Linked by Eugenia Loli on Sun 12th Aug 2007 23:10 UTC, submitted by irbis
3D News, GL, DirectX The OpenGL Architecture Review Board officially announced OpenGL 3 on August 8th 2007 at the Siggraph Birds of a Feather (BOF) in San Diego, CA. OpenGL 3 is the official name for what has previously been called OpenGL Longs Peak. OpenGL 3 is a true industry effort with broad support from all vendors in the ARB. The OpenGL 3 specification is on track to be finalized at the next face-to-face meeting of the OpenGL ARB, at the end of August. This means the specification can be publicly available as soon as the end of September, after the mandatory 30 day Khronos approval period has passed. Also presented were the changes to the OpenGL Shading Language that will accompany OpenGL 3. For more details check here, here and here.
Order by: Score:
Yes
by Luminair on Mon 13th Aug 2007 00:12 UTC
Luminair
Member since:
2007-03-30

Here's to competition. Long live Direct3D!

Here's to open standardization. Long live OpenGL!

And here's to a healthy combination of the two. RIP (or not?) Fahrenheit.

Reply Score: 3

OpenGL
by mongoslam on Mon 13th Aug 2007 00:14 UTC
mongoslam
Member since:
2006-11-30

One can only hope that this version of OpenGL will catch people and developers attention and eventually see that it is a good option to Direct3D. That it will make games using it easier to get running under Wine is not a bad thing either.

Reply Score: 11

RE: OpenGL
by SpYkEs on Mon 13th Aug 2007 00:37 UTC in reply to "OpenGL"
SpYkEs Member since:
2007-08-06

if they are making games with opengl3 from the ground up they should be able to just release a linux binary instead of using wine. THAT is what i want to see more of.

Edited 2007-08-13 00:38

Reply Score: 20

RE[2]: OpenGL
by dagw on Mon 13th Aug 2007 13:31 UTC in reply to "RE: OpenGL"
dagw Member since:
2005-07-06

There is more to games than just 3D graphics. They would have to be using cross platform libraries for everything if they want to "just release a linux binary". Now I'm no games programmer so I don't know what cross platform libraries exist or how good they are, but the simple fact is that DirectX provides a lot more than just 3D graphics. You'll have to provide a full games developing stack if you hope to lure people over.

Reply Score: 4

RE[3]: OpenGL
by Headrush on Mon 13th Aug 2007 14:27 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: OpenGL"
Headrush Member since:
2006-01-03

SDL is what you want you are suggesting: www.libsdl.org

Simple DirectMedia Layer is a cross-platform multimedia library designed to provide low level access to audio, keyboard, mouse, joystick, 3D hardware via OpenGL, and 2D video framebuffer. It is used by MPEG playback software, emulators, and many popular games, including the award winning Linux port of "Civilization: Call To Power."

Edited 2007-08-13 14:30

Reply Score: 6

RE[4]: OpenGL
by dagw on Mon 13th Aug 2007 14:51 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: OpenGL"
dagw Member since:
2005-07-06

I know of SDL, but since I'm not a games programmer I have no idea how it compares to other frameworks in terms of ease of use, performance and features. Hopefully someone can comment on whether or not it's as good or better than the popular proprietary alternatives. There has to be a reason why it hasn't hit it big among commercial developers.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: OpenGL
by SamuraiCrow on Mon 13th Aug 2007 17:51 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: OpenGL"
SamuraiCrow Member since:
2005-11-19

SDL is easier to use than DirectX. While doing 2d graphics it isn't as fast, but with release 1.3 that will be rerouted through OpenGL's rendering pipeline instead. In short, it fills in the holes left open between OpenGL and system APIs thus making OpenGL a viable competitor to DirectX.

The only limitation is that up-to-date OpenGL drivers from the graphics card manufacturers are necessary to get Windows to go higher than version 1.4 on Vista or 1.1 on XP and older.

Reply Score: 3

RE: OpenGL
by JrezIN on Mon 13th Aug 2007 00:45 UTC in reply to "OpenGL"
JrezIN Member since:
2005-06-29

IF this time they work closer with hardware manufacturers and do improve and drive hardware changes with official functions and not only depending of hardware manufacturer's semi-official extension... well, then maybe that'll be true... gradual increasing OGL minor versioning may be one way to do that and create some kind of hardware capable standard (as DirectX is, were versioning is very useful to know the capabilities of the hardware and what applications do support it)

But OGL is much more focused in professional work these days than games, were DirectX reigns... and we need more support from hardware vendors (better drivers) too.

...that said... these changes in the new version looks promising. I hope they get in our hands quickly (implemented I mean...)

Reply Score: 4

RE: OpenGL
by MORB on Mon 13th Aug 2007 13:26 UTC in reply to "OpenGL"
MORB Member since:
2005-07-06

The positive thing for the video game industry is that opengl is truly cross platform.

Most notably, it provides the same feature set under windows xp and vista, unlike directx, so it will become an attractive option for the gaming industry if they are uncertain whether they should target dx10 (new features but uncertainty about the vista market) or dx9 (no new features, risk of releasing technologically subpar games if the vista market does suddenly explode)

Reply Score: 3

doesn't help linux porting
by elanthis on Mon 13th Aug 2007 01:06 UTC
elanthis
Member since:
2007-02-17

if they are making games with opengl3 from the ground up they should be able to just release a linux binary instead of using wine. THAT is what i want to see more of.


Right, because the only platform-locked API used in a Windows game is the graphics API. The common 3D sound APIs, game-optimized networking layers, input handlers, movie playback engines, VoIP integrated systems, and so on are all complete non-players, I'm sure.</sarcasm>

Reply Score: 4

RE: doesn't help linux porting
by kaiwai on Mon 13th Aug 2007 01:15 UTC in reply to "doesn't help linux porting"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

OpenML, OpenAL and OpenGL - use the standard UNIX networking, and voila - cross platform.

