Will OpenGL 2.0 be the equivalent of DirectX 10/ Next?

[Joe DeFuria]

Sorry, I didn't realize that "getting it" apparently means equating

1) two vendor specific rendering paths / coding to multiple vendor specific extensions
vs.
2) a standard, single interface.

My bad.

 

[KimB]

Well, Joe, it's all about pros and cons.

With OpenGL, you pretty much always get the full use of the hardware right away, but may have to wait for standards. Sometimes the standards are available right away (ARB_fragment_program was available at about the same time as DX9, for example), sometimes they aren't. It all depends upon how much the vendors cooperate. You don't always have to wait for the ARB, either, as you could simply have a standard agreed upon by two parties. For example, nVidia currently uses a few GL_ATI extensions in the GeForce 6800 series.

This can make coding take a bit more time, but considering that OpenGL is already easier to code in, I don't think it's that much of a problem. It also has the added benefit of letting many standards percolate through the many vendors, often leading to a much better implementation than Microsoft.

DirectX has the benefit of putting a standard out the door right away, but it's often not that great. For example, HLSL really should have been what GLSL is.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

Well, Joe, it's all about pros and cons.

Which is, um, exactly what I said.

 

[Ostsol]

Right, which would be a problem for any standard, Ostol.

You missed an 's'!!

Anyway. . . The difference with the ARB from Microsoft is that the former is much more committee based. The way it sounds, Microsoft receives consultation and recommendations from IHVs, but ultimately decides for itself what the spec should be. Correct me if I'm wrong, of course. . .

 

[Reverend]

It all depends upon how much the vendors cooperate.

Incorrect.

 

[KimB]

It all depends upon how much the vendors cooperate.

Incorrect.

Why, Rev? If nVidia and ATI work together to get the same shader extension for the next generation of hardware, then we'll have a shared extension. It may not be approved by the ARB, but that won't matter.

Since they're going to be working together with Microsoft anyway on this shader tech, I don't think it's much of a stretch for them to work together in OpenGL.

 

[Humus]

1) As a gamer I care what the hardware capabilities are, and don't care much about software fall-backs. I'm pretty sure that game developers care about hardware capabilities in GL as well, even if transparent fall-back exists.

Therefore you, just like me, care about extended OpenGL and don't give a crap about unextended OpenGL. Just like I don't care one bit for whatever "DX9 compliant" means, but care about what functionality a cards has.

2) I'll take your word about GL 1.2...though I was under the impression that DX9 (PS2.0) type fragment shader standard was only recently ratified? And in any case, how long after they were exposed in the DX9 API was the standard in GL ratified?

It was standardized and exposed in OpenGL several months before DirectX9 was released.