work will only be limited to the person doing it.
Cg looks to me to be a language developed for Nvidia hardware to do cinimatic type coding and not a industry standard.
MfA said:
I am not a lawyer and dont know the american law but in the download page there is a legal info http://developer.nvidia.com/view.asp?IO=cg_compiler_code. Dont you implicitlly agree with this legal info too as well as any additional legal info with the software when you download it? Any lawyer here?
noko said:
This terminology is quite common is open source licensees, where the licensee is addressed in personal terms "You", et al. Read a little deeper,
The only constraint NVidia places on the "licensee" is that they can't use NVidia's logos or trademarks to promote derivative works and you must display/include the advertising clause/license (similar to BSD license).
In fact, NVidia is being considerably more generous than licenses like GNU GPL, in that you are free to modify the compiler and keep the source private.
Your interpretation of the word "personal" to mean "must keep modifications to yourself" contradicts the redistribution and modification clause. There is no specific language stating that you cannot charge for redistribution. If you look at semi-open-source licensees on the web that are "free for developers" but require "license fees for commercial inclusion", this is made explicit in the licensee. (examples, Qt license, Caucho license)
Legally, the law is on the side of the licensee, and unless the contract/licenser specifically delinates requirements, they cannot be assumed to exist. That's why licenses typically have a huge amount of clauses delineating exactly what you can and can't do and defining every term. e.g. "can download this, run it, but can't post benchmarks" as is typically in database licenses.
If NVidia wanted to charge ATI or 3DLabs for using their open source in a commercial product, they would have specifically added a commercial use clause.
[paraphrase="Doomtrooper"]
Repeats himself again
[/paraphrase]
And you went and did it again.
Look, we get it. You dislike Cg for all sorts of reasons that you deem valid. We've known it for a while now, and we don't expect it to change.
Would you mind holding your tongue so the folks who are talking about the mechanics can actually determine to what extent Cg is worthy of praise or pans?
Repeats himself again
[/paraphrase]
And you went and did it again.
Look, we get it. You dislike Cg for all sorts of reasons that you deem valid. We've known it for a while now, and we don't expect it to change.
Would you mind holding your tongue so the folks who are talking about the mechanics can actually determine to what extent Cg is worthy of praise or pans?
By the way...from the Cg FAQ
According to the FAQ, the only required extension is NV_vertex_program, which is an ARB extension now. (But I guess only the P10 (or was it matrox) actually implements this?)
The language specification doesn't necessarily back that statement up, though. The only OpenGL profiles listed are for the NV2x, but it may be the only extension it uses is NV_vertex_program, and the author used those other extensions elsewhere in the program.
Since its only a preview, cut the guy some slack. Humus' demos took a few iterations before they'd run on NVIDIA cards, if I remember correctly.
According to the FAQ, the only required extension is NV_vertex_program, which is an ARB extension now. (But I guess only the P10 (or was it matrox) actually implements this?)
The language specification doesn't necessarily back that statement up, though. The only OpenGL profiles listed are for the NV2x, but it may be the only extension it uses is NV_vertex_program, and the author used those other extensions elsewhere in the program.
Since its only a preview, cut the guy some slack. Humus' demos took a few iterations before they'd run on NVIDIA cards, if I remember correctly.
pascal said:
Yes, if you download the Cg compiler source, the license specifies enumerates what you are required/restricted to do with the software, which basically boils down to not using NVidia's brand name/trademarks to promote your own derivative works and keeping the license notice in any redistributions, otherwise, there are no other enumerated restrictions.
noko said:
"Personal" and "You" or "Individual" refer to the individual or corporation.
If Cg == DX9 HLSL == OGL ARB HLSL (Cg could be chosen over 3DLabs proposal), then they will support it indirectly by having to write compilers for it for their hardware. Whether or not they use NVidia's Cg compiler as a starting point is really up to them.