Don't believe the 'hype' that because Microsoft puts a shiny unifying name over a bunch of disparate and disjointed API's, doesn't mean there is actually any logic to them.

As for gaming, who cares - there are consoles these days; get a console, it'll last you 5 years, and get a laptop that'll give you portability - through *NIX (*BSD, Linux or OpenSolaris) and be done with it.

Reply Score: 19

RE[2]: doesn't help linux porting
by Jimbo on Mon 13th Aug 2007 02:42 UTC in reply to "RE: doesn't help linux porting"
Jimbo Member since:
2005-07-22

As for gaming, who cares - there are consoles these days; get a console


There are many game types which don't appear at all on consoles, e.g. all simulations, most strategy, and many RPGs. Not all of us want to play the latest Metal Gear Shallow.

Reply Score: 14

Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

"Not all of us want to play the latest Metal Gear Shallow."

We're all looking forward to the deep and engaging next Quake or Final Fantasy game.

Reply Score: 5

RE[4]: doesn't help linux porting
by Jimbo on Mon 13th Aug 2007 03:08 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: doesn't help linux porting"
Jimbo Member since:
2005-07-22

Final Fantasy is a console game.

Civilization, Silent Hunter, and for that matter Microsoft Flight Simulator, are not.

Reply Score: 4

Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

Thanks for missing the point, it being stop being a damn snob. There are deep console games and shallow PC games and vice versa.
Btw Civ ran on SNES and FF ran on a PC.

Reply Score: 4

Zoidberg Member since:
2006-02-11

FF ran on a PC.

Yes, and it was a console port.

Edited 2007-08-14 09:27

Reply Score: 1

Darkelve Member since:
2006-02-06

Personally I'm looking forward to (in particular) the adventure games; the likes of Dreamfall, Secret Files Tunguska, Runaway 1&2, Sam&Max, Gabriel Knight, Monkey Island, ... consoles have almost none of those.

Reply Score: 3

Marcellus Member since:
2005-08-26

Consoles have traditionally not received games like that because they lack the most suitable devices to play them; mouse and keyboard.

Even if todays consoles can have those as an option I don't expect to see that kind of games on the consoles anyway, as they are not standard equipment.

Reply Score: 3

Darkelve Member since:
2006-02-06

Yes. I'm just saying that is one of the reasons I prefer computers to a console. Another one is: mods, easily down loadable patches and extra content.

Reply Score: 2

Wintermute Member since:
2005-07-30

Pff, try playing simcity on a console. Hell, try playing any economic simulator on a console.

Console's are good for arcades/sports/action. They don't cut for CRPG and most strategy games.

Reply Score: 1

Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

I never said all games work well on every platform, I'm opposed to the PC-gamer snobbish idea that console games are shallow and PC games are not.

Reply Score: 3

VManOfMana Member since:
2006-11-01

[quote]
Pff, try playing simcity on a console.
[/quote]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SimCity_DS

On the other hand, its easier to argue that you can't pull stuff like Osu! Tatakae! Ouendan! on the PC.

There's more than just resolution and amount of keys available to say if a game can be deep. (good) Fighting games can be some of the deepest games you can ever play and and you can't find a better controller for them than a good 8-way joystick and six buttons.

I am not much into PC gamer myself but I have had my share of enjoyable PC gaming moments. Freespace will be unforgettable and I still find Starcraft to be a fascinating expectator game.

All your gaming elitism does is make you miss good stuff that is out there.

Reply Score: 3

StaubSaugerNZ Member since:
2007-07-13

Kia Ora kaiwai!

Unfortunately consoles aren't always an option for indie game developers. While the Playstation 3 uses OpenGL+Cg it is not available for use by the general public, and certainly not available when running Linux on the PS/3 (Ubuntu runs pretty sweet). This is a real shame as Sony promised the Playstation 'Edge' but I there is no general release of it (unlike the Xbox360's XNA kit), which fits Sony's business model but is a shame.

Otherwise I agree with you, developers thinking of a long term strategy should be looking at OpenML, OpenAL (which is starting to be more widely used in games such as Oblivion), and OpenGL.

For those that have only tried earlier versions of OpenGL (or DirectX) it is worth trying OpenGL 2 as it has most of the features of D3D 9c. The object model of OpenGL 3 just makes life even easier for developers, plus gives driver writers the chance to introduce additional efficiencies, plus if you use OpenGL 3 you will have Direct3D 10 features on WindowsXP and Vista (and all the other Operating Systems out there).

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: doesn't help linux porting
by kaiwai on Mon 13th Aug 2007 04:18 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: doesn't help linux porting"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

Unfortunately consoles aren't always an option for indie game developers. While the Playstation 3 uses OpenGL+Cg it is not available for use by the general public, and certainly not available when running Linux on the PS/3 (Ubuntu runs pretty sweet). This is a real shame as Sony promised the Playstation 'Edge' but I there is no general release of it (unlike the Xbox360's XNA kit), which fits Sony's business model but is a shame.


For all intensive purposes, PS3 is a complete and unmitigated disaster. There are only two viable platforms, Xbox 360 and Nintendo. Heck, New Zealand is used as the 'petri dish' for new products - early adopters of technology, and PS3 has come off as a complete disaster. BlueRay dvd's are failing to sell, games are failing to sell etc. etc.

Heck, I've got mates, die hard Sony fanboys who have given up and moved to XBox, PS2 users who deemed they would never go Microsoft so pissed off at PS3 they've looked at alternatives. When the price difference is *DOUBLE* and there are a laundry list of issues with the PS3, is there any wonder if is failing?

Reply Score: 1

WiggetyWhack Member since:
2007-06-30

"For all intensive purposes"

It is "For all intents and purposes"

Reply Score: 11

RE[4]: doesn't help linux porting
by Beta on Mon 13th Aug 2007 10:54 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: doesn't help linux porting"
Beta Member since:
2005-07-06

“Heck, I've got mates, die hard Sony fanboys who have given up and moved to XBox”

Hardly die-hard fans, they probably couldn’t wait the extra months for the PS3 to be released. Yet more proof gamers are fickle. ;)

Reply Score: 3

RE[5]: doesn't help linux porting
by ecko on Tue 14th Aug 2007 16:37 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: doesn't help linux porting"
ecko Member since:
2005-07-08

I've been a diehard Playstation fan since middle school. I've owned every Sony console up until PS3. I bought the 360 last Saturday and not the PS3 because I just don't have that much money to throw at Sony.

