Dieter wrote:
Would it be possible to split things up to allow an upgradable board?
A basic 2D board with a socket. Want fancy 3D stuff? Plug in the
extra chip. 2-3 years later plug in a new improved chip.
A lot of people such as Ray Heasman seem to have this idea
that "3D" = full OpenGL with hardware transform, lighting,
programmable shaders ...
This was discussed extensively at the start of the design
process. The OGD/OGC are *not* intended to fully implement
a complete 3D rendering pipeline.
What it is meant to do is 1. support 3D/OpenGL frame buffer
ops, in particular alpha blending, stencilling, and depth
testing; and 2. basic "stretch an image over a triangle/quad"
hardware texture mapping, not all the bump maps, normal maps,
and other stuff being done in hardware for the latest games.
This is more than required for classic X Windows or GDI, but
it is the minimum expected for Windows Avalon or the new X11
implementations like Novell Xgl and Red Hat AIGLX.
Note that the names given to these new X11 implementations
include the letters GL, meaning OpenGL. The X Windows authors
have already decided what hardware requirements they want
from the next generation of video cards. They want OpenGL!
X Windows is already being rewritten for 3D graphics cards,
so designing and providing a 2D only interface for the OGD/
OGC won't make adoption any faster and might even slow the
process down.
--
Hugh Fisher
DCS, ANU
_______________________________________________
Open-graphics mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.duskglow.com/mailman/listinfo/open-graphics
List service provided by Duskglow Consulting, LLC (www.duskglow.com)
