Re: [osg-users] OpenGL 3.1 at GDC
Robert Osfield, Paul Martz, Shayne Tuller, thanks for your responses to a newbie question. Randolph ___ osg-users mailing list osg-users@lists.openscenegraph.org http://lists.openscenegraph.org/listinfo.cgi/osg-users-openscenegraph.org
Re: [osg-users] OpenGL 3.1 at GDC
On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 6:03 AM, R Fritz rfr...@u.washington.edu wrote: I guess I'm not too surprised. There seems to be an overall lack of expertise in 3D graphics. Lots of people practice it without adequate training or education. Ever look at a GL capture of SketchUp? It's utter crap, glBegin/glEnd all the way. Would fixing the OpenGL problems of SketchUp improve its performance as a modeling tool? That's its great strength, after all. How would you make it work, if you were designing it? I think that would depend upon how you qualify performance. Replacing glBegin/glEnd to using vertex arrays will improve framerates/allow for larger models without impacting interactivity. In terms of usability it won't effect things save for being a bit more fluid and scalable. There is the wider issue of if the can't write to OpenGL fast paths such as vertex arrays that has been the mainstay of good OpenGL programming for the last decade then there is likely to be a whole raft of other issues that a bit of good 3D graphics knowhow could improve upon, this is when you might see real usability/productivity gains. This point about some software vendors knowing very little about 3D graphics development but writing 3D graphics applications reminds me of the sermons that SGI, in their good years, used to give in their newsletters/papers/dev conferences about writing efficient graphics applications, they really tried hard with education. You just know the frustration they had with software vendors crucifing their loverly new hardware with crappy graphics apps. Another thing that SGI used to do was promote the use of scene graphs to solve this problem but moving software vendors up the food chain so they could take advantage of all the know how and avoid the pitfalls. This is where the OSG would come in these days :-) Robert. ___ osg-users mailing list osg-users@lists.openscenegraph.org http://lists.openscenegraph.org/listinfo.cgi/osg-users-openscenegraph.org
Re: [osg-users] OpenGL 3.1 at GDC
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Robert Osfield wrote: Another thing that SGI used to do was promote the use of scene graphs to solve this problem but moving software vendors up the food chain so they could take advantage of all the know how and avoid the pitfalls. This is where the OSG would come in these days :-) Honestly, Robert, I am not that optimistic. More often than not the reason why the crappy code is kept is the not invented here syndrome (often tangled with obscure legal reasons and worries, especially about OSS licensing) and it works, why to replace it (implying costs) mentality. Finally, when you have an application where the 3D is only a bolted on add-on seen as a mainly marketing driven sales device and not core functionality you get what you get. E.g. AutoCAD - most of the work is actually done in 2D, essentially copying the work processes of good old ruler and compass drafting, so improving the 3D is a very low priority for them. Finally, it doesn't help that good engineers who actually have a clue about these things are scarce and expensive. There are plenty of game-oriented curricula that teach students how to make pretty models in Maya or Max or how to bang up a bit of code to draw their model, but that's it. More in-depth study is lacking, because it is not attractive, neither for the students (math, theoretical computer science needed) nor for the universities. If you are paid for the number of students graduating on time, you do not have much interest in teaching hard topics where it is normal that not everyone will graduate. The result is a severe curtailing of the teaching (my own experience as a university teacher), letting you to really show only glBegin()/glEnd() as an easy way to get the students started while explaining other topics (transforms or lighting, for example) but no time to move to more advanced things - vertex arrays, VBOs, shaders, etc. You can only warn the students that the approach shown is very inefficient, but if something is not shown in class (due to lack of time or whatever reason), most of them will never go read up on it. Unfortunately, this goes also for math and computer science teaching - I had a hard discussion with a comp-sci master student recently. The fellow was not happy to have to do a miniproject for exam. After questioning why I discovered that the guy doesn't actually know how to program (master comp-sci student!!!) and for him computer science is not about programming. For math it is regular occurrence for me to find students who are incapable of working with fractions, going even so far as to say that my result cannot be correct, because they get always decimals on their calculators! Also, I have encountered a computer science master student during computer vision exam (different one than above) who couldn't multiply matrices - saying that he never needed it for anything. And these are regular occurrences at a technical university, not once in a year flukes. Are you still surprised at the quality of the code in commercial applications? I am not. Regards, Jan -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mandriva - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFJ0JAdn11XseNj94gRAtEoAJ9FKTQ6oPCB4tLsL+39i1gckQiJ4wCfUlai TYtGHr2EyG1k3vRVAOoK2nA= =6/JA -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ osg-users mailing list osg-users@lists.openscenegraph.org http://lists.openscenegraph.org/listinfo.cgi/osg-users-openscenegraph.org
Re: [osg-users] OpenGL 3.1 at GDC
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Robert Osfield wrote: Hi Jan, I wasn't trying to suggest the OSG as the specific solution to the AutoCAD/Sketch3D graphics programming woes, but making a parallel between the role of scene graph that SGI used to promote as a solution to making better use of hardware, and the role that the OSG has today. Yes, I have understood that point. Unfortunately, I think that the issue is much deeper than just using a higher level library that does the heavy lifting for you. That was the point of my long rant. The wider issue of having poorly educated/informed engineers making it out into industry, well the best we can do is help make the OSG attractive as solution for schools and universities and hobbiests, as well as companies. Well, I am doing my part - we are using OSG for both research and teaching and it does make my life a lot easier. On the other hand, the climate in the society needs to change first - I can be teaching whatever I want, if we do not get higher enrollments and students actually coming to study not because it is better than being unemployed but because they are interested in the topic, the issues will not get fixed. However, that is a long term problem, not something that can be changed overnight. Regards, Jan -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mandriva - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFJ0JZ8n11XseNj94gRAkiiAJ9TzTiVvfsAE5hXJJ7ju0PrBUTzaACgoPvu NpzUH40T564VOc9YnVEV2Jc= =N8tZ -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ osg-users mailing list osg-users@lists.openscenegraph.org http://lists.openscenegraph.org/listinfo.cgi/osg-users-openscenegraph.org
Re: [osg-users] OpenGL 3.1 at GDC