It's a great system but right now the 360 is where it's at.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: doesn't help linux porting
by flanque on Mon 13th Aug 2007 04:00 UTC in reply to "RE: doesn't help linux porting"
flanque Member since:
2005-12-15

Uh... I actually prefer PC gaming over console gaming. Many others do too. And besides, aren't we meant to be promoting choice, not locking everyone into proprietary consoles?

Reply Score: 4

RE[3]: doesn't help linux porting
by kaiwai on Mon 13th Aug 2007 04:29 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: doesn't help linux porting"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

Uh... I actually prefer PC gaming over console gaming. Many others do too. And besides, aren't we meant to be promoting choice, not locking everyone into proprietary consoles?


Why does it matter whether the console is proprietary? what do you possible gain about having a stand alone PC - a PC which uses a proprietary BIOS, proprietary CPU, proprietary GPU with a proprietary operating system sitting on top. When compared to a console, the console doesn't off looking too bad after all.

Again, you gain *NOTHING* using a stand alone PC. In fact, given how games constantly up and up their requirements, you're basically stuck on an upgrade treadmill just to get adequate performance out of a game vs. a console that be kept for 5 years and still be able to run games 5 years after purchasing the console.

Reply Score: 6

Marcellus Member since:
2005-08-26

Not to mention that it's a lot more work keeping stuff running on a PC with all the different capabilities of the graphics cards, while consoles have a fixed set of hardware and functionality.

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: doesn't help linux porting
by flanque on Mon 13th Aug 2007 07:11 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: doesn't help linux porting"
flanque Member since:
2005-12-15

I don't have to chip my PC to run software that the manufacturer hasn't received a royalty for.

Reply Score: 6

RE[5]: doesn't help linux porting
by evangs on Mon 13th Aug 2007 07:29 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: doesn't help linux porting"
evangs Member since:
2005-07-07

And a good gaming PC costs much more than a console does, and you're stuck on an upgrade treadmill.

Console manufacturers (apart from Nintendo) have traditionally sold consoles at a loss. They made up for this loss through game royalties. That is why they are very persistent in going after chip makers and sellers.

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: doesn't help linux porting
by flanque on Mon 13th Aug 2007 08:36 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: doesn't help linux porting"
flanque Member since:
2005-12-15

And a good gaming PC costs much more than a console does, and you're stuck on an upgrade treadmill.


True, but I can do a whole lot more with my PC than I can with my consoles. I just prefer a PC over a console, just like thousands of others.

Reply Score: 3

RE[7]: doesn't help linux porting
by kaiwai on Mon 13th Aug 2007 12:06 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: doesn't help linux porting"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

True, but I can do a whole lot more with my PC than I can with my consoles. I just prefer a PC over a console, just like thousands of others.


Pardon? get a console for NZ$600, purchase a laptop for NZ$1500, and for NZ$2100 you get a combination that will last alot longer than a gaming machine from Dell set back at close to NZ$3K

"Just like thousands of others" - yes, thousands out of millions who choose to have a computer and a console; parents purchasing computers for work and a console for games. You, my friend, and your gaming ilk make up a *very* *very* small number in the grand scheme of things.

Reply Score: 2

Jack Burton Member since:
2005-07-06

"True, but I can do a whole lot more with my PC than I can with my consoles. I just prefer a PC over a console, just like thousands of others."

Indeed. Although I'm sure you spent more for your gaming pc than what I' spent for my "simple" pc + a PS2. And I'm sure I can do more or less whatever you can do with yours.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: doesn't help linux porting
by cg0def on Mon 13th Aug 2007 06:01 UTC in reply to "RE: doesn't help linux porting"
cg0def Member since:
2006-02-12

nm the *nix vs everything else arguments and the whole thing of weather or not *nix is actually a viable laptop/desktop alternative.
As far as consoles go, MS seem to have taken a pretty nice chuck of that market too and xbox does use a version of directx. But not to worry every other console uses ogl. Also virtually all special effects in movies are created with opengl so directx does not really have such a large share as most people believe it does.

But it would be nice to see ogl coming back to the desktop. I don't really hold high hopes for that but it's nice to dream every once in a while.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: doesn't help linux porting
by ector on Mon 13th Aug 2007 06:08 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: doesn't help linux porting"
ector Member since:
2006-06-05

Where is this myth coming from? NONE of the consoles have OpenGL as their primary API, and there are very good reasons for that.

Both Wii and Playstation have API:s that are much closer to the hardware than OpenGL. GL has so much old useless cruft in it, so it would be stupid to use it on consoles where max efficiency and min memory consumption is king.

Same thing with Xbox, sure, it runs "Direct3D", but it's a special version adapted for the Xbox hardware.

Reply Score: 2

apoclypse Member since:
2007-02-17

Um. This is not true at all. At least for the playstation it isn't. Sony uses egl (or opengl ES) as their basis for their toolkit.
Here is a link among many that shows this.

http://www.ps3-market.co.uk/sony-playstation-3-game-development/

Sony has used opengl as part of their toolkit since the very first playstation. The version of opengl that they use (ES) is usually used for embedded systems and usually stick as close to metal as possible but it's also very extensible. BTW, whenever X gets ported to use full opengl it will also be using opengl ES as it backend (which is why its usually called Xegl).

Here is another link form the wiki.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PlayStation_3#Development

Sony really went all out this time with a very open platform (except for the graphics drivers) which is pretty cool. If they would actually let you use the RSX drivers in linux and upgrade the ram (I think they should have thought about that a bit). I think the PS3 would have been the next commodore 64 or Amiga. That community is still around and they are always looking for a new toy to replace their old one and the PS3 would have been perfect. People can most likely get around the ram issue, but without the graphics drivers its a no go.

