RenderMonkey-Is this ATI's "Cg"?

[quattro]

hmm. maybe i'll look stupid, but the name and comment form siggraph site are driving me to conclusion (better yet, speculation) rendermonky would not be as much a compiler but rather kinda Visual studio or Delphi thingie. a SDK for shaders, or object oriented tool, its output being shading "source code." that woould make rendermonkey on an even higher language level than CG, in fact, rendermonkey could (i am not saying it will, tho) output Cg, just like Dreamweaver outputs HTML (sorta)

 

[LittlePenny]

What if ATi made RenderMonkey so anyone could optimize the compiler for their cards, unlike what I understand NV is doing.

 

[Tahir2]

Hehe

What if Hell froze over?

 

[Doomtrooper]

Well if Rendermonkey supports PS 1.1-2.0, what tool is more complete ?? Reading the Sigraph release again I believe Rendermonkey is just a plugin/tool for existing rendering software and not a HLSL as they also mention Right Hemisphere is partnering up for this event.

This session provides tools for developers and animators to take advantage of next-generation shading hardware.In addition, Right Hemisphere, an ATI strategic partner, introduces various tools to take advantage of hardware shaders and demonstrates how users can efficiently share 3D content across a wide variety of media

http://www.righthemisphere.com/products/index.htm

 

[Typedef Enum]

Well if Rendermonkey supports PS 1.1-2.0, what tool is more complete ??

This is just too funny. Come on dude, do I really have to take the time and dig out your quotes/responses to CG?

Man, if it ain't the pot calling the kettle black. Before, it was just a _bad_ idea...Not good for the industry as a whole, because you wouldn't want _any_ 3D chip maker to spec. any sort of standard. OK, I cann see the point of view on that...and you continued on stating all the _bad_ things about CG...that went totally beyond, for example, the technical aspects of CG.

Now, all of a sudden, it appears that ATI is going to bring a similar solution to the table, which _totally_ goes against EVERYTHING you just stated a mere 2-3 weeks ago! Rather than continue in the same manner as 2-3 weeks ago, now it's suddenly...

Well if Rendermonkey supports PS 1.1-2.0, what tool is more complete ??

Didn't detect one ounce of dissatisfaction in the direction that ATI is apparantly pursuing whatsoever. I mean, come on...A spade is a spade.

If you're going to have a strong opinion on a given issue...and make it very clear, beyond a shadow of a doubt...You just cannot possibly, all of a sudden, go "Yeah...This is the most feature complete tool now!"

OK, just for the heck of it...

and it's still very silly to introduce another HLSL format with Dx 9 and Opengl 2.0 with 3Dlabs leading the way coming soon with their own...makes absolutley no sense whatsover and IMO shows Nvidia has lost its influence with MS and the ARB.

I so no reason for CG being here Type if Nvidia and Microsoft are seeing eye to eye, why not just assist in developing DX9 HLSL ??

Nvidia has designed this language to be optimized for their chips code path as pointed out by Codeplay..so a game developed on this will run optimal on Geforce hardware..hmmm

Another example of a optimization that another vendor would not get

Who isn't for better graphics in games etc ???... I want it now..but I also don't want a graphics card company dictating the rules or getting any special treatments through developers..be it specific code enhancements etc.I would rather wait for the standard that has been in place for a very long time, Opengl ARB and DirectX, at least this way there is a table with everyones interest being heard.

The day Nvidia is calling the shots on the overall graphics industry is the day PC gaming dies... we don't need three compilers and it will fail..mark my words.

When a graphics card company tries to market a compiler that will give developers ease of programming with their OWN cards and does not inlcude proper docs on how to implement profiles, when codeplay states its optimized specifically for Nvidia only ,when renderman software already does it 3 lines of code vs CG 's 2, when DX and OpenGl 2.0 are realeasing their own HLSL....its a attempt to get developers to buy into this CG HLSL so games will always perform better on Nvidia based cards while the rest of the video cards will be underperforming due to optimizations that their cards are not getting..since you own a Nvidia card its not a big deal but for myself and thousands of other non- Nvidia users this means SQUAT to us.

There is nothing wrong with the current standard AT ALL

Here's the absolute kicker...