Hi Jan, I wasn't trying to suggest the OSG as the specific solution to the AutoCAD/Sketch3D graphics programming woes, but making a parallel between the role of scene graph that SGI used to promote as a solution to making better use of hardware, and the role that the OSG has today. Although we don't get promoted buy the hardware vendors in this role, save for being part of the OpenGL SDK. The wider issue of having poorly educated/informed engineers making it out into industry, well the best we can do is help make the OSG attractive as solution for schools and universities and hobbiests, as well as companies. Robert. On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 10:25 AM, Jan Ciger jan.ci...@gmail.com wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Robert Osfield wrote: Another thing that SGI used to do was promote the use of scene graphs to solve this problem but moving software vendors up the food chain so they could take advantage of all the know how and avoid the pitfalls. This is where the OSG would come in these days :-) Honestly, Robert, I am not that optimistic. More often than not the reason why the crappy code is kept is the not invented here syndrome (often tangled with obscure legal reasons and worries, especially about OSS licensing) and it works, why to replace it (implying costs) mentality. Finally, when you have an application where the 3D is only a bolted on add-on seen as a mainly marketing driven sales device and not core functionality you get what you get. E.g. AutoCAD - most of the work is actually done in 2D, essentially copying the work processes of good old ruler and compass drafting, so improving the 3D is a very low priority for them. Finally, it doesn't help that good engineers who actually have a clue about these things are scarce and expensive. There are plenty of game-oriented curricula that teach students how to make pretty models in Maya or Max or how to bang up a bit of code to draw their model, but that's it. More in-depth study is lacking, because it is not attractive, neither for the students (math, theoretical computer science needed) nor for the universities. If you are paid for the number of students graduating on time, you do not have much interest in teaching hard topics where it is normal that not everyone will graduate. The result is a severe curtailing of the teaching (my own experience as a university teacher), letting you to really show only glBegin()/glEnd() as an easy way to get the students started while explaining other topics (transforms or lighting, for example) but no time to move to more advanced things - vertex arrays, VBOs, shaders, etc. You can only warn the students that the approach shown is very inefficient, but if something is not shown in class (due to lack of time or whatever reason), most of them will never go read up on it. Unfortunately, this goes also for math and computer science teaching - I had a hard discussion with a comp-sci master student recently. The fellow was not happy to have to do a miniproject for exam. After questioning why I discovered that the guy doesn't actually know how to program (master comp-sci student!!!) and for him computer science is not about programming. For math it is regular occurrence for me to find students who are incapable of working with fractions, going even so far as to say that my result cannot be correct, because they get always decimals on their calculators! Also, I have encountered a computer science master student during computer vision exam (different one than above) who couldn't multiply matrices - saying that he never needed it for anything. And these are regular occurrences at a technical university, not once in a year flukes. Are you still surprised at the quality of the code in commercial applications? I am not. Regards, Jan -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mandriva - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFJ0JAdn11XseNj94gRAtEoAJ9FKTQ6oPCB4tLsL+39i1gckQiJ4wCfUlai TYtGHr2EyG1k3vRVAOoK2nA= =6/JA -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ osg-users mailing list osg-users@lists.openscenegraph.org http://lists.openscenegraph.org/listinfo.cgi/osg-users-openscenegraph.org ___ osg-users mailing list osg-users@lists.openscenegraph.org http://lists.openscenegraph.org/listinfo.cgi/osg-users-openscenegraph.org
Re: [osg-users] OpenGL 3.1 at GDC
On Mar 30, 2009, at 1:07 AM, Robert Osfield wrote: On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 6:03 AM, R Fritz rfr...@u.washington.edu wrote: I guess I'm not too surprised. There seems to be an overall lack of expertise in 3D graphics. Lots of people practice it without adequate training or education. Ever look at a GL capture of SketchUp? It's utter crap, glBegin/glEnd all the way. Would fixing the OpenGL problems of SketchUp improve its performance as a modeling tool? That's its great strength, after all. How would you make it work, if you were designing it? I think that would depend upon how you qualify performance. Replacing glBegin/glEnd to using vertex arrays will improve framerates/allow for larger models without impacting interactivity. In terms of usability it won't effect things save for being a bit more fluid and scalable. That would be a substantial improvement for more complex models and walkthrough--it is no fun to wait for your software to catch up with your mouse. If it can be done without affecting the model editing capabilities of the program, I'd say it would be worth the trouble for Google to undertake. BTW, AutoCAD is not primarily a 3-D program. The Autodesk programs to critique would be Revit, 3D Studio, and Maya. There is the wider issue of if the can't write to OpenGL fast paths such as vertex arrays that has been the mainstay of good OpenGL programming for the last decade then there is likely to be a whole raft of other issues that a bit of good 3D graphics knowhow could improve upon, this is when you might see real usability/productivity gains. Please, would you offer references? Or at least code to study? (If you say just study OSG, OK.) This is where the OSG would come in these days :-) If OSG can be used to do better graphics on less expensive systems, that would be a strong selling point. Randolph Fritz design machine group architecture department university of washington rfr...@u.washington.edu ___ osg-users mailing list osg-users@lists.openscenegraph.org http://lists.openscenegraph.org/listinfo.cgi/osg-users-openscenegraph.org
Re: [osg-users] OpenGL 3.1 at GDC
Hi Ralf, On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 5:08 PM, R Fritz rfr...@u.washington.edu wrote: That would be a substantial improvement for more complex models and walkthrough--it is no fun to wait for your software to catch up with your mouse. If it can be done without affecting the model editing capabilities of the program, I'd say it would be worth the trouble for Google to undertake. BTW, AutoCAD is not primarily a 3-D program. The Autodesk programs to critique would be Revit, 3D Studio, and Maya. There is the wider issue of if the can't write to OpenGL fast paths such as vertex arrays that has been the mainstay of good OpenGL programming for the last decade then there is likely to be a whole raft of other issues that a bit of good 3D graphics knowhow could improve upon, this is when you might see real usability/productivity gains. Please, would you offer references? Or at least code to study? (If you say just study OSG, OK.) I have enough OSG work on my plate without coding stuff outside of OSG, so I'd have to point to OSG examples or other OpenGL examples online. Writing efficient OpenGL applications is a quite well published topic so not one that we should need to add to much too. Perhaps just collating links to all the various articels/papers on the topic would be a place to start. Robert. ___ osg-users mailing list osg-users@lists.openscenegraph.org http://lists.openscenegraph.org/listinfo.cgi/osg-users-openscenegraph.org