Reply Score: 6

RE[5]: doesn't help linux porting
by ector on Mon 13th Aug 2007 06:50 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: doesn't help linux porting"
ector Member since:
2006-06-05

So whst? It may be called OpenGL ES with playstation extensions, but it's still not the same OpenGL, which make the "easy porting" argument moot. It's not much harder to do a good port between D3D and OpenGL than to do a good port between OpenGL and "OpenGL ES with Playstation extensions".

And since consoles are so specialized machines, with often rather strange performance characteristics compared to the PC, the porting effort is still big, and the choice of a variant of OpenGL does not really change that.

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: doesn't help linux porting
by makc on Mon 13th Aug 2007 11:40 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: doesn't help linux porting"
makc Member since:
2006-01-11

egl != opengl es. egl is a widowing api, opengl es is a rendering api
for instance egl is used to support openvg aswell.

http://www.khronos.org/

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: doesn't help linux porting
by MORB on Mon 13th Aug 2007 13:38 UTC in reply to "RE: doesn't help linux porting"
MORB Member since:
2005-07-06

Consoles are closed systems and therefore inconvenient.

Want to plug a console to a DVI monitor? Tough luck.

Don't want to wait 6 month - one year for a game to be released in your contry because they need to translate it, and you don't care about the translation anyway, because they are usually sloppy and use awful voice actors?
Too bad, you can't order the game from the us - unless you also buy an us console, which comes with a whole new set of inconvenience.

Yes, some/most of those issues can be solved by ordering adapters or chips of dubious quality from some asian websites or by getting your console modded (not even sure a 360 can be made region free), but then the argument that a console is just "plug and play" starts melting down fast.

Also, most pc games nowadays allows people to make mods. If you play oblivion on 360, the only additional content is crappy and overpriced stuff from bethesda.
If you play on PC, you have entire websites of amateur content, some of which is very good (especially at fixing many more or less minor inconveniences in the game)

So, screw consoles. I only ever buy any of them for a select few good games that can't be found on PC.

Edited 2007-08-13 13:39

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: doesn't help linux porting
by Alleister on Mon 13th Aug 2007 14:56 UTC in reply to "RE: doesn't help linux porting"
Alleister Member since:
2006-05-29

Console games differ very much from PC/Mac games. They have horrible controls (no Mouse&Keyboard) that disqualify them from decent implementations of most genres: no Simulations, no Lucasgames style Adventures (which have a revival on PC right now), no Strategy games, no innovative indy games (because a PS3/XBox/Wii developement kits are extremely expensive), no management games, no mmorpgs, no decent rpgs, no ... i could go on like that for ever.

So buying a Console as replacement is an alternative if you like either beat em ups, wannabe gangster racers or sport games or if you are an masochist who wants to try playing an fps with joypad (=i'm-drunk-and-running-into-walls-simulation).

I had 4 consoles so far and it was always the same... after 3 month i return to my PC, even if it was outdated at that time.

Reply Score: 2

BluenoseJake Member since:
2005-08-11

"no innovative indy games (because a PS3/XBox/Wii developement kits are extremely expensive)"

Uh, XNA for Xbox 360 is free. Can't get much cheaper than that. if you plan to distribute your games (not a hobbiest, it costs 99 bucks a year, or 49 for 4 months. That's still pretty cheap, any small dev house could afford that.

http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/xna/aa937793.aspx

quote from page:

"Q: How much does XNA Game Studio Express cost? Is there a difference between Windows and Xbox 360 development?

A: Visual C# Express, the XNA Game Studio Express tools and runtime environment for Windows are all FREE. To develop, debug and/or play games on the Xbox 360, however, you must have an XNA Creators Club subscription purchased directly from the Xbox Live Marketplace. Two subscription options are available: $99 per year or $49 per four months."

Reply Score: 3

Alleister Member since:
2006-05-29

i know about XNA, but from what i have heard, you can't even spread games for free without paying additional Microsoft tax.

Plus XBox360 has the additional disadvantage that 1/3 of the sold consoles died in the first year of usage, so who would want that kind of hardware?

Reply Score: 2

BluenoseJake Member since:
2005-08-11

"Plus XBox360 has the additional disadvantage that 1/3 of the sold consoles died in the first year of usage, so who would want that kind of hardware?"

That's an entirely different issue. As far as the MS tax goes, I believe that 99 bucks a year to distribute your game to all and sundry is much, much cheaper than any of the other consoles SDKs, and calling it a "Microsoft tax" is just asinine. The Sony tax is huge, both hardware and SDK-wise.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: doesn't help linux porting
by n4cer on Mon 13th Aug 2007 18:37 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: doesn't help linux porting"
n4cer Member since:
2005-07-06

i know about XNA, but from what i have heard, you can't even spread games for free without paying additional Microsoft tax.


Not as binaries currently, however you can freely share them as source code distributions.

Reply Score: 2

BluenoseJake Member since:
2005-08-11

Yup, a good point. it's ironic, but MS doesn't try to stop you from opensourcing your XNA projects

Reply Score: 2

More OpenGL games perhaps?
by Quake on Mon 13th Aug 2007 01:38 UTC
Quake
Member since:
2005-10-14

I seriously hope that will will push devs to develop games using OpenGL so that they can also be ported to Linux.

And for those who say just play a console: It's a matter of choice. Some games are much better being played using a keyboard and a mouse. So to each and his own.

Reply Score: 5

RE: More OpenGL games perhaps?
by makc on Mon 13th Aug 2007 11:51 UTC in reply to "More OpenGL games perhaps?"
makc Member since:
2006-01-11

More than to Linux, that would be OSX. Linux market is small and should still prove itself in sales.

Don't blame producers if they don't consider a market: show them it's worth to do it.

