Is Doom 3's release going to change the OpenGL community?

Discussion in 'Architecture and Products' started by micron, Jul 17, 2004.

  1. PowerK

    Regular

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2004
    Messages:
    312
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Seoul, Korea
    I don't think it'll be out this year at all. I've heard it was going to take a very long time. Probably next year...
     
  2. anaqer

    Veteran

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2004
    Messages:
    1,287
    Likes Received:
    1
    9100 = 8500 rebadged.
    No speed difference, at all.
    9000 (9200) = RV2[5|8]0 = R200 / 2 (+8xAGP)
    Slower than any R200.
     
  3. WaltC

    Veteran

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2002
    Messages:
    2,710
    Likes Received:
    8
    Location:
    BelleVue Sanatorium, Billary, NY. Patient privile
    While I would agree with you that DX has most often run behind the raw capability of OpenGL (for a long time DX was way behind GLIDE, even), I'd have to say that the DX9 release was the time when M$ pretty much caught up. In my book I prefer DX9 because it doesn't support custom extensions, which I think are what has tremendously slowed the progress of the mythical "ARB committee"...Heh...;)

    Basically, if all you have to do to support new features is write extensions under the existing API version for them, the impetus to tie them directly into the API is lost to a large degree, and I think that's what the trouble is, really, with Win OpenGL--which is really still more of a "seat of the pants" approach (which isn't bad and kind of fun at times) than is the more rigid and somewhat more formal approach of DX. But DX I think delivers the more consistent approach of the two which I think is a better platform for proceeding with "the future of 3d" than is OpenGL with its wild, "old-west" extensions approach. Of course, being somewhat "cross platform" (although that phrase has nowhere near the meaning it had a few years ago, I think), OpenGL as a 3d API has just about got to be different from DX in these respects.

    The remarkable thing to me here is not the typical nature of OpenGL, but that M$ has done as well as it has with DX9--that's what surprised me. ARB is just slow as old man Christmas, but considering the different applications for OpenGL as opposed to DX, the glacial progress of a formal OpenGL API structure has never seemed that big a deal to me because it could always be offset somewhat or completely through extensions. I'm very ambivalent about extensions. When Carmack first championed them I supported the idea, but in succeeding years have grown increasingly less fond of the concept in a 3d API.
     
  4. keegdsb

    Newcomer

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2002
    Messages:
    186
    Likes Received:
    0
    April 28, 2004.
     
  5. Dave Baumann

    Dave Baumann Gamerscore Wh...
    Moderator Legend

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2002
    Messages:
    14,079
    Likes Received:
    648
    Location:
    O Canada!
    OK, it wasn't DX9 - but its still two years after shader hardware was available.
     
  6. Rolf N

    Rolf N Recurring Membmare
    Veteran

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2003
    Messages:
    2,494
    Likes Received:
    55
    Location:
    yes
    That's not the same shader hardware that's covered by ARB_fragment_program, though. ARB_fp isn't (and technically can't be) supported on "DX8" class chips, just like PS2.0 isn't supported on 'em.

    It is true that there's no common API to get at R200/NV2x fragment shading capabilities under OpenGL. You need to write separate code paths for the two families, if you want to use anything more than basic daisy-chained combiner stuff.
     
  7. DeanoC

    DeanoC Trust me, I'm a renderer person!
    Veteran Subscriber

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2003
    Messages:
    1,469
    Likes Received:
    185
    Location:
    Viking lands
    You seem to be ignoring the development model the DirectX follows, all developers effectively get access to the tech a year before release. I was developing HLSL PS2.0 programs in early 2002. Beta1 was released in May 2002.

    So games developers do remember OpenGL being late to the party, especially as it was only ASM fragment shaders, whereas DX9 had new vertex shader models, pixel shader models and HLSL.
     
  8. Sigma

    Newcomer

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2004
    Messages:
    88
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Portugal
    Isn't PS1.4 a custom extension to ATI? What about DX9.0a/b/c/d/e/f/g..... ? Why so many of them? It almost seams that they are trying to map each hardware that comes along from NVIDIA or ATI. :roll:

    Also don't forget that GL is not games only. There must be an ARB to decide the best for everyone, and that includes CAD software and games.

    I also find the subject of extensions funny. If Doom3 demanded a version of GL, say 1.5, it would not require any extension to run. Exacly like any other game demanding DX9.0.

    What is the diference between checking caps bits or checking for extensions? There is only one problem with extensions. Sometimes, each ISV would create it's own extension to do the same thing. But that does not happend that often (nice to see NVIDIA using ATI's extensions....)

    Isn't DX10 supposed to have a formal extension mechanism?! If it had one, probably DX9 developers could be using NV's depth bounds be now...
    If the supper buffer are rectified at the end of the year, GL2.0 + super buffers will surpass DX9 I think (without the annoying SM versions thingy).

    And GL2.0 + super buffers + topology processor even equal DX10, right? That doesn't seam "slow as old man Christmas" to me...
     
  9. Humus

    Humus Crazy coder
    Veteran

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2002
    Messages:
    3,217
    Likes Received:
    77
    Location:
    Stockholm, Sweden
    I don't see any point at which shaders were behind in OpenGL.

    DirectX 8.1 was released November 8, 2001.
    GL_ATI_fragment_shader was released August 21, 2001.
     