Re: [osg-users] OpenGL 3.1 at GDC
If the tool starts to act sluggish when rendering complex models, then moving away from glBegin/glEnd to buffer objects would improve performance. It would be unfortunate if someone were to use a poorly-written OpenGL or OSG application and blame the poor performance on OpenGL and mistakenly think that things would be better if the app had been written in D3D. Uneducated programmers can code poorly performing apps using either API. SketchUp really excels at very simple models on the order of a few hundred triangles or less, so I suspect the performance bottleneck they have designed into their application is probably not an issue for 99% of its target audience and usage cases. Nonetheless, there's no excuse why the app wasn't coded to at least use vertex arrays from the start, as they've been commonly available since the early days of consumer 3D hardware, '96-'97. As an aside, I understand @ Last Software (now the Google SketchUp division) was started by a former AutoCAD employee. (A note about performance tuning... I recall tinkering with the terrain rendering code at my former employer, which used glBegin/glEnd to render the terrain triangles. As a test to see how much of a performance hit this might be causing, I commented out the rendering code altogether, recompiled, and benchmarked it. I only saw about a 10% improvement. Obviously the application's bottlenecks were elsewhere, and spending time converting this to use buffer objects wouldn't help. Perhaps Google has done the same analysis with SketchUp and came to the same conclusion.) Paul Martz Skew Matrix Software LLC http://www.skew-matrix.com +1 303 859 9466 -Original Message- From: osg-users-boun...@lists.openscenegraph.org [mailto:osg-users-boun...@lists.openscenegraph.org] On Behalf Of R Fritz Sent: Sunday, March 29, 2009 11:03 PM To: OpenSceneGraph Users Subject: Re: [osg-users] OpenGL 3.1 at GDC I guess I'm not too surprised. There seems to be an overall lack of expertise in 3D graphics. Lots of people practice it without adequate training or education. Ever look at a GL capture of SketchUp? It's utter crap, glBegin/glEnd all the way. Would fixing the OpenGL problems of SketchUp improve its performance as a modeling tool? That's its great strength, after all. How would you make it work, if you were designing it? ___ osg-users mailing list osg-users@lists.openscenegraph.org http://lists.openscenegraph.org/listinfo.cgi/osg-users-openscenegraph.org ___ osg-users mailing list osg-users@lists.openscenegraph.org http://lists.openscenegraph.org/listinfo.cgi/osg-users-openscenegraph.org
Re: [osg-users] OpenGL 3.1 at GDC
Performance can be affected by being load/store bound and/or floating point bound. Tools like VTune are really helpful in determining hot spots in the code for stuff running on the CPU. I don't know if they have something similar for GPUs or not. In a former life, I wrote OpenGL driver code. We always optimized the heck out of vertex arrays and left the Begin/End construct (the slow path) pretty much alone. They both go through two totally different code paths. glBegin() usually invoked a huge check and re-munge of the OpenGL state engine. Lots of state changes with small primitives is not good for performance. The more you can minimize the change of state in the driver, the better. With the advent of the new GPUs with all their capabilities, I'm sure the drivers have undergone lots of changes so I don't know if this is still true. -Shayne -Original Message- From: osg-users-boun...@lists.openscenegraph.org [mailto:osg-users-boun...@lists.openscenegraph.org] On Behalf Of Paul Martz Sent: Monday, March 30, 2009 12:59 PM To: 'OpenSceneGraph Users' Subject: Re: [osg-users] OpenGL 3.1 at GDC If the tool starts to act sluggish when rendering complex models, then moving away from glBegin/glEnd to buffer objects would improve performance. It would be unfortunate if someone were to use a poorly-written OpenGL or OSG application and blame the poor performance on OpenGL and mistakenly think that things would be better if the app had been written in D3D. Uneducated programmers can code poorly performing apps using either API. SketchUp really excels at very simple models on the order of a few hundred triangles or less, so I suspect the performance bottleneck they have designed into their application is probably not an issue for 99% of its target audience and usage cases. Nonetheless, there's no excuse why the app wasn't coded to at least use vertex arrays from the start, as they've been commonly available since the early days of consumer 3D hardware, '96-'97. As an aside, I understand @ Last Software (now the Google SketchUp division) was started by a former AutoCAD employee. (A note about performance tuning... I recall tinkering with the terrain rendering code at my former employer, which used glBegin/glEnd to render the terrain triangles. As a test to see how much of a performance hit this might be causing, I commented out the rendering code altogether, recompiled, and benchmarked it. I only saw about a 10% improvement. Obviously the application's bottlenecks were elsewhere, and spending time converting this to use buffer objects wouldn't help. Perhaps Google has done the same analysis with SketchUp and came to the same conclusion.) Paul Martz Skew Matrix Software LLC http://www.skew-matrix.com +1 303 859 9466 -Original Message- From: osg-users-boun...@lists.openscenegraph.org [mailto:osg-users-boun...@lists.openscenegraph.org] On Behalf Of R Fritz Sent: Sunday, March 29, 2009 11:03 PM To: OpenSceneGraph Users Subject: Re: [osg-users] OpenGL 3.1 at GDC I guess I'm not too surprised. There seems to be an overall lack of expertise in 3D graphics. Lots of people practice it without adequate training or education. Ever look at a GL capture of SketchUp? It's utter crap, glBegin/glEnd all the way. Would fixing the OpenGL problems of SketchUp improve its performance as a modeling tool? That's its great strength, after all. How would you make it work, if you were designing it? ___ osg-users mailing list osg-users@lists.openscenegraph.org http://lists.openscenegraph.org/listinfo.cgi/osg-users-openscenegraph.org ___ osg-users mailing list osg-users@lists.openscenegraph.org http://lists.openscenegraph.org/listinfo.cgi/osg-users-openscenegraph.org smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature ___ osg-users mailing list osg-users@lists.openscenegraph.org http://lists.openscenegraph.org/listinfo.cgi/osg-users-openscenegraph.org
Re: [osg-users] OpenGL 3.1 at GDC