I would never want ATI to own any standard on HLSL, I would expect them like any other company to go through the proper channels like they HAVE be doing... they were appointed to full membership to the ARB because ATI played fair Having a graphic card manufacturer develop software for game developers when a standard is coming in 6 months optimized for themselves is also a MONOPOLISTIC Move IMO.

Edit: Let me just state that all of these quotes came from one single thread @ Rage3D concerning CG...so it wasn't as if I had to dig around the net finding these quotes. *If* this turns out to be ATI's answer to CG (and we really don't know at this point), I'm not entirely sure I necessarily disagree with it...

Remember what Carmack said in his last .plan: the last thing we need, at this stage of the game, are a bunch of different tools that are all trying to achieve the same thing. I think the downside to this is that it makes it a little more difficult for the developers...The flip side, however, is that it could be the best-case-scenario for the likes of ATI/nVidia since it would presumably allow developers to really optimize routines for the 2 biggest 3D players. It would ultimately come down to the quality of the compilers and/or tools...If they're both _very_ easy to use, then it shouldn't be a problem...But it would be really nice if, somehow, a Universal/Unified Shading language could be developed/adopted by all (ATI/nVidia/Matrox/etc) that could also be utilized in both OGL and D3D.

 

[BoardBonobo]

I would hazard a guess that this will make it easier for developers to decide. Ignore both and continue developing using in house tools until a *proper* HSL is released.

I'm all for meta tools like Cg and RenderMonkey if they adhere to a standard for shader output. It would then simply be a choice of which one feels the nicest to use. Like a choice between Visual Studio and Codewarrior IDEs, you pick the one you feel most comfortable using.

I wonder if ATi will produce a meta level VRML\DXHTML tool called SurfMonkey? That'd be interesting...

 

[Tahir2]

SurfMonkey is an internet filtering tool for parents who want their kids to have safe access to the net away from all that porn and violence.

inn fact my company supportsd this software.... we are a major ISP.

So er they could not call it SurfMonkey..

Pretty cool coincidence mentioning SurfMonkey - in fact I am at work right now and browsing when I *shouldnt be 8)

* that means NEVER browse at work even though we are one of **THE major ISP in the UK.. lol

** THE major basically means we have tons of users and we suck real bad

.. I am of course referring to BTInternet/ BTopenworld. ***But I love my job

*** I had to say that in case they are tracking my keystrokes.. LOL

 

[Doomtrooper]

Is Rendermonkey a HLSL Type, jumping the gun are we not ?? I don't want ATI optimized hardware either..period. I want neutral software that makes developers lives easier yet outputs balanced code for all hardware.


If this is just a TOOL or PLUGIN there is quite a difference in comparisons isn't it. Even if ATI does release another HLSL, ATI had no choice since Nvidia chose NOT to support the entire industry and forced this didn't it.
CG is incomplete, it doesn't support ATI..is that hard to understand

 

[cellarboy]

Are we even sure that Shadermonkey is a HLSL at all? Could it not be an application to allow artists to create Shaders visually? Kind of a 'Photoshop for Shaders'.

ATI themselves seemed to be promoting 'building shaders without programming' in this GDC presentation:

http://www.ati.com/developer/gdc/AtiGDC02Vlachos.PDF

Maybe the the application will be something along the lines of Shaderstudio, which is also linked from the ATI dev. site.

http://www.shaderstudio.com/

And don't ATI's partner Right Hemisphere software produce Deep Paint 3D?

http://www.righthemisphere.com/index.htm

Just a thought...

Frankly though, I'd really like to see a tool like this for creating Shaders:

http://www.darksim.com/html/dt2_shading.html

 

[Gollum]

Is Rendermonkey a HLSL Type, jumping the gun are we not ?? I don't want ATI optimized hardware either..period. I want neutral software that makes developers lives easier yet outputs balanced code for all hardware.

Jup, its too soon to pas judgement, but that's never stopped anybody from speculating now has it.
I'd actually prefer software that would make optimized code for all major hardware out there instead of just "neutral" code that doesn't take advantage of any vendor specific possible optimizations, that'd be undesirable IMHO! I'm not looking for a future where all hardware is equally bad supported (no optimizations at all), but rather equally good supported (as many optimizations as possible) ...

