Page 1 of 2

3D Labs open sources OpenGL HLSL compiler

Posted: Tue Jul 01, 2003 5:34 pm
by slikdigit
Just read this on the register:
looks like good things coming for openGL2.0, when it finally becomes standard. I thought this might be interesting for the future of blender.

Posted: Wed Jul 02, 2003 5:38 am
by thorax

Read John Carmack's posts.. He favors abstraction. That's basically what he is saying.. And I've read two posts from him so far that imply his interest in better abstraction, but I wouldn't call OGL 2 IT.. Its just a step toward a pluggable graphics card architecture, so you can compare raw graphics processing performance and not uneven optimizations that allow for certain effects in certain games.. I read somewhere (maximum PC, current issue, I think) that EA is making a special deal with NVidia to exploit their newer technologies exclusively for EA games, this is the kind of behaviour to expect if graphics cards become less standardized.. But direct denial of support for a library is also bad press.. You won't see any of the graphics cards manufacturers not supporting OpenGL 2 in the future, but you won't see them incredibly emphatic about it either, other
than to keep the press happy. But its better to look to the game/graphics package programmers for opinions on the standards. The only time the graphics cards developers will chime in on it with enthusiasm is if it means some corporate advantage over the other card manufacturers in an area other than raw technology, like ease of use and uniformity.

Posted: Wed Jul 02, 2003 7:13 am
by IoN_PuLse
Thorax: Let the forum format your text, don't newline it yourself, you make your posts seem longer and harder to read.

Posted: Wed Jul 02, 2003 7:19 am
by thorax
Thanks.. I cut it down.. I don't think I was able to cut down on the
total area though..

Posted: Wed Jul 02, 2003 3:26 pm
by slikdigit
I don't get the problem Thorax. Carmack seems (in your link) to like OGL2. In any case, whether or not they are happy about it gfx card makers must offer standards support/drivers if people are to (realistically) use their hardware. Currently this means OGL, except windows, which has both OGL and DirectX. I don't think blender could use DirectX and stay cross platform, So it would be OGL2 in + (maybe) HLSL into the standard to make hardware vertex shaders finally "available" to blender.

Posted: Wed Jul 02, 2003 4:11 pm
by IoN_PuLse
I certainly hope they hurry up, DirectX has gained a lot of ground in the gaming industry because it already has it's own HLSL implemented, and boy do I love OpenGL :(

Posted: Fri Jul 04, 2003 4:45 pm
by ton
The future of Opengl is still uncertain. Three conflicts are currently frustrating progress:

- the Nvidia Cg shading language vs. the GLSL shading language
Whilst the Opengl ARB officially choose to support GLSL, Nividia decided to keep pushing its own language proposal. Luckily Cg is still relative compatible, but not having a single standard is not good.

- the increasing distance Microsoft takes, and increasing influence Apple gains in the ARB. Although it's great Apple embraces OpenGL so well, it shouldn't become squeezed between a competitive market battle of the 2 giants.

- there's this 'sword of Damocles' still hanging, with Microsoft potentially charging a patent claim against the vertex shading in OpenGL. It's still "being investigated by MS lawyers"...

I'm not a conspiracy theorist... so I have good confidence the matters all solve well. Behind the scenes the issues might be smoothened with a few comprimises. Most likely by keeping Microsoft happy with their lead in shaders in Direct3d.

Although OpenGL2 already runs at a couple of platforms, for Blender - and 3d in general - I really hope it will become the accepted market standard soon. Probably around Siggraph official announcements will be made. I look forward to that!

Posted: Fri Jul 04, 2003 8:03 pm
by dreamerv3
You and me both

Posted: Sat Jul 05, 2003 6:45 am
by IoN_PuLse
Apple is hardly a giant compared to Microsoft.

Posted: Sat Jul 05, 2003 8:08 pm
by thorax
IoN_PuLse wrote:Apple is hardly a giant compared to Microsoft.
Designwise they are influential.. Note that Mac OS runs on a linux like
OS now, Apple owns LISP and Smalltalk licensing.. Smalltalk was
where both Bill Gates and Steve Jobs got ideas for Windows, NeXTOS, MacOS, etc.. Not to mention Apple's influence on GUI design at CHI conferences.

I think Apple is particularly influential.. Microsoft only has to market the heck out of their products to prove their superiority. The only reason that Windows took over the market in the 90s was that most people didn't know what a computer was.. Now Microsoft must prove that they are not consumer-unfriendly.. Note the ads about "we value your business", heck they do, they want to see your business grow so that they know which market to pillage next..

Posted: Mon Jul 07, 2003 3:42 pm
by IoN_PuLse
The Microsoft Corp. owns Apple, literally. They had to buy it to keep it alive. That is what I meant.

I was simply comparing the two companies, and not their influences.

Posted: Tue Jul 08, 2003 10:32 am
by thorax
IoN_PuLse wrote:The Microsoft Corp. owns Apple, literally. They had to buy it to keep it alive. That is what I meant.

I was simply comparing the two companies, and not their influences.
Oh yeah I recall that deal..

That's evil..

Isn't Steve Jobs a major investor of Apple? Now that deal where
Steve Jobs is trying to make this one dollar per song deal with
the music industry, makes sense.. I mean, considering before apple
in his youth, he invented the blue-box that led to the
stealing of long distance phone calls through the
telephone company.. And bill is the son of a lawyer
and an accountant. Its all making sense now.. Yess..

Now we can't trust apple either..

The world is doomed!!

PS- Good thing there is open source and open standards..

Posted: Tue Jul 08, 2003 1:12 pm
by matt_e
thorax wrote:
IoN_PuLse wrote:The Microsoft Corp. owns Apple, literally. They had to buy it to keep it alive. That is what I meant.

I was simply comparing the two companies, and not their influences.
Oh yeah I recall that deal..

That's evil..
MS owns shares in Apple, but they are non-voting shares. MS has no control over their management.

Posted: Tue Jul 08, 2003 4:21 pm
by IoN_PuLse
However they could crush them like an ant when the US gov't looks the other way.

Posted: Tue Jul 08, 2003 6:45 pm
by thorax
I never really trusted Apple anyhow.. Maybe I would have if
they had sold their machines cheaper.. But look at all we got because IBM
failed to patent its motherboard design!!

The PC's are an example of what happens when you open source a
design. The Mac's on the other hand is an example of what you get
when you trust someone else to design it for you..

In the end they dropped their own mono-tasking OS for a
BSD based one.

The difference is the PC's usually have a proprietary OS running
on open source hardware. And the mac's have a open source based OS
running on proprietary hardware..

Its your choice!!

I'd pick the open sourced hardware because OS's are so cheap..
Thanks to linux and bsd..


To remain on topic, note that OpenGL is a open standard,
and open standards tend to produce open marketplaces..
Microsoft is trying hard to do what Apple did with proprietary
hardware.. They want to control everything, as did Apple
control its third party hardware and software developers
in the 80s, I guess they still do.. Never let a single commercial entity
control your stuff, it leads to stupid solutions, usually driven by sales
staff and not by engineers..