PS3 expected to Support OpenGl ES
- Thread starter bloodbob
- Start date
Is there any reason not to go for such open standards? It'd make development much easier for both PS3 games and Cell workstations, and save a lot of software development for their own APIs.
The only reason I can think not to go with this is because the effort requires bug-free implementation of drivers, whereas losing the nice API would leave the complexities to the developer to get right. Unless the PS3 drivers can be updated (maybe so as PSP has this feature) Sony'd run the risk of introducing system-wide problems.
The only reason I can think not to go with this is because the effort requires bug-free implementation of drivers, whereas losing the nice API would leave the complexities to the developer to get right. Unless the PS3 drivers can be updated (maybe so as PSP has this feature) Sony'd run the risk of introducing system-wide problems.
Panajev2001a
Veteran
Shifty Geezer said:
The drivers ship with the game basically... they do not get installed or are present in the ROM (not the ones you are thinking about anyways).
Shifty Geezer said:
Huh? PS3, or any console for that matter, is not a PC.
Even on the "PC-like" Xbox, it's the games that decide how the game runs. There's no driver update needed since the drivers come with the games.
Just as a graphics card in a PC has an interface to implement OGL code, the graphics hardware in the PS3 is going to need such an interface. Maybe it's not called a driver but it's still there, surely? Or will OGL instructions get compiled down to machine language directly to the hardware?
Shifty Geezer said:
Well, up until today every console worked like this, with the game carrying the "drivers". A developer can build his own drivers and include them in the game or just use the standard ones the console manufacturer provides. Either way, the console doesn't carry drivers with it, they're still all in the game. Or at least that was my impression, i could very well be wrong. If they come with the console, i'm sure developers can just override them and use their own if they wish to do so.
EDIT: Actually now that i think about it, it's obvious that consoles come with at least very elementary drivers such as the ones for controllers and stuff, otherwise they wouldn't work when there is no game inside. However, graphics/sound-wise, it's safe to assume my above post is valid.
Yeah, that's how I understand it. But I thought this approach to PS3 was to add an interim format so developers didn't have to write their own graphics libraries or implementation of OGL, as one would be provided in the system. If Sony provide OGL in the hardware that's a load off developers minds - Good thing. But then they'll be restricted to using Sony's implementation which, if its got a bug, is a major limitation. So I'd see the need for a BIOS based OGL implementation that could be updated same as a PC graphics driver, or for the OGL implementation to be provide in the SDK at compiler time so it could be updated. That'd probably make more sense actually, but then what's the news report saying about Sony looking at OGL about? If it's just an SDK option they could levae it open for a half dozen standards from whoever cares to write an API.
Shifty Geezer said:
Well i think Sony will never restrict developers to one standard. The possibility to override drivers and libraries is paramount to the technical increase in quality that games need from one generation of software to the other.
Naughty Dog will write their own engines and libraries and everything, they won't let Sony restricte them with a standard set of libraries.
There are, though I don't know if they outweigh the reasons in favor.Shifty Geezer said:
Control is a biggie. Sony does not have control of GL ES like MS does over the version of DX for X2. Granted, they can just write extensions to make it what they want. But if the fundamental structure is not what they want (pure speculation here), it would be rather silly to go with the API in the first place. GL ES 1.1 is solidly a mobile API. 2.0 might not be inherently suited for powerful desktop work.
That kind of touches on specialization. Maybe it's not worth the work to implement the API on the hardware. Again, this is purely in the realm of possibility. I'm not saying this is probable in any way.
The issue of updating APIs and such is handled by each game including its own copy of the APIs, just like on Xbox (and other non-PC platforms, probably).
OK I have a question......
Why bother meeting the OpenGL ES standard, when you could just copy the API, and change it where it's either difficult to implement as is or is not a good match for the hardware?
Writing something that actually meets a standard is much more difficult than writing something simply based on the standard.
This is pretty much what Nintendo did with gamecube, the API is clearly inspired by Open GL but makes no real attempt to adhere to the standard.
Why bother meeting the OpenGL ES standard, when you could just copy the API, and change it where it's either difficult to implement as is or is not a good match for the hardware?
Writing something that actually meets a standard is much more difficult than writing something simply based on the standard.
This is pretty much what Nintendo did with gamecube, the API is clearly inspired by Open GL but makes no real attempt to adhere to the standard.
I think nVIDIA wanted OpenGL/ES more than SonyERP said:
Anyway, the meat seems to lie in the implementation of OpenMAX for the PS3 rather than the API.If the PS3 supports OpenGL/ES and OpenMAX/OpenVG/..., middleware vendors can abstract things more easily. So they support OpenGL/ES in their product. It's their business chance to include OpenGL/ES support in their middlewares, since supporting OpenGL/ES means their products are ready to support other OpenGL/ES devices.
Ty said:
...Why?
Anyway, what i meant is that Sony will most certainly provide a set of libraries developers will be able to base their engines on, but it's up to the devs to decide what to use and what to write with their own hands.
My take is, seeing how crazy the architecture will be, most devs will just take what Sony gives them, maybe optimise them or change what they need, and focus on content creation, while the freaks (ND and Sony's internal teams) will spend 5 years to write their own fine-tuned engines and libraries.
It's all good.
Full OpenGL|ES support is pretty pointless for games since they will want to do things more low level anyway, either via extensions or hitting the hardware directly. Having an OpenGL-like API will of course help since developers will be more familliar with it though.
But if Sony is serious about using the PS3 for more than games, as home media server or even using derivative hardware as a DCC workstation, then supporting OpenGL|ES makes more sense. It means very easy porting of existing OpenGL based tools for DCC and the API is very light weight compared to full OpenGL (although it also contains pointless stuff for the PS3 that's meant for mobile devices, like support for fixed point).
But if Sony is serious about using the PS3 for more than games, as home media server or even using derivative hardware as a DCC workstation, then supporting OpenGL|ES makes more sense. It means very easy porting of existing OpenGL based tools for DCC and the API is very light weight compared to full OpenGL (although it also contains pointless stuff for the PS3 that's meant for mobile devices, like support for fixed point).
DeanoC said:
oooh i get it now
Similar threads