If this is just a TOOL or PLUGIN there is quite a difference in comparisons isn't it. Even if ATI does release another HLSL, ATI had no choice since Nvidia chose NOT to support the entire industry and forced this didn't it.
CG is incomplete, it doesn't support ATI..is that hard to understand

Cg is incomplete, true, it's also still in beta, but that's not the point.
You are incorrect in your claims as you could see if you'd take those anti-nV glasses off for a while - Cg does "support" ATI and every other DX8.1 vendor out there, its just not "optimized" for them (e.g. no PS 1.4 for ATI), otherwise it produces DX compatible code that any card should digest just fine. OGL is currently 1.3 standard plus Nvidia extensions for shaders only and that sucks big time. Although you could for argument's sake also turn the stake around and blame ATI for not supporting Nvidia's OGL extensions - they could if they so desired, Nvidia has opened them for any vendor to support for some time now (3DLabs has already started supporting them as Carmack mentioned in his latest .plan) if they'd do that even Cg's OGL code should work just fine on ATI's hardware! It also still remains to be proven just how optimized for Nvidia the code that Cg produces is, besides not supporting PS 1.4 or ATI's OGL extensions.

Damn, there I end up arguing against my own opinion again, I actually dislike Cg's current form A LOT, neither am I convinced that RenderMonkey is "ATI's Cg", I'm just getting sick of this one sided bad guy / good guy crap ("oh no, Nvidia forced ATi to do this, boohoo") ...

 

[Doomtrooper]

You are incorrect in your claims as you could see if you'd take those anti-nV glasses off for a while - Cg does "support" ATI and every other DX8.1 vendor out there, its just not "optimized" for them (e.g. no PS 1.4 for ATI), otherwise it produces DX compatible code that any card should digest just fine. OGL is currently 1.3 standard plus Nvidia extensions for shaders only and that sucks big time. Although you could for argument's sake also turn the stake around and blame ATI for not supporting Nvidia's OGL extensions - they could if they so desired, Nvidia has opened them for any vendor to support for some time now (3DLabs has already started supporting them as Carmack mentioned in his latest .plan) if they'd do that even Cg's OGL code should work just fine on ATI's hardware! It also still remains to be proven just how optimized for Nvidia the code that Cg produces is, besides not supporting PS 1.4 or ATI's OGL extensions.

I don't want to go through this AGAIN, but proven on this forum CG exposes more powerful register combiners that was not exposed by Microsoft on Nv1x and Nv2x. Since Nvidia owns the source code then add two plus two...
Do you think CG exposes the same on ATI, Matrox or 3Dlabs hardware and that was just one example....I think not.
Last time I looked DX 8.1 includes Pixel Shader 1.4 it is kind of IRONIC that it is the only Pixel Shader left out wouldn't you say
Maybe if you took your tunnel vision glasses off and looked for the truth then you would see ATI would have no choice but to compete with developers, saying that I believe Rendermonkey is not a HLSL (I'm guessing a plugin for future support of rendering software for DX9 HLSL and Opengl 2.0)
The bottom line is what will deliver the best visuals for games, Ps 1.1 or 1.4, if people truly just cared about moving technology forward why would we want future games coded on older PS versions..it makes no sense. PS 2.0 and 1.4 should be the target version that a developer should be implementing now.

 

[John Reynolds]

The bottom line is what will deliver the best visuals for games, Ps 1.1 or 1.4, if people truly just cared about moving technology forward why would we want future games coded on older PS versions..it makes no sense. PS 2.0 and 1.4 should be the target version that a developer should be implementing now.

Should be, from a technology perspective, but what most people continually fail to consider (and this isn't being directed at you personally) is that developers are more concerned with selling games, being able to pay their employees' salaries and keep their doors open. Which means that if any version of PS will be supported by an upcoming game as a salient selling/marketing point, it's not going to be PS 1.4/2.0. Why? How much hardware supports either on the current market? 1. That's it. Pretty small market to target. And, sure, NV30 and R300 are on their ways, both with (hopefully) PS2.0 support, but again both cards will be niche products for quite some time. On the other hand, however, there have been multiple generations of GF cards sold over the past 15-16 months that support PS 1.1, which the 8500 also supports. Much larger market target, and one that won't exclude future hardware for those cutting edge, and quite vocal, PC junkies.