Jan Ciger wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 hanne...@gmx.at wrote: http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey Steam Hardware Survey 24,75% dx10 system, dx10 gpu and vista 27,28% dx10 gpu on xp 27,60% dx9 sm 2b 3.0 7,25 dx9 sm2 gpu 13,12 dx8 gpu and below Self selective survey's can be of use for particular interest groups, but rarely mean much outside the selective group. The above survey basically is 100% of who answer a suvery for a D3D centric game/company had support for some version of D3D... it is not a self survey, the figures are from user data collected via steam. so it is accurate for all the counter strike, half life and so on gamers offered with steam to buy. Except that you are quoting a target group that doesn't really care for OpenGL - this was a survey of people who are buying games that support only D3D, so they have D3D hw on platforms supporting D3D (i.e. Windows only). I fail to see the relevance of this to OpenGL. it was about the gamers market as target group. they don't care about the name of the used api, they care about how does a game look and how good does it run on their hardware. which graphics hardware they use see here. http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/videocard/ the developers care about how much does it cost to make the game. does opengl and osg lower time and cost to make games? the relevance is, which advantages has opengl and osg for games. if there are no, than developers will stick with d3d or platform independent for windows, xbox 360 and playstation 3 where no opengl is used. if osg wants to address the game market it needs to have advantages and these have to be communicated. ___ osg-users mailing list osg-users@lists.openscenegraph.org http://lists.openscenegraph.org/listinfo.cgi/osg-users-openscenegraph.org
Re: [osg-users] OpenGL 3.1 at GDC
Hi Hannes, On Sun, Mar 29, 2009 at 8:54 AM, hanne...@gmx.at hanne...@gmx.at wrote: the developers care about how much does it cost to make the game. does opengl and osg lower time and cost to make games? I think that depends upon the game type and the platforms they are trying to market too. There are soft targets right now that are ideal for use of OpenGL and the OSG would be high end such as immersive simulators (yes the OSG is out their in some high game arcades ;-) Any game that wants to target multiple desktop patforms are also a soft target. OpenGL ES itself has a huge appeal in the embedded space. There is preliminary port of the OSG of OpenGL ES, but until we have the core OSG ready to handle OpenGL ES 1.x and 2.x we can't yet. the relevance is, which advantages has opengl and osg for games. if there are no, than developers will stick with d3d or platform independent for windows, xbox 360 and playstation 3 where no opengl is used. Playstation 3 is OpenGL ES + a few extras from NVidia w.r.t. shaders. So it's not quite OpenGL by close. The biggest console Wii has a OpenGL like graphics API. The new high end phones have OpenGL ES on them... so there is a gaming market segment here as well albeit in it's infancy. if osg wants to address the game market it needs to have advantages and these have to be communicated. I don't think the OSG is ready for an all out marketing assult on the games market. There are soft targets that will be the easy sell - these are the ones to court first, leave the hard core Windows centric games companies till much later. The desktop market share is changing with Windows loosing market share (i.e. XP + Vista + Windows 7), and the alternatives are gaining, so the desktop gaming landscape is becoming fragmented, and made more fragmented if people want to target different graphics API's for each platform (i..e DX9 for XP, DX10 to Vista + Windows 7, OpenGL for Linux + OSX). OpenGL can help hold back some the impact of this market fragmentation. Robert. ___ osg-users mailing list osg-users@lists.openscenegraph.org http://lists.openscenegraph.org/listinfo.cgi/osg-users-openscenegraph.org
Re: [osg-users] OpenGL 3.1 at GDC
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi, hanne...@gmx.at wrote: if osg wants to address the game market it needs to have advantages and these have to be communicated. Hannes, I do not see anyone saying that the goal of OSG is to be a game engine :( I think that is the main problem with your arguments. OSG *can* be used within a game engine (e.g. Delta3D), but it is not its main target. Furthermore, game engines are a much more than a scenegraph (which is what OSG is). It would be a very hard sell to convince someone like Valve that they have to abandon all their DirectX-centric content production pipeline just to use OSG. There is ton of other middleware these companies use that is developed to work with DirectX and would have to be either adapted or replaced with OpenGL enabled versions (SpeedTree, Havoc ...) Then add the issues of driver support and all that and unless you are developing the game for both Mac and Windows that will need to be actively supported for 4-5 years at least, OpenGL is simply a no-starter there economically. It could be a more viable option for starting studios which do not have an entrenched pipeline yet, but then we are not talking Valve or EA anymore .. Regards, Jan -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mandriva - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFJz2w9n11XseNj94gRAn9KAKDXo/EMlmhz51T5OL4ldovfO0W/IgCgyL7G 8x53XmzIR8/uiKLNusF3vnY= =Wxzx -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ osg-users mailing list osg-users@lists.openscenegraph.org http://lists.openscenegraph.org/listinfo.cgi/osg-users-openscenegraph.org
Re: [osg-users] OpenGL 3.1 at GDC
I don't think the OSG is ready for an all out marketing assult on the games market. There are soft targets that will be the easy sell - these are the ones to court first, leave the hard core Windows centric games companies till much later. The desktop market share is changing with Windows loosing market share (i.e. XP + Vista + Windows 7), and the alternatives are gaining, so the desktop gaming landscape is becoming fragmented, and made more fragmented if people want to target different graphics API's for each platform (i..e DX9 for XP, DX10 to Vista + Windows 7, OpenGL for Linux + OSX). OpenGL can help hold back some the impact of this market fragmentation. Perhaps some gaming companies might be willing to offer OSG development grants, though? It's to their advantage to keep the platform open. Randolph ___ osg-users mailing list osg-users@lists.openscenegraph.org http://lists.openscenegraph.org/listinfo.cgi/osg-users-openscenegraph.org
Re: [osg-users] OpenGL 3.1 at GDC
I think I can concur with this - I had the pleasure to work with AutoCAD to get some CAD models exported so that they can be visualized in OSG and the 3D rendering they have in there is about the crappiest, slowest and most user unfriendly I have ever seen. Even Doom 1 in 1993 was working better than what they are selling as top-of-the-line feature now. I guess I'm not too surprised. There seems to be an overall lack of expertise in 3D graphics. Lots of people practice it without adequate training or education. Ever look at a GL capture of SketchUp? It's utter crap, glBegin/glEnd all the way. This is what passes for professional 3D graphics these days. It's no wonder people are so uninformed about the facts regarding 3D APIs. Paul Martz Skew Matrix Software LLC http://www.skew-matrix.com +1 303 859 9466 ___ osg-users mailing list osg-users@lists.openscenegraph.org http://lists.openscenegraph.org/listinfo.cgi/osg-users-openscenegraph.org
Re: [osg-users] OpenGL 3.1 at GDC
I guess I'm not too surprised. There seems to be an overall lack of expertise in 3D graphics. Lots of people practice it without adequate training or education. Ever look at a GL capture of SketchUp? It's utter crap, glBegin/glEnd all the way. Would fixing the OpenGL problems of SketchUp improve its performance as a modeling tool? That's its great strength, after all. How would you make it work, if you were designing it? ___ osg-users mailing list osg-users@lists.openscenegraph.org http://lists.openscenegraph.org/listinfo.cgi/osg-users-openscenegraph.org
Re: [osg-users] OpenGL 3.1 at GDC