Reply Score: 2

nope
by elanthis on Mon 13th Aug 2007 03:25 UTC
elanthis
Member since:
2007-02-17

OpenML, OpenAL and OpenGL - use the standard UNIX networking, and voila - cross platform.


I don't think you have a clue what OpenML does.

OpenAL is slowly becoming a standard, yes, but the proprietary APIs are still popular.

The standard UNIX networking APIs are just low-level socket routines, not a high-level game-optimized network library. The low-level API is irrelevant - your average game author never touches one, whether on Windows or UNIX.

Don't believe the 'hype' that because Microsoft puts a shiny unifying name over a bunch of disparate and disjointed API's, doesn't mean there is actually any logic to them.


Microsoft has nothing to do with any of it. I'm not talking about any Microsoft OS or DirectX APIs other than D3D and maybe DirectInput.

Reply Score: 1

RE: nope
by kaiwai on Mon 13th Aug 2007 04:46 UTC in reply to "nope"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

1) Use the reply button - if you're going to lecture people on what they apparently don't know - it looks very humorous coming from a person who can't be bothered using the tools provided by the forum for accurate post and reply tracking.

2)

Open Media Library (OpenML) is a free, cross-platform programming environment designed by the Khronos Group for capturing, transporting, processing, displaying, and synchronizing digital media (2D and 3D graphics, audio and video processing, I/O, and networking).


And when coupled with GStreamer you too can have a complete end to end solution.

3) Proprietary API's are chosen by the programmers, and quite frankly, they are clueless - its that simple. Rather than standing back at the problem and looking at the FULL impact of the decision to solely base their companies future on a proprietary API, they're single handedly handing over the future of their company to a third party. For me, I certainly would not want to lose that amount of control over my product.

4) For networking there is gnetlibrary - again, if programmers choose not to do their homework, how is it Linux/*NIX/*BSD or anyone else's fault?

Edited 2007-08-13 04:50

Reply Score: 7

RE[2]: nope
by dagw on Mon 13th Aug 2007 13:38 UTC in reply to "RE: nope"
dagw Member since:
2005-07-06

3) Proprietary API's are chosen by the programmers, and quite frankly, they are clueless

The games market is very sensitive to time to market. If you're a smaller games house, you probably lack both the time and the expertise to develop all the necessary API's and thus it is much cheaper to buy a specialized, well polished product off the shelf.

If you're a large studio you've probably got your own in house tools that you've refined and polished over the years and the all your developers know. It's probably not worth while to jump to a new API just to capture a tiny segment of the market.

So it's not a problem of being technically hard, it's simply a case of costing time and money and just not being worth it.

Reply Score: 4

The important opinion to me is John Carmack's
by Sabon on Mon 13th Aug 2007 05:09 UTC
Sabon
Member since:
2005-07-06

The important opinion to me is John Carmack's. If he think OpenGL 3 is good, then it is good. If not, he can tell us what they left out or messed up.

Somebody with credentials please get an interview with him. Does anyone like that look at this website?

Reply Score: 7

stew Member since:
2005-07-06

Either you're overestimating John Carmack or you're underestimating OpenGL - there's so much more to OpenGL than just games: CAD, scientific visualization, GPGPU (to a certain degree), the visual FX industry, etc

Reply Score: 3

Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

Carmack? Isn't that the guy who work for that company that hasn't made anything influential on almost 10 years?

Reply Score: 2

SlackerJack Member since:
2005-11-12

Isn't inventing the genre influential enough?

Reply Score: 2

Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

id did not invent the 1st person shooter, they popularized it.

Reply Score: 2

Does it support raytracing?
by tuttle on Mon 13th Aug 2007 06:36 UTC
tuttle
Member since:
2006-03-01

Otherwise it will become irrelevant very fast. Real time raytracing is the future.

Traditional polygon rendering performance scales roughly with scene complexity, while raytracing scales with screen resolution and log(scene complexity). So at some point it is faster to do raytracing. And with massively multicore CPUs and embarassingly parallel graphics cards that are really general purpose vector processors, that point is rapidly approaching.

This might sound far-fetched. But when I started doing 3D stuff a big topic was how to do hidden surface removal. There were lots of very clever algorithms, but the "brute force" Z-Buffer won in the end, as scene complexity increased.

Edited 2007-08-13 06:37

Reply Score: 2

RE: Does it support raytracing?
by Finalzone on Mon 13th Aug 2007 07:44 UTC in reply to "Does it support raytracing?"
Finalzone Member since:
2005-07-06

Yes, it does. There is a GPU that uses ray tracing technique: it is PowerVR architecture. http://www.powervr.com.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Does it support raytracing?
by ector on Mon 13th Aug 2007 09:55 UTC in reply to "RE: Does it support raytracing?"
ector Member since:
2006-06-05

PowerVR most certainly does not do raytracing.

And yes, it is true that raytracing scales logarithmically by the number of primitives in the scene, BUT there is a really huge catch - it only does so if the scene is static. As soon as objects are moving, you have to rebuild the acceleration structures that allow the log performance - and that's log(N) in practice. Ouch!

Reply Score: 2

tuttle Member since:
2006-03-01

ector,

This is getting a bit off-topic, but anyway:

most scenes consist of
-large static parts (landscape)
-large complex parts that only move relative to each other (wheels on a car)
-large parts that move in a predictable pattern (plants swaying in the wind).

So if you use something like an OBB tree, you can reuse most of the tree structure from one frame to the next.

Of course it is difficult to implement an OBB tree on current graphics hardware. But GPUs are getting more general purpose all the time. And in the worst case you can always do the raytracing on one of the 16core monsters that intel will produce in the future.

I am writing this from a quad core machine, so a 16 core CPU is not that far off. I really think that we are only one or two graphics engine generations away from real time raytracing.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Does it support raytracing?
by ector on Mon 13th Aug 2007 15:58 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Does it support raytracing?"
ector Member since:
2006-06-05

Well, ray tracing on a 16 or 32 core monster is STILL something like 2 orders of magnitude slower than rasterizing with a graphics chip, and that's before doing reflections, refractions, nice shadows and the other fun stuff that raytracing allows. Raytracing is not going to be a major factor in games for some time to come (other than mini-raytracers for special effects in shaders, which can already be seen in the form of parallax mapping in some games).

