Which API is better?

Of course,you'll note I never disputed that GL was a better programming environment.. I fully expect DEVELOPERS to prefer GL over DX in that respect.

And you'll also note, that I've said over and over, from that, it does NOT directly make GL the better environment for consumers.

 

Trivia:

1)What programming model do these demos use, and on which hardware/driver combos do they run?

2)What's the matter with Far Cry? Why does it need to be patched for NV40?

3)I've recently heard talks about DX9.0c. Why is this needed?

4)What's PS2.0b, and what's needed to take advantage of it? How does it differ from PS2.x, and why does it exist?

5)What's the point in digging this out?

 

Actually, Farcry on a NV40:
http://www.hardware.fr/medias/photos_news/00/07/IMG0007645_1.jpg

 

FFS Evildeus, do something with that picture... link it, shrink it, whatever. Having to H-scroll on 1152 is not my idea of fun. :?

 

Again, never argued the contrary.

I've said from day one that there are pros and cons to each approach.

I don't advocate the option for the end user to force AA / aniso to be removed. I certainly DO advocate ISVs integrate that stuff directly in their games.

And I predict they may "see the light" at some point in the future as well.

That doesn't mean "the light" is the right way to go right now.

ATI eventually saw "the light" and went with a 0.13u process for their high end chips. Doesn't mean nVidia was right at the time (NV30) to go with 0.13u.

 

GLSL. Runs on several ATI drivers with official support. No nVidia drivers have official support AKAIK.

Of course, demos are completely different from commercial games, so not sure of your point.

You'll have to ask Croteam. I was not under the impression that NV40 needed a patch to run Far Cry with PS 2.0 support.

Why are new GL libraries needed with every GL update?

Different compile targets for different hardware, right?

5)What's the point in digging this out?[/quote]

Why not?

 

The point was that there are drivers available that support GLSL, to a degree that allows using this model. Not sure what "official" is supposed to mean. It's not sanctioned by Microsoft, if that's what you're asking for.

And I was under the impression that there are certain precision issues on NV40 on certain, specular lit bumpy surfaces in certain indoor locations, that stem from the fact that NV40 was unreleased hardware at the time of shipping. NV40 is run on the wrong code path, or so it seems. Hmmm, code paths ...
There's also apparently a patch required for Far Cry that enables using the "PS3.0" capabilities of NV40. It's not really required to enable PS3.0, mind. But if you want that, you need a patch. Oh, and you also need a new runtime. I don't know, but I think requiring a new runtime for using new features is somewhat undesirable. You know, end users prefer a static known good environment. They don't like updating drivers'n'stuff. It spoils their experience

I can't answer that question. Noone needs new GL libraries, you just update drivers.

So you mean different SDKs (implies different application patch levels) for different hardware?
A shame you didn't pick up the PS2.x red herring ...

Dunno. I find it somewhat disgraceful to do the "Look mommy, I was right, told you so" thing.

This is yours:

Finished wondering yet? Or will you now just dwell on and redefine "decent" until it fits your purposes?

 

You mean, the support is so good that nVidia hides it from consumers? (Need to hack the registry to enable it?)

No, I mean that if a consumer downloads the driver, HSLS support is enabled by default.

Nope. Still wondering where it is.

 

The 60.72 drivers expose it without registry hacks. Damn, you were right, that's not official. My eternal apologies

 

Correct. Who's to say it will be officially supported with publically released drivers?

And beyond that, if you do want to start talking about the "quality" of the support:

http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=11712&highlight=140

And you might know why it's not "official".

 

Meh. Who says NVIDIA official release drivers will support PS3.0?

NVIDIA did some "embrace and extend" aka deliberate violation of the spec. Have a look here for evidence. Related threads:
one, two and a poll on the OpenGL.org frontpage

 

I'm pretty sure they'll support HLSL....

Deliberate violations of the spec are necessarily a good thing? Or only if nVidia cards are the only ones on the planet?

What does that have to do with the 3DLabs parse test program....is that program testing nVidia specific extensions?

 

That was a rhetorical question
I'm just as sure they will officially support HLSL as I am sure they'll officially support PS3.0.

No, it's not a good thing, it's actually a bad, evilish kind of thing because it destroys cross-vendor consistency.

The GLSL test checks whether a shader should compile and compares that to what happens on the actual implementation (ie the currently installed OpenGL driver). There are some shaders included that should not compile, but do so on NVIDIA's drivers. This is a result of the embrace and extend strategy, and you'll see that most voices that have raised so far are against such practices. It's also a reason why NVIDIA's 60.72 drivers score so miserably on the test. They do not conform to GLSL standards.

All of this is explained in great detail and eloquence in the threads I've linked, so I won't repeat it here.

The crashes are a different matter, of course.

 

Nvidia's extension to the GLSL spec are enabled by default which allows people to develop non standard code without even knowing they are doing it. This is VERY BAD.

 

Done

 

zeckensack,
I didn't find any hard conclusion in those topics.

BTW on Farcry, it seems also that people don't know how to enable high quality as my SS of NV40 shows.

 

Agreed....

Is something like this (extending) possible with HLSL? I am under the impression (due to MS front end compiler) that it isn't. And I could've sworn I made arguments about stability across platforms being one particular "pro" for the DX approach...which is lost on GLSL due to the inhernet flexibility of drivers compiling striaght from the shader language...

 

What's the point of bringing this thread up again? Didn't care to read through all the new posts, but it seems like we could just have copy'n'pasted a few old pages to get the same result.

Not sure what point you're trying to prove. It seems obvious to me that I was right. On the DX side we're getting, as predicted, a separate shader specification for every card out there. One for GF3, one for GF4, one for R8500, one for R9700, one for GFFX, one for NV40, one for R420. And all cards have to support all models, even those created to match the competitor's hardware. On the GL side we have stable GLSL support from ATi and nVidia. So far, to my knowledge, nVidia's GLSL support works for all my demos. Don't know the quality of 3dlabs's compiler, but I'm sure it's fine too.