  10. Deathlike2

    Regular

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2003
    Messages:
    542
    Likes Received:
    5
    Humus, you may want to look up when DX8 was around... that's when Shader 1.1 came into play.

    I don't think there were many games taking advantage of shaders at the time (or the year after). At that point in time, both ATI and NVidia were touting faster hardware and features (faster T&L, faster memory architecture, programmable T&L - which was a flop, Truform)...
     
  11. Humus

    Humus Crazy coder
    Veteran

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2002
    Messages:
    3,217
    Likes Received:
    77
    Location:
    Stockholm, Sweden
    Well, the same thing again, though a bit fuzzier since the register combiners date back in the GF1/2 era, and NVs extension specs seems not to include original release dates. But DirectX 8 was released November 9, 2000. GL_NV_register_combiners spec doesn't list release date, but first revision was April 4, 2000, so it was released at some point before that.
     
  12. Cryect

    Regular

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2004
    Messages:
    674
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hmmm didn't the register combiners date back to the TNT era? Not that they were very useful till the GF era (when they became incredibly useful).

    Register combiners weren't exactly what I would call programmable though :p It was more like setting switches for whitch operations you want to occur though I guess thats all programming really is, just really limited with register combiners (could do though bunch of useful stuff of course with them to bad no games made use of them that I can think off the top my head).
     
  13. Moloch

    Moloch God of Wicked Games
    Veteran

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2002
    Messages:
    2,981
    Likes Received:
    72
    PS1.4 isn't exclusive to ati, just they had the first product to support it, nvidia dx9 support it, that's like saying, isn't ps3.0 nvidia?
     
  14. KimB

    Legend

    Joined:
    May 28, 2002
    Messages:
    12,902
    Likes Received:
    218
    Location:
    Seattle, WA
    I don't think that has much to do with OpenGL, but rather with the hardware features.

    The game clearly targets hardware from the NV1x/R1xx to the NV4x/R3xx. I don't think a DirectX game targetting all of this hardware would be much different. Granted, in Direct3D you'd also have the option of using PS 1.1-1.3 on the R2xx instead of coding another path for 1.4, but that's about the only difference.
     
  15. AndrewM

    Newcomer

    Joined:
    May 28, 2003
    Messages:
    219
    Likes Received:
    2
    Location:
    Brisbane, QLD, Australia
    Extensions (vendor or ARB) arent inherently "evil". They are a good thing. However, they _can_ be evil when you cover the same functionality, like ATI and NV's vertex array extensions. That was silly. Some vendor extensions are a good thing too, like NV's depth bounds (ultrashadow) extension, which doesn't really put a huge burden on your engine wrt API feature support.

    It looks like the ARB is "rushing" OpenGL 2.0. I don't think some of the proposed changes (3dlabs) will make it, which is really pretty crap.

    http://www.opengl.org/about/arb/notes/meeting_note_2004-03-02.html
     
  16. AndrewM

    Newcomer

    Joined:
    May 28, 2003
    Messages:
    219
    Likes Received:
    2
    Location:
    Brisbane, QLD, Australia
    The TNT only supported env_combine, which is similar to register combiners, but not as flexible, and couldnt do dot3 etc. Geforce1 introduced register combiners. Geforce2 doubled the speed of them, and Geforce3 increased the number of general combiners (and added the texture shader stuff).

    You're right tho, they weren't programmable.. just configurable. AFAIK the DX texture stage state stuff does a similar thing, but is a bit less flexible, so it IS used a lot. Also, register combiners make up part of the PS 1.1 functionality. ATI's part (r200) works a bit differently.
     
  17. micron

    micron Diamond Viper 550
    Veteran

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2003
    Messages:
    1,189
    Likes Received:
    12
    Location:
    U.S.
    This will sound lame, I know, but 'I hope they are'..
    Would the changes being proposed by 3dlabs have an effect on pc game developers?
     
  18. AndrewM

    Newcomer

    Joined:
    May 28, 2003
    Messages:
    219
    Likes Received:
    2
    Location:
    Brisbane, QLD, Australia
    I mean they are rushing it at the expense of proper functionality, and are increasing the version number for no real reason except "marketing".
     
  19. KimB

    Legend

    Joined:
    May 28, 2002
    Messages:
    12,902
    Likes Received:
    218
    Location:
    Seattle, WA
    I never thought I'd hear anybody say they thought GL2 was being rushed....
     
  20. Rodéric

    Rodéric a.k.a. Ingenu
    Moderator Veteran

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2002
    Messages:
    3,986
    Likes Received:
    846
    Location:
    Planet Earth.
    We are waiting for OpenGL 2.0 for so long...
    I wouldn't mind the ARB moving faster, but certainly not at the expense of API quality.
    Given history there's little doubt in my mind that even if speeding things up the ARB won't 'rush' an OpenGL2.0 which wouldn't be a real huge step from the current API.
    I like most of 3DLabs proposal, let's see what's coming.

    (I hope ARB_super_buffer won't be much more complex than proposed EXT_render_target, even with a greater feature set. Simplicity is the key.)
     
Loading...

Share This Page

  • About Us

    Beyond3D has been around for over a decade and prides itself on being the best place on the web for in-depth, technically-driven discussion and analysis of 3D graphics hardware. If you love pixels and transistors, you've come to the right place!

    Beyond3D is proudly published by GPU Tools Ltd.
Loading...