Reply Score: 1

tuttle Member since:
2006-03-01

For a simple scene, rasterizing is of course faster. But for sufficiently large scenes, raytracing will be faster.

Stuff like shadows, reflection and refraction require ugly hacks and huge pixel shader programs when asterizing, while they come totally naturally in raytracing.

See this demo for what is possible today: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oLte5f34ya8

Reply Score: 1

renhoek Member since:
2007-04-29

that's really slow. see http://www.demoscene.hu/~picard/h7/ for some more high performance raytracing (please note this is from 2000, 7 years ago, nowadays a lot more should be possible).

the huge advantage of raytracing is it's really easy to use multiple rendering units (= multithreaded) , with scanline rendering this is almost impossible to do effectively. reflections, refractions and shadows are also easy and cheap (compared to stencil shadows, cubemaps and stuff like that). i really hope hw graphics companies start focussing on raytracing instead of scanline rendering. i started making my own realtime raytracer a view years back, and it's a lot easier tha scanline rendering if you are good at math.

hmm.. getting a bit of topic here ;)

Reply Score: 2

tuttle Member since:
2006-03-01

From an artistic point of view, that is of course much nicer than the PS3 demo. But the demo consists mostly of fog and spheres, and these are of course very easy to do in raytracing, while the PS3 demo consists of a normal 3d model.

I agree with you that raytracing is the future though. All the stuff that has to be faked in scanline rendering comes completely natural in raytracing.

Graphics companies do not have to focus on raytracing. They just have to make their GPUs general purpose massively parallel vector processing units for float4-vectors. And they are doing just that.

I am quite confident that there will only be one more generation of scanline game engines.

Reply Score: 2

Kishe
Member since:
2006-02-16

Constantly growing portion of Computer users play games, it's not just a kids hobby anymore.

If games for your computer wouldn't matter, We'd all be using apple.

For Linux to become huge success on desktop department, it needs the tools to attract game development and right now only reason it doesn't is lack of APIs competitive to directx

Reply Score: 1

Papper Member since:
2007-08-13

I think another thing Linux based systems is missing is an IDE that can match Visual studio. Microsoft has had some bad products, but I honestly think visual studio is the best IDE I've come into contact with.

Reply Score: 3

Luminair Member since:
2007-03-30

This is all a bit OT, but the last I heard was that KDevelop, Anjuta, Netbeans 6, and Eclipse are all pretty competitive!

Reply Score: 1

Marcellus Member since:
2005-08-26

They are competitors, but, aside from Netbeans which I haven't worked with at all, they are not really much competition to Visual Studio.

Are KDevelop and Anjuta useful? Certainly.

Eclipse is, IMO, too far behind to be called useful yet.

Reply Score: 2

MORB Member since:
2005-07-06

I've used visual studio for about 10 years, ranging from 5.0 to vs2005.

Therefore, I'm curious. What do you think is that advanced in visual studio 2005 compared to the listed alternatives, at least when it comes to C++?

Visual studio don't do any automated refactoring operation (not wihout visual assist)

It does code folding, so does everything else.
It does completion, so does everything else now (visual studio's completion is pretty unstable and easily breaks on big projects)
It used to be fast, now it's sluggish and randomly hanging up for seconds at a time. Even eclipse is snappier than vs2005.

The project settings dialog is still not resizeable as of vs2005, and still has some horrible usability.

The project configuration dialog is laughable.

The build system is very limited and annoying (I generally dislike build systems integrated in the IDE for they lack flexibility and are not tremendously easier to use than something like cmake except for toy projects)

The resource/ui editor is painful as hell (and anyway, this whole part has to be disregarded as an useful feature since it's MFC which is utter and complete shit)

Visual c++ used to be good compared to the competition. However, ever since 6.0, it has only grew slower without adding any significant new features, so now it's just garbage.

Now if you want to compare other languages, like java in eclipse and C# in visual studio, visual studio lags a few parsecs behind.

Reply Score: 5

anda_skoa Member since:
2005-07-07

I think another thing Linux based systems is missing is an IDE that can match Visual studio.


The impact of availability of development tools, especially IDEs, is mostly overrated.

From my experience, about 6 years of multiplatform development of server and GUI applications, I'd say that developers will almost exclusively use the tools from one platform, their primary development platform.

Other target platforms just require to be able to build and run the software, as there are only very few occasion where platform specific things need to be implemented right there.

Good example is the development of software for any kind of embedded or embedded-like (e.g. game consoles, setop boxes) systems, where development usually happens on developer workstations and almost never on the target system.

Obviously this requires proper multiplatform development and won't work with the flawed and expensive "port later" concept which some companies seem to have dragged along since the last century's eighties.

Reply Score: 2

Sony EDGE
by konrad on Mon 13th Aug 2007 09:00 UTC
konrad
Member since:
2006-01-06

"This is a real shame as Sony promised the Playstation 'Edge' but I there is no general release of it (unlike the Xbox360's XNA kit), which fits Sony's business model but is a shame."

From what I know third-party developers got their hands on Edge. But I can agree with you, I really hope they provide something like XNA but for the Playstation platform. Sony isn't a Software company, and Microsoft cant make hardware. Maybe a joined effort on PlayBox4 would be great.

Reply Score: 2

Time from specs to release?
by Haicube on Mon 13th Aug 2007 09:46 UTC
Haicube
Member since:
2005-08-06

Just out of curiousity, how long did it take for the last major release to go from specs to implementation in operating systems?

Can't help but wonder if this has any affect any time soon or if we'll have to wait 3 years from now. Hopefully we'll see OGL3 on a whole bunch of alternate platforms (hope hope hope!), such as Haiku, BSDs, SkyOS, Syllable and others. Would be nice to see it as a truly wide option as this is one of the USPs OGL has....