Hi Hannes, s perception that needs to be cracked first. http://www.engadget.com/2009/03/27/havok-and-amd-show-off-opencl-with-pretty-pretty-dresses/ i think it is important to get the maximum out of the hardware, for example minimum 30 fps and all over 60fps goes into quality. it is about a showcase what osg can do in a game and how does it compare to others. http://www.gametrailers.com/ http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey Steam Hardware Survey 24,75% dx10 system, dx10 gpu and vista 27,28% dx10 gpu on xp 27,60% dx9 sm 2b 3.0 7,25 dx9 sm2 gpu 13,12 dx8 gpu and below Self selective survey's can be of use for particular interest groups, but rarely mean much outside the selective group. The above survey basically is 100% of who answer a suvery for a D3D centric game/company had support for some version of D3D... it is not a self survey, the figures are from user data collected via steam. so it is accurate for all the counter strike, half life and so on gamers offered with steam to buy. i think these are the most exact figures about pc gamers and their hardware and os, public available. it shows a very interesting aspect of gaming, not all gamers have the newest hardware, a lot of people have slow one, be it old or mobile. http://www.solidsmack.com/solidworks-opengl-direct3d-gpu-comparison-cad/2008-09-01/ Highlights of Autodesk Inventor OpenGL to DirectX Evolution from “Norbert” - Autodesk Inventor Graphics Team Interesting link to the solidworks blog about OpenGL-Direct3D, in particular the quotes from the Autodesk/Inventor develop/marketing. Valid points are that not al OpenGL drivers are great. But the the inference that OpenGL does wokr in 64bit... well that's buillshit. The comment about off screen rendering is also bullshit - kinda suggests that their OpenGL developers are a bit incomptent if they can't use PBO's or Pbufferss. OpenGL has been working under 64bit way before Direct3D even first developed. So.. perhaps it's the drivers they are referrring too.. Also curiously no mention of running on other platforms... Finally the comment about OpenGL disabling features in consumer hardware, this is true but they are very small part of OpenGL, and ones that the Direct3D didn't even implement. The disabling of small set of OpenGL features is a bit of sad case of profittering from the ATI and NVidia, if they've decreased the number of vendors using OpenGL and these must have features then they've rather shot themselves in the foot, or at least shot their OpenGL division in the foot. Personally I don't use line smoothing or two side lighting too much - does anybody here have issues with this? Or is it just the internal driver optimization for CAD that they are referring to? The OpenGL driver quality is the key issue underneath all of this. It's why most of us end up recommending NVidia hardware over ATI or Intel. Which does kinda go against one of the main points of OpenGL - it's a hardware abstraction layer that is meant to free you from being tied to a particular hardware device. On the OpenCL front it'd be good to get OSG + OpenCL integration out there with demos. Same goes for the test of the OSG - we don't really have any full blown technology demos, just small little examples that are meant to test and teach about very specific OSG/OpenGL features. We do have 3rd party applications and tools that might be used a bit more actively as technology demonstrators. Robert. ___ osg-users mailing list osg-users@lists.openscenegraph.org http://lists.openscenegraph.org/listinfo.cgi/osg-users-openscenegraph.org
Re: [osg-users] OpenGL 3.1 at GDC
hi robert, Robert Osfield wrote: http://www.solidsmack.com/solidworks-opengl-direct3d-gpu-comparison-cad/2008-09-01/ Highlights of Autodesk Inventor OpenGL to DirectX Evolution from “Norbert” - Autodesk Inventor Graphics Team Interesting link to the solidworks blog about OpenGL-Direct3D, in particular the quotes from the Autodesk/Inventor develop/marketing. Valid points are that not al OpenGL drivers are great. But the the inference that OpenGL does wokr in 64bit... well that's buillshit. The comment about off screen rendering is also bullshit - kinda suggests that their OpenGL developers are a bit incomptent if they can't use PBO's or Pbufferss. OpenGL has been working under 64bit way before Direct3D even first developed. So.. perhaps it's the drivers they are referrring too.. Also curiously no mention of running on other platforms... Finally the comment about OpenGL disabling features in consumer hardware, this is true but they are very small part of OpenGL, and ones that the Direct3D didn't even implement. The disabling of small set of OpenGL features is a bit of sad case of profittering from the ATI and NVidia, if they've decreased the number of vendors using OpenGL and these must have features then they've rather shot themselves in the foot, or at least shot their OpenGL division in the foot. Personally I don't use line smoothing or two side lighting too much - does anybody here have issues with this? Or is it just the internal driver optimization for CAD that they are referring to? The OpenGL driver quality is the key issue underneath all of this. It's why most of us end up recommending NVidia hardware over ATI or Intel. Which does kinda go against one of the main points of OpenGL - it's a hardware abstraction layer that is meant to free you from being tied to a particular hardware device. this really needs to be addressed, with an open letter for example or anything else. on one side amd/ati open and support the development of open source drivers and on the other side they cripple the usage of their hardware while using their closed source drivers. this i really don't understand... On the OpenCL front it'd be good to get OSG + OpenCL integration out there with demos. Same goes for the test of the OSG - we don't really have any full blown technology demos, just small little examples that are meant to test and teach about very specific OSG/OpenGL features. We do have 3rd party applications and tools that might be used a bit more actively as technology demonstrators. and about opencl and the cloth physics as a showcase http://www.engadget.com/2009/03/27/havok-and-amd-show-off-opencl-with-pretty-pretty-dresses/ there is more background info http://www.bit-tech.net/news/hardware/2009/03/20/amd-to-demo-gpu-physics-at-gdc/1 and discussion with amd developer who did it http://forum.beyond3d.com/showthread.php?t=53336 some quotes from mhouston System Architect, AMD Yes, we were running Havok cloth demos on multi-core CPU as well as GPU via OpenCL, all with the same OpenCL code underneath the Havok API. As was said above, there is no visible difference between the OpenCL code on either the CPU or the GPU and Havok's native code. The dancer dances off screen if you don't have the camera follow enabled, but the camera follow has a bob to it that makes some people sick after watching it for awhile. We had a few demos we were cycling between. All OpenCL with no specific AMD functions or native code. I'm still partial to the Powdertoy demo and I have probably spend more time than I should playing with it. All in the name of debugging and optimizations. I really hope Andrew's talk (EA) gets posted soon (the slides should all go up in not too long) as I think it's pretty cool that he was able to extract the Ropa cloth code used in Skate, port to OpenCL, and throw his code at AMD and Nvidia after developing on a different platform, and have AMD showing multi-core CPU and GPU and Nvidia showing GPU, side by side on alpha implementations. OpenCL is a real thing and the implementations are getting there. This year is going to be interesting and some of us are going to be very busy. I speak only for myself on this one, not AMD. I think that GPU physics cannot succeed unless there is a neutral way to run on multiple platforms. (All of the physics engines run on the CPU, but we need a way to target GPUs and other architectures as well) Basing physics, and other middleware, on OpenCL, DX11, or another vendor neutral standard seems like the best way forward IMO. OpenCL has the potential advantage that multi-core CPUs, Cell, and other architectures can be supported under the same system and code. (Tuning will be different for each architecture, but getting something up and running should work if we got conformance tests right). Coming up with a standard physics package is tricky because there is a lot of religion in how the solvers are implemented, i.e. there is no one solver
