How Cg favors NVIDIA products (at the expense of others)

[Doomtrooper]

No way,

Thats cool I hope your project turns out great

Now tell my why should i abandon this plan ?

Depending on software being used by you Rendermonkey would assist your project would it not ??
Since the only shader function in OGL that has been approved I believe is a Nvidia vertex extension that was proprietary, which of course CG supports...now you see why Nvidia wanted CG out before DX9 and OGL 2.0 .

 

[Bjorn]

3dfx died first, not Glide (other reasons). Many people still like to play Unreal with their V5.

What has people with V5's playing Unreal got to do with this ?
Are you saying that a API isn't dead until the last game using it isn't played at all anymore ?

 

[pascal]

I am saying it was a fast API and that people liked it.

 

[Reverend]

Cg = DX9 HLSL

Are you stating this as a fact, or a prediction, or something you'd like to see happen?

Don't feed the trolls, state your sources.

I left out the word "essentially" at the end. We'll all see I guess ( those that knows exactly what Cg and DX9 HLSL are, I mean).

[edit]And no, I cannot state my sources

 

[Doomtrooper]

I am saying it was a fast API and that people liked it.

I think the real reason was Glide was far easier to code in at the time and developers loved it. I do remember going on the Epic forums and reading threads and threads of complaints for lack of support of OGL and Direct3D for the original Unreal.
I didn't care I had Dual Voodoo 2's but after being on the recieving end with games coming with specific extensions and optimizations.. I never want see the industry head down that road again.

 

[SteveG]

Sent you a PM earlier...maybe I should have posted it here.

Didn't get your PM, I must have thought it was a pop-up ad and closed it. Feel free to resend or post here.

 

[Doomtrooper]

Reverend Nick Triantos as already stated they are seperate and I should certainly hope so...since when does a single IHV develop a HLSL for the entire industry without input from ATI, Matrox, 3Dlabs etc..

 

[pascal]

I dont want too. I was replaying to SteveG post above. He said that if nVidia dont have an open approach with Cg then they cant be sucessfull.

I am consumer on the side of an non proprietary open standard.
It means more competition and better products for us.

 

[RussSchultz]

Reverend Nick Triantos as already stated they are seperate and I should certainly hope so...since when does a single IHV develop a HLSL for the entire industry without input from ATI, Matrox, 3Dlabs etc..

Since when are you privy to what goes on between all these companies?

 

[Doomtrooper]

I dont want too. I was replaying to SteveG post above. He said that if nVidia dont have an open approach with Cg then they cant be sucessfull.

I am consumer on the side of an non proprietary open standard.
It means more competition and better products for us.

Yep...

 

[Reverend]

Reverend Nick Triantos as already stated they are seperate and I should certainly hope so...since when does a single IHV develop a HLSL for the entire industry without input from ATI, Matrox, 3Dlabs etc..

Do not be so close-minded DT. Or at least find out more about the industry.

 

[Doomtrooper]

Reverend Nick Triantos as already stated they are seperate and I should certainly hope so...since when does a single IHV develop a HLSL for the entire industry without input from ATI, Matrox, 3Dlabs etc..

Do not be so close-minded DT. Or at least find out more about the industry.

Are you saying ATI assisted in the creation of CG...yes or no..if you say Yes.. I can prove it wrong fast.

What exactly am I not understanding ?

 

[Mulciber]

Reverend Nick Triantos as already stated they are seperate and I should certainly hope so...since when does a single IHV develop a HLSL for the entire industry without input from ATI, Matrox, 3Dlabs etc..

Do not be so close-minded DT. Or at least find out more about the industry.

Are you saying ATI assisted in the creation of CG...yes or no..if you say Yes.. I can prove it wrong fast.

What exactly am I not understanding ?

well doom, lets put it this way. do you think ATI is working with Microsoft any on HLSL for DX9?

 

[Reverend]

You're thinking 1=1 again, DT. Enough of this.

 

[Doomtrooper]

Time for a break from this...its like a circle...keeps going round and round and round and round to infinity...

Off to spend some time with my kids...

 

[Bjorn]

I am saying it was a fast API and that people liked it.

Ok, but your statement was that 3DFx died first, not Glide and then you said that many people still play Unreal with a V5 to somehow prove that Glide isn't dead.

IMO, Glide was as good as dead quite some time before 3DFX went under.

 

[pascal]

Ok, let me rewrite: 3dfx start to die before Glide start to die.

 

[Bjorn]

Ok, let me rewrite: 3dfx start to die before Glide start to die.

And i still don't agree with you

 

[pascal]

It is your right to not agree.

 

[demalion]

Wishful thinking

Sent you a PM earlier...maybe I should have posted it here.

Didn't get your PM, I must have thought it was a pop-up ad and closed it. Feel free to resend or post here.

sent 25 Jul 2002 08:59...i think that should be EST.

I think it is a mistake to predicate a defense of Cg based on what you think the industry will have to do because it makes sense to you (and me). There is no reason to presume that developers won't stick to Cg even if it disadvantages or fails to expose the full featureset of other hardware (look at glide)...you give them too much credit as a collective group. All they will do is target Cg, and settle for however that falls out for other hardware vendors. They have no reason to care if a specific hardware part stumbles because of Cg implementation decision, since with Cg being the target, no one will buy that hardware....it doesn't affect their sales as they see it. Whether that is best for the direction of the 3d industry, you'll end up depending on one vendor, and one vendor alone, to determine, which, as I state, is undesirable.

In lieu of hoping (and that is what it is) for the best, I maintain that what is desirable is assurance that this won't be an issue, atleast as much as possible, and hence the points of my posts so far.