I mean, who'd expect Direct X to show up in *Nix ? =)

Reply Score: 2

What about the API
by J.R. on Mon 13th Aug 2007 11:26 UTC
J.R.
Member since:
2007-07-25

Did they fix the ugly API in 3.0? Unless they fixed it I would never touch it again.

Reply Score: 0

RE: What about the API
by makc on Mon 13th Aug 2007 11:52 UTC in reply to "What about the API"
makc Member since:
2006-01-11

nice argument.

Reply Score: 4

nintendo region free
by elanthis on Mon 13th Aug 2007 14:04 UTC
elanthis
Member since:
2007-02-17

Yes, some/most of those issues can be solved by ordering adapters or chips of dubious quality from some asian websites or by getting your console modded (not even sure a 360 can be made region free), but then the argument that a console is just "plug and play" starts melting down fast.


The Nintendo Wii and DS are both region free.

Reply Score: 2

RE: nintendo region free
by MORB on Mon 13th Aug 2007 14:06 UTC in reply to "nintendo region free"
MORB Member since:
2005-07-06

That's awesome, but I don't care about the console. I care about the games that I want to play, and I buy whatever box I happen to require to run it on.

And I still will have to buy a goddamn US 360 to play Mass Effect.

Reply Score: 1

RE: nintendo region free
by anevilyak on Mon 13th Aug 2007 15:03 UTC in reply to "nintendo region free"
anevilyak Member since:
2005-09-14

The Wii is not. One of their marketing people said it was, but that statement was later retracted.

Reply Score: 2

RE: nintendo region free
by Alleister on Mon 13th Aug 2007 15:06 UTC in reply to "nintendo region free"
Alleister Member since:
2006-05-29

No, it is not and who cares for Wii? If i wanted to play games that look like Wii games i would get an year 2000 PC out of some recycle bin.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: nintendo region free
by VManOfMana on Mon 13th Aug 2007 15:37 UTC in reply to "RE: nintendo region free"
VManOfMana Member since:
2006-11-01

I care for the Wii. It is the gaming system that has the most potential to have software that does something different since the Nintendo DS.

Whether or not publishers have been able to think out of the box, that is another story. Afterall, the Wii has had a very similar life than the Nintendo DS: totally underestimated by the public in the beginning, third parties didn't know what to do with it, Nintendo had to show how to use the system's potential, and now it dominates its segment. The only difference is that Wii Sports allowed the Wii to sell like hot pancakes since day one.

I find it ironic that you first say that console games are all the same, then slam the Wii, out of all things, because of its graphics. So what? The games that I play the most on my PC are a 1999 fighting game, the revision of a 2000 fighting game, and a 1998 RTS. Following your little game, let's say that PC games are all about Warcraft, WOW, and Quake clones, shall we?

You can find gems on every single platform that justify buying it. Spcialized hardware like Dance Dance Revolution revived arcades (well, wherever it is still relevant). I bought a Nintendo DS to play Osu! Tatakae! Ouendan!. I'd buy a Saturn just to play Radiant Silvergun. The SNES has one of the best platform gams ever (Super Metroid), Sega did a good job in making out-of-the box games with the Dreamcast, and some of my very favorite games are doujin games.

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: nintendo region free
by Alleister on Mon 13th Aug 2007 17:56 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: nintendo region free"
Alleister Member since:
2006-05-29

"The games that I play the most on my PC are a 1999 fighting game, the revision of a 2000 fighting game, and a 1998 RTS. Following your little game, let's say that PC games are all about Warcraft, WOW, and Quake clones, shall we?"

We shall not, at least that does not reflect my gaming habits. Right now i Play "Ankh 2" (Lucas style adventure in 3d), ANNO 1701 (show me one console game like that), and an amateur MMORPG. How could i ever be happy with any console on the market?

Wii is just a gimmick with its unusual controller but the games are simplistic and shallow like C64 games. So now i have to shake a remote control instead of mindlessly shaking a joystick in some summergames clone... yeah, that is really special.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: nintendo region free
by vinterbleg on Mon 13th Aug 2007 15:40 UTC in reply to "RE: nintendo region free"
vinterbleg Member since:
2005-07-11

Because you play games for the visual experience?

Pointless, as the rest of this flamewar.

OpenGL is a very good API, and it's great that it's evolving further.

Who cares about consoles vs. PCs? Use whatever you prefer, and keep quiet if you haven't got anything nice to say.

On a side note, it is true that indie game developers have a really tough time entering the console market, because:
1) It costs a lot to gain access to the APIs and development machines.
2) Distribution is hard without anarchistic internet access.
3) Only a limited amount of people actually own a console compared the number of people who have a PC, and when you're an indie developer, every gamer counts.

If you limit your gaming to consoles exclusively, you will not be able to enjoy some of the smaller titles. That's a choice.
On the other hand, you can do some amazing things with consoles, such as what Nintendo has done with the Wii.

- Simon

Edited 2007-08-13 15:42

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: nintendo region free
by Alleister on Mon 13th Aug 2007 18:05 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: nintendo region free"
Alleister Member since:
2006-05-29

"Because you play games for the visual experience?"

Partly. I do mind if they can't compete with Quake 2 for visuals. They would have to have some really cool gameplay for me to don't mind they look like shit. I don't see that for Wii games. Wee games are either simple C64-esque reaction tests or games like Resident evil 17.

"OpenGL is a very good API, and it's great that it's evolving further."

No, OpenGL is a gorgeous API and i don't understand why people would prefer DirectX over it. That wasn't the topic of this subthread. The topic of this subthread was, that those ever same "get a console for gaming because consoles are better anyway" comments are annoying and untrue. There are people who want games which don't require you to think... for those people a console is perfect. For the rest it is not.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: nintendo region free
by apoclypse on Mon 13th Aug 2007 18:54 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: nintendo region free"
apoclypse Member since:
2007-02-17

I think this is untrue. Console games can use just as much brain power as a pc game. There is FF:tactics which is a great strategy game that requires some brain power, there is the disgea series whic also requires some thinking. This whole console vs pc stuff is stupid considering that most consoles since the last generation can use a mouse and keyboard. There is no difference. The only difference is in the games released for each platform, and with the console market being so lucrative and games so being so expensive, you usually multi-platform releases for most games anyway. You have some gems sometimes though, like some of th blizzard games. I personally don't see a difference between the two other than having to upgrade your rig more for one rather than the other.