Your question should more correctly be phrased "have you heard of any other graphic chip makers building a compiler for DX9 HLSL that also outputs OGL vertex/fragment programs"
How can it die if it is part of DirectX9 or OGL? It will have simply graduated from being NVidia's prototype language to being an industry standard mandated by Microsoft. Then Cg simply becomes NVidia's compiler tool.
Moreover, Nvidia has integrated it with dozens of high end rendering packages, so if NVidia needs to keep "Cg" as an extended version of DX9's HLSL for offline rendering, they will still support it in all the high end rendering packages, moreover, NVidia bought ExLuna which means the second most popular renderer in the industry will have it.
If you think there is only going to be a SINGLE HLSL for GPUs as they get more and more powerful, you better think again. The trend for CPUs has been for more and more proprietary languages to be developed, not less.
Just look at web programming: C, Perl, Python, PHP, JSP, ColdFusion, ASP, Webmacro, TCL, Frontier, EcmaScript, and dozens more all have healthy developer communities for millions of lines of code circulating out there.
You think MS or OGL is going to define one HLSL and that's that?
Moreover, Nvidia has integrated it with dozens of high end rendering packages, so if NVidia needs to keep "Cg" as an extended version of DX9's HLSL for offline rendering, they will still support it in all the high end rendering packages, moreover, NVidia bought ExLuna which means the second most popular renderer in the industry will have it.
If you think there is only going to be a SINGLE HLSL for GPUs as they get more and more powerful, you better think again. The trend for CPUs has been for more and more proprietary languages to be developed, not less.
Just look at web programming: C, Perl, Python, PHP, JSP, ColdFusion, ASP, Webmacro, TCL, Frontier, EcmaScript, and dozens more all have healthy developer communities for millions of lines of code circulating out there.
You think MS or OGL is going to define one HLSL and that's that?
Well I understand better now the positioning of Cg, of course with your help, also to Reverends excellent recent article on CineFX, so thanks to you and Reverend. I do like how Nvidia is developing software along with their hardware to take advantage if not full advantage of their newly designed hardware from the get go, something we never saw before with graphic chips. To me that is very smart. Also this allows Nvidia to go beyond a given API to support advance features which are exposed by their hardware and subsequently allow realtime rendering in a number of 3d packages as in Maya, 3dMax etc..
This is actually really cool come to think of it. I don't see Cg as an industrial IHV language which will be used by other IHVs, I am not convinced that we will see Cg used in its current state to program the shader programs in games, reason is that DX9 and OpenGL will have an adequate standard to work from vice using a proprietary HLSL. Just my standing at the moment.
Once again I give Nvidia a bravo zulu for coordinating a language, a piece of hardware beyond current future API specs and making it all work, well hopefully work.
I really don't want to go into Nvidia PR so I won't. Demo, what is exactly RenderMonkey? I will probably check it out more but any comments will be welcomed.
This is actually really cool come to think of it. I don't see Cg as an industrial IHV language which will be used by other IHVs, I am not convinced that we will see Cg used in its current state to program the shader programs in games, reason is that DX9 and OpenGL will have an adequate standard to work from vice using a proprietary HLSL. Just my standing at the moment.
Once again I give Nvidia a bravo zulu for coordinating a language, a piece of hardware beyond current future API specs and making it all work, well hopefully work.
I really don't want to go into Nvidia PR so I won't. Demo, what is exactly RenderMonkey? I will probably check it out more but any comments will be welcomed.
Doomtrooper
Veteran
Noko..
Drew Card and Jason Mitchell did a pretty indepth explanation of Rendermonkey...you are the 1st person that has actually showed any interest in this..congrats.
http://mirror.ati.com/developer/SIGGRAPH02/RenderMonkey.pdf
Drew Card and Jason Mitchell did a pretty indepth explanation of Rendermonkey...you are the 1st person that has actually showed any interest in this..congrats.
http://mirror.ati.com/developer/SIGGRAPH02/RenderMonkey.pdf
Similar threads
- Deleted member 2197
- PC Hardware, Software and Displays