 

[Doomtrooper]

John, IMO the PC Gaming Industry needs to catch up with the consoles. I saw a X-box playing on a HDTV and I must say if consoles continue to advance quicker than the PC including support for broadband this old time PC gamer will say goodbye to the PC for gaming.
This is never going to happen unless developers SAY you need support for THIS version and require this Hardware.
I mean it happened before, Unreal required a Voodoo card or you could play it in software mode. There were many games that required a Voodoo card to run, this time it would be a DX9 card to run ?
IMO 3DFX would have survived if they updated glide to support modern card features like T&L, 32-bit and larger textures like 512 x 512 or 1024 x 1024 etc... but 3DFX sat on their laurels and let their market get stripped away. They had the developer market cornered and made alot of money becuase this game required a 3DFX Voodoo card...
So a new title would require a DX9 card, for support for PS 2.0..I see this no different than wanting to play HALO which would require buying a console ??

 

[Typedef Enum]

Doom, in one instance your right...

If you want to get Halo, you have no choice but to buy an XBox...So, you have to blow $200.00. But that's it...You've covered your bases with that one purchase.

On the PC side of the house, what will $200 get you? A nice GF4/8500, and that's it...If you had nothing to begin with, you would have to purchase a whole lot more.

The nice thing about the consoles (I would never buy one, personally) is the fact that you buy the whole 9-yards with that single purchase, whereas the PCis a more constly venture.

In some ways, I think it's one of those things that's a little bit overblown...That is to say, the idea that you cannot make a buck on a game that requires DX8-level hardware, and tosses in support for things like PS 1.4. On the flip side, I think these guys understand the market very well, and speak from experience. If they have numbers which indicate how good/bad a title will sell based on the requirements alone (IE requiring highend system and/or 3D processor), then I would take those @ face value.

I just think it could be possible for these guys to add advanced support for some of these games, without jeapordizing the game's sales...That's all.

 

[BRiT]

Should be, from a technology perspective, but what most people continually fail to consider (and this isn't being directed at you personally) is that developers are more concerned with selling games, being able to pay their employees' salaries and keep their doors open.
[...snip...]
On the other hand, however, there have been multiple generations of GF cards sold over the past 15-16 months that support PS 1.1

*Sigh* Such a shame that NVIDIA had to go ahead and make the GF4-MX series of cards. Now we have cards being sold today that may give the purchaser a false sense of what technology is included.

If a developer is concerned with selling games, they'd have to support running without any PS/VS, but include support for them as additional eye-candy.

--|BRiT|

 

[John Reynolds]

I just think it could be possible for these guys to add advanced support for some of these games, without jeapordizing the game's sales...That's all.

Yep! It's called pretty water effects. 8)

 

[DemoCoder]

It takes months to produce a tool and Siggraph booths and presentations are registered months in advance. ATI's RenderMonkey is not a last minute "response" to Cg. Ala the fanboy retort "NVidia did it, so ATI isn't evil for doing it also, but is merely defending (forced by Nvidia to do it) themselves!"

More than likely, ATI was researching their own shader tools for months just like NVidia and they were going to present these tools at Siggraph/GDC/etc even if NVidia wasn't developing Cg.

But of course, Nvidia = evil, ATI = angelic, so RenderMonkey will be perceived as a good natured attempt to assist developers, and Nvidia tools will be seen as an evil attempt to lock them in.


One thing they do have going for them: RenderMonkey is a cool name.

 

[Randell]

I just think it could be possible for these guys to add advanced support for some of these games, without jeapordizing the game's sales...That's all.

Yep! It's called pretty water effects. 8)

I take it anything more fundamental to the game would assume at least Gf3 hardware level for the whole game?

If the RV250 debuts at the Gf4MX price point, then with the cheap SiS chips as well, plus NVidias response to RV250 then could developers start assuming 'now' that the majority of the installed consumer base would have a DX8 card for game released in '03?

A lot of people will upgrade for UT2003 for performance reasons alone (that should flush out the last of the V3/4/5's, Gf2MX owners will see quite why it sucks ).