Reply Score: 2

Arguing about PC gaming vs consoles
by WereCatf on Mon 13th Aug 2007 14:50 UTC
WereCatf
Member since:
2006-02-15

This whole arguing about PC gaming vs console gaming is stupid and pointless -.- Some people just like consoles, some like PC! Get over it and stop fighting -.-

I myself happen to do my gaming on a PC, but that's just because playing games like f.ex. WoW would be pure pain without a mouse. And no, I'm not in a constant upgrade cycle. If a game doesn't run on my system then I won't buy it. Just like you won't buy a PS3 game for your PS2 you won't buy a game requiring high-end PC to run on your low-end PC. Simple as that.

And no, I have nothing against consoles. I actually would like a PS2 console too, I know a few games I happen to like a lot and they're not available for PC. But well, if I had to choose between a console and a PC the PC would win hands down.

Reply Score: 2

RE: nintendo region free
by elanthis on Mon 13th Aug 2007 15:27 UTC
elanthis
Member since:
2007-02-17

The Wii is not. One of their marketing people said it was, but that statement was later retracted.


That sucks. The DS I know for a fact is region free, though, at least.

If i wanted to play games that look like Wii games i would get an year 2000 PC out of some recycle bin.


Truly, your ability to appreciate the one true worth of a game's content is amazing. :/ If I wanted to play ANOTHER first person shooter identical to all other first person shooters ever made except with slightly better graphics, or ANOTHER MMO identical to all other MMOs ever made except with slightly better graphics, I'd play games on my PC. ::snore::

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: nintendo region free
by Alleister on Mon 13th Aug 2007 18:12 UTC in reply to "RE: nintendo region free"
Alleister Member since:
2006-05-29

Well, why would i spend money a new system that is inferior in every way to my actual system? Where is the logic to that? And please, don't get started with the innovative Wii games. Wii games are simplistic, shallow and mindless.

Reply Score: 2

Competition?
by gtada on Mon 13th Aug 2007 16:33 UTC
gtada
Member since:
2005-10-12

First: when did all of the pre-pubescent gamers start frequenting this site? Whether you like PC or console games, you're not going to convince the other camp that you're right. Enjoy what you have, and let the other guys enjoy their's. Jeebus. Every article is becoming an "I have to be right" contest (insecurity). And what the f--k does PC vs. console gaming really have to do with OpenGL 3?

Second: I don't even see OpenGL and DirectGraphics as competitors anymore; I see them as complementary. It's usually OpenGL for content creation and DG for games. I don't see either product crossing sides besides a few exceptions. Any thoughts?

Reply Score: 1

gl3
by Bounty on Mon 13th Aug 2007 16:38 UTC
Bounty
Member since:
2006-09-18

I'm glad to see gl still advancing. It's good to have options.

As for console v.s. PC, most people already have or need a PC for various reasons, just like most people already have TV's. So really we're talking about 600$ for a PS3 or 300$ for a 8800GTS 320. And yeah, in 3 years I'll upgrade the 8800 to what ever 300$ video card is out at the time. Yeah, Xbox is a little cheaper, but I'll spend more on games, so we're back to even. Then there is the Wii. meh... It's not for everyone. I'm not into many of those games, and most of them seem to be things I'd rather go outside and do for real. I think the Wii appeals mainly to non-gamers who want to dabble with something fun for a little bit, which is fine.... for them.

-Bounty

Reply Score: 2

RE: gl3
by Wrawrat on Mon 13th Aug 2007 19:20 UTC in reply to "gl3"
Wrawrat Member since:
2005-06-30

In three years, chances that your whole PC won't be much useful for games. Thus, it won't be 300$, but rather ~1000$. I kept up a gaming-quality PC for about 8 years and I don't see the trend changing, especially since hardware progress can make up for the incredibly poor algorithms used by many developers for rendering.

Anyway, it's futile to debate on which platform is the best. It depends on your tastes. I'm happy with handheld consoles and I really couldn't care less what you think about them. I have fun and it's the only thing that matters. Good for you if you prefer a pricey lump of metal, I certainly won't judge your preferences. After all, that's why there are multiple markets/options for gaming.

As for OpenGL itself, it's nice to see it progressing, but I believe it's too little, too late, at least for games. Guess it's not their main preoccupation, though.

Reply Score: 2

bit more ontopic
by renhoek on Mon 13th Aug 2007 18:02 UTC
renhoek
Member since:
2007-04-29

could we stop the pc vs console thing? it has very little to do with gl3.

as opengl developer i see the following important points:

* they got rid of the glbegin/glend (ready to rewrite all your code? ;) )
* geometry shaders (whoot!, that brings it on the level of directx 10)

i don't see any hints for raytracing, i'm not sure if the gl3 is going to be full blown oop or again flat c.

what i really like about opengl is the mechanism of extensions. first an extension is made, and if it works it wel be part of the arb standard and finally it wil be in the real thing. this way we have a really stable api and we (the developers) can still use the newest features if we have to.

Reply Score: 3

RE: bit more ontopic
by stew on Tue 14th Aug 2007 01:42 UTC in reply to "bit more ontopic"
stew Member since:
2005-07-06

How would you put ray tracing in OpenGL? OpenGL is a streaming API for direct rasterization, where ray tracing can't draw anything until it knows about the entire scene. Those are two conceptually different approaches.

You could of course write an OpenGL implementation that uses ray tracing to generate the scene, but given the current GPU power in rasterization this would be more of a proof of concept.

Reply Score: 1