Re: [osg-users] OpenGL 3.1 at GDC
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 hanne...@gmx.at wrote: http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey Steam Hardware Survey 24,75% dx10 system, dx10 gpu and vista 27,28% dx10 gpu on xp 27,60% dx9 sm 2b 3.0 7,25 dx9 sm2 gpu 13,12 dx8 gpu and below Self selective survey's can be of use for particular interest groups, but rarely mean much outside the selective group. The above survey basically is 100% of who answer a suvery for a D3D centric game/company had support for some version of D3D... it is not a self survey, the figures are from user data collected via steam. so it is accurate for all the counter strike, half life and so on gamers offered with steam to buy. Except that you are quoting a target group that doesn't really care for OpenGL - this was a survey of people who are buying games that support only D3D, so they have D3D hw on platforms supporting D3D (i.e. Windows only). I fail to see the relevance of this to OpenGL. Jan -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mandriva - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFJzkapn11XseNj94gRAtWIAKCX9JuhTf12U3C8KWFu3pTcnk/cSQCg5Ixn RGLiufYQr5d/HKSV7fPqIV4= =hsP9 -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ osg-users mailing list osg-users@lists.openscenegraph.org http://lists.openscenegraph.org/listinfo.cgi/osg-users-openscenegraph.org
Re: [osg-users] OpenGL 3.1 at GDC
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Robert Osfield wrote: Interesting link to the solidworks blog about OpenGL-Direct3D, in particular the quotes from the Autodesk/Inventor develop/marketing. Valid points are that not al OpenGL drivers are great. But the the inference that OpenGL does wokr in 64bit... well that's buillshit. The comment about off screen rendering is also bullshit - kinda suggests that their OpenGL developers are a bit incomptent if they can't use PBO's or Pbufferss. I think I can concur with this - I had the pleasure to work with AutoCAD to get some CAD models exported so that they can be visualized in OSG and the 3D rendering they have in there is about the crappiest, slowest and most user unfriendly I have ever seen. Even Doom 1 in 1993 was working better than what they are selling as top-of-the-line feature now. Also, do not forget that AutoDesk was always a DOS/Windows company, they do not sell their software on anything else. I mean the original CAD stuff, not things they bought elsewhere (Maya ...). The disabling of small set of OpenGL features is a bit of sad case of profittering from the ATI and NVidia, if they've decreased the number of vendors using OpenGL and these must have features then they've rather shot themselves in the foot, or at least shot their OpenGL division in the foot. Personally I don't use line smoothing or two side lighting too much - does anybody here have issues with this? Or is it just the internal driver optimization for CAD that they are referring to? Also stereo with quadbuffer - that is a feature that CAD folks use too. Regards, Jan -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mandriva - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFJzkgXn11XseNj94gRAhKAAKDW+1UNomanb/mQ4Pa8OcbihAbFmwCfdHwP Di5PDDP70BVXmD2lZ27hnZw= =DXRs -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ osg-users mailing list osg-users@lists.openscenegraph.org http://lists.openscenegraph.org/listinfo.cgi/osg-users-openscenegraph.org
Re: [osg-users] OpenGL 3.1 at GDC
Robert Osfield wrote: Hi Hannes, On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 10:30 AM, hanne...@gmx.at hanne...@gmx.at wrote: you just brought to me the insight why the game developers use d3d. because they do not care if it runs in some years, they make the money now. they see how much does the development of the game cost and how many boxes can i sell in short time. so they choose the most widespread platform, which is windows and use d3d which seems easy for development and looks good. I know where you are coming from bit I think it a bit off target, and falls into a common repeat line of reasoning. Direct3D is used under Windows and XBox by games developers. The games market is far bigger than just Windows and XBox. The Windows + XBox while being a big player, it is far from the biggest market in the games industry, but sometimes from online traffic it would seem that it's the only game in town, this is just PR or ignorance though. The biggest recent games platforms have been PlayStation 2 and the more recently the Wii, neither of which have D3D or OpenGL. I believe Wii has a OpenGL style graphis API. it is not about absolute figures, it is about target audience. which one it is, is made by decision makers. as you see it right it is a combination of pr and ignorance. they do not care if it runs in 2 years, better it do not because next year they can sell a new version. what should they sell in the future if the customer buy now their perfect game with no need for improvements. it is about the next quarter figures for the stock market. the lower the cost now, the bigger the win and the higher the stock market and the higher the income of the managers. result are games like crysis and so on. downside is as you said, the different d3d versions do not run on any windows but the newest opengl does. maybe an argument for game developers to bring the best graphics to any windows with opengl and maybe with osg. ;) For the next generation of games I think we have shout. I think to successfully push the OSG to the games market one has to emphasis the portability and the wider market reach that it brings. Getting the message over about a wider market reach is easy to those who've already climbed out of the Windows centric box, but for those who just think Windows == 100% games market it's a harder sell. It's this perception that needs to be cracked first. http://www.engadget.com/2009/03/27/havok-and-amd-show-off-opencl-with-pretty-pretty-dresses/ i think it is important to get the maximum out of the hardware, for example minimum 30 fps and all over 60fps goes into quality. it is about a showcase what osg can do in a game and how does it compare to others. http://www.gametrailers.com/ http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey Steam Hardware Survey 24,75% dx10 system, dx10 gpu and vista 27,28% dx10 gpu on xp 27,60% dx9 sm 2b 3.0 7,25 dx9 sm2 gpu 13,12 dx8 gpu and below Self selective survey's can be of use for particular interest groups, but rarely mean much outside the selective group. The above survey basically is 100% of who answer a suvery for a D3D centric game/company had support for some version of D3D... it is not a self survey, the figures are from user data collected via steam. so it is accurate for all the counter strike, half life and so on gamers offered with steam to buy. i think these are the most exact figures about pc gamers and their hardware and os, public available. it shows a very interesting aspect of gaming, not all gamers have the newest hardware, a lot of people have slow one, be it old or mobile. http://www.solidsmack.com/solidworks-opengl-direct3d-gpu-comparison-cad/2008-09-01/ Highlights of Autodesk Inventor OpenGL to DirectX Evolution from “Norbert” - Autodesk Inventor Graphics Team When we use OpenGL, we have found over the past many years (and still today) that we need to invest in a large, significant amount of QA… and use OpenGL almost on the level of 1997 graphics With Direct3D, our QA team can focus on testing our code and finding defects in our graphics code, instead of having to spend all their time just verifying that the graphics HW vendors have done their job correctly to produce an OpenGL graphics driver that actually works. Direct3D works identically on x64 as on x86 In …all defects that we see with the use of Direct3D…the problem is in our Inventor graphics layer code and the way we are using Direct3D in Inventor, not in the graphics HW vendor’s Direct3D graphics driver. when we use OpenGL, we never use the graphics HW for the rendering of any offscreen images…we are using the Direct3D graphics HW for all offscreen rendering. we have decided to focus on supporting Direct3D where we can focus the QA efforts on testing our own code and actually redirect some of the people currently spending all their time testing OpenGL graphics drivers to start testing our own graphics layer code we can add new graphics features and functionality
Re: [osg-users] OpenGL 3.1 at GDC
Hi Hannes, On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 11:33 PM, hanne...@gmx.at hanne...@gmx.at wrote: opengl is 2 years behind direct3d and direct3d is better. and now there is d3d10 and d3d11 will even be better and d3d9 already had instancing and opengl is now only a copy of d3d10 and more robust drivers is only a lie and they dont belive you because you are an opengl guy and dont know d3d... Yawn... nice MS spin you got there. Go read the specs the OpenGL specs. Direct3D doesn't anything like extension has had from it's inception, and nothing like deprecation mechanism that OpenGL 3.0 has. With OpenGL you can migrate steadily from one rev to the next, an application written back in 1992 is still runable today, if you your application lives any period of time - like successful software does then longivity is good thing. Also with long lived successful software people wanted it ported to new platforms as the industry evolves, and again OpenGL comes to support you again with it's unique feature of portability. Please reflect on the fact that the OSG itself is a decade old, and it's migrated from OpenGL 1.1 to OpenGL 2.1 + latest extensions without any major rewrite. Not only has it be pretty straight forward for us to roll in new support for new hardware features, but we've also been able to port any desktop/workstation out there. Go try that trick with Direct3D Erhhh DirectX10 is only available under Vista. Too hard to port to WinXP? No just MS playing games manipulating the marking. Now Vista only has ablout 15% of the desktop market, shame that the rest of the 85% ain't and won't ever be server by DirectX10. Um... which is backwards and years behind serving the needs of industry? OpenGL which covers 100% of the availabe platforms, or Direct3D?? Time to stop sucking up the MS cool-aid there kid as it seems to have eroded your ability to think about the wider needs of the graphics industry. Robert. ___ osg-users mailing list osg-users@lists.openscenegraph.org http://lists.openscenegraph.org/listinfo.cgi/osg-users-openscenegraph.org
Re: [osg-users] OpenGL 3.1 at GDC
Hi, Robert Osfield wrote: Hi Hannes, On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 11:33 PM, hanne...@gmx.at mailto:hanne...@gmx.at hanne...@gmx.at mailto:hanne...@gmx.at wrote: opengl is 2 years behind direct3d and direct3d is better. and now there is d3d10 and d3d11 will even be better and d3d9 already had instancing and opengl is now only a copy of d3d10 and more robust drivers is only a lie and they dont belive you because you are an opengl guy and dont know d3d... Yawn... nice MS spin you got there. I think Hannes just translated and summed up the comments in the forum for Paul... jp -- This message is subject to the CSIR's copyright terms and conditions, e-mail legal notice, and implemented Open Document Format (ODF) standard. The full disclaimer details can be found at http://www.csir.co.za/disclaimer.html. This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean. MailScanner thanks Transtec Computers for their support. ___ osg-users mailing list osg-users@lists.openscenegraph.org http://lists.openscenegraph.org/listinfo.cgi/osg-users-openscenegraph.org
Re: [osg-users] OpenGL 3.1 at GDC
J.P. Delport wrote: Hi, Robert Osfield wrote: Hi Hannes, On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 11:33 PM, hanne...@gmx.at mailto:hanne...@gmx.at hanne...@gmx.at mailto:hanne...@gmx.at wrote: opengl is 2 years behind direct3d and direct3d is better. and now there is d3d10 and d3d11 will even be better and d3d9 already had instancing and opengl is now only a copy of d3d10 and more robust drivers is only a lie and they dont belive you because you are an opengl guy and dont know d3d... Yawn... nice MS spin you got there. I think Hannes just translated and summed up the comments in the forum for Paul... YES :))) but robert, thanks for your arguments! i will use them there. ;) best regards to all and other arguments are welcome too! ___ osg-users mailing list osg-users@lists.openscenegraph.org http://lists.openscenegraph.org/listinfo.cgi/osg-users-openscenegraph.org
Re: [osg-users] OpenGL 3.1 at GDC
On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 9:55 AM, hanne...@gmx.at hanne...@gmx.at wrote: YES :))) but robert, thanks for your arguments! i will use them there. ;) Opps, thought you were flaming Paul with the standard MS D3D spin. Robert. ___ osg-users mailing list osg-users@lists.openscenegraph.org http://lists.openscenegraph.org/listinfo.cgi/osg-users-openscenegraph.org
Re: [osg-users] OpenGL 3.1 at GDC
Robert Osfield wrote: Hi Hannes, On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 11:33 PM, hanne...@gmx.at hanne...@gmx.at wrote: opengl is 2 years behind direct3d and direct3d is better. and now there is d3d10 and d3d11 will even be better and d3d9 already had instancing and opengl is now only a copy of d3d10 and more robust drivers is only a lie and they dont belive you because you are an opengl guy and dont know d3d... Yawn... nice MS spin you got there. Go read the specs the OpenGL specs. Direct3D doesn't anything like extension has had from it's inception, and nothing like deprecation mechanism that OpenGL 3.0 has. With OpenGL you can migrate steadily from one rev to the next, an application written back in 1992 is still runable today, if you your application lives any period of time - like successful software does then longivity is good thing. Also with long lived successful software people wanted it ported to new platforms as the industry evolves, and again OpenGL comes to support you again with it's unique feature of portability. Please reflect on the fact that the OSG itself is a decade old, and it's migrated from OpenGL 1.1 to OpenGL 2.1 + latest extensions without any major rewrite. Not only has it be pretty straight forward for us to roll in new support for new hardware features, but we've also been able to port any desktop/workstation out there. Go try that trick with Direct3D Erhhh DirectX10 is only available under Vista. Too hard to port to WinXP? No just MS playing games manipulating the marking. Now Vista only has ablout 15% of the desktop market, shame that the rest of the 85% ain't and won't ever be server by DirectX10. Um... which is backwards and years behind serving the needs of industry? OpenGL which covers 100% of the availabe platforms, or Direct3D?? Time to stop sucking up the MS cool-aid there kid as it seems to have eroded your ability to think about the wider needs of the graphics industry. Robert. hi robert, you just brought to me the insight why the game developers use d3d. because they do not care if it runs in some years, they make the money now. they see how much does the development of the game cost and how many boxes can i sell in short time. so they choose the most widespread platform, which is windows and use d3d which seems easy for development and looks good. result are games like crysis and so on. downside is as you said, the different d3d versions do not run on any windows but the newest opengl does. maybe an argument for game developers to bring the best graphics to any windows with opengl and maybe with osg. ;) http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey Steam Hardware Survey 24,75% dx10 system, dx10 gpu and vista 27,28% dx10 gpu on xp 27,60% dx9 sm 2b 3.0 7,25 dx9 sm2 gpu 13,12 dx8 gpu and below in industries like the movie industries it is different. http://www.linuxmovies.org/ [quote]In the film industry, Linux has won. It's running on practically all servers and desktops used for feature animation and visual effects. LinuxMovies.org met monthly in Hollywood for years, but now rarely meets. Linux is used to create practically every blockbuster movie in theaters today, movies produced by Disney/Pixar, DreamWorks Animation, Sony, ILM, and other studios. Linux is the most popular operating system for big budget feature film animation and visual effects, with more than 95% of the servers and desktops at large animation and visual effects companies. People outside the film industry, and even inside the industry sometimes, don't realize that Linux is so big at large studios. Linux is the norm in Hollywood and considered the state-of-the-art. In this upside-down world where Windows and Mac are minority operating systems, Linux evangelists would be hard-pressed to find anyone left to convert. The free operating system built by the people for the people has been embraced foremost by film studios. Hollywood prefers Linux because in the right hands it's better, faster and cheaper. At large companies that have thousands of servers and desktops, the economy and massive efficiency of Linux is felt most. At smaller production companies, Windows or Macs are often more popular because economy of scale doesn't apply. Despite that, some small shops run primarily Linux. Some production companies use a mixed environment. For example, South Park is produced using Mac desktops with Linux servers. Although king in the film industry, Linux is rarely seen in the television industry due to much more modest computer needs.[/quote] best regards ___ osg-users mailing list osg-users@lists.openscenegraph.org http://lists.openscenegraph.org/listinfo.cgi/osg-users-openscenegraph.org
Re: [osg-users] OpenGL 3.1 at GDC
Hi Hannes, On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 10:30 AM, hanne...@gmx.at hanne...@gmx.at wrote: you just brought to me the insight why the game developers use d3d. because they do not care if it runs in some years, they make the money now. they see how much does the development of the game cost and how many boxes can i sell in short time. so they choose the most widespread platform, which is windows and use d3d which seems easy for development and looks good. I know where you are coming from bit I think it a bit off target, and falls into a common repeat line of reasoning. Direct3D is used under Windows and XBox by games developers. The games market is far bigger than just Windows and XBox. The Windows + XBox while being a big player, it is far from the biggest market in the games industry, but sometimes from online traffic it would seem that it's the only game in town, this is just PR or ignorance though. The biggest recent games platforms have been PlayStation 2 and the more recently the Wii, neither of which have D3D or OpenGL. I believe Wii has a OpenGL style graphis API. result are games like crysis and so on. downside is as you said, the different d3d versions do not run on any windows but the newest opengl does. maybe an argument for game developers to bring the best graphics to any windows with opengl and maybe with osg. ;) For the next generation of games I think we have shout. I think to successfully push the OSG to the games market one has to emphasis the portability and the wider market reach that it brings. Getting the message over about a wider market reach is easy to those who've already climbed out of the Windows centric box, but for those who just think Windows == 100% games market it's a harder sell. It's this perception that needs to be cracked first. http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey Steam Hardware Survey 24,75% dx10 system, dx10 gpu and vista 27,28% dx10 gpu on xp 27,60% dx9 sm 2b 3.0 7,25 dx9 sm2 gpu 13,12 dx8 gpu and below Self selective survey's can be of use for particular interest groups, but rarely mean much outside the selective group. The above survey basically is 100% of who answer a suvery for a D3D centric game/company had support for some version of D3D... in industries like the movie industries it is different. http://www.linuxmovies.org/ [quote]In the film industry, Linux has won. It's running on practically all servers and desktops used for feature animation and visual effects. LinuxMovies.org met monthly in Hollywood for years, but now rarely meets. Interesting link. I hadn't come across this before. Thanks, Robert. ___ osg-users mailing list osg-users@lists.openscenegraph.org http://lists.openscenegraph.org/listinfo.cgi/osg-users-openscenegraph.org
Re: [osg-users] OpenGL 3.1 at GDC
I took the liberty to post a link to Pauls article in the GameDev.net forums: http://www.gamedev.net/community/forums/topic.asp?topic_id=528879. Thought it was interesting to see what the GameDev.net community said about the 3.1 release, since the 3.0 release caused a lot of reactions: http://www.gamedev.net/community/forums/topic.asp?topic_id=504547 -- Read this topic online here: http://forum.openscenegraph.org/viewtopic.php?p=9189#9189 ___ osg-users mailing list osg-users@lists.openscenegraph.org http://lists.openscenegraph.org/listinfo.cgi/osg-users-openscenegraph.org
Re: [osg-users] OpenGL 3.1 at GDC
YES :))) but robert, thanks for your arguments! i will use them there. ;) best regards to all and other arguments are welcome too! :-) Thanks for translating the German. At the start of that blog, I said graphics APIs were like religion and politics, and those translated German comments confirm that. I agree with Robert's sentiment. In many ways, D3D has chosen the easy way out -- supporting only one platform, and screwing the existing user base with each new release. This is the easy way to develop an API. Running cross platform, continuing to evolve and remain relevant, and not screwing existing users is a much harder task, but OpenGL has a proven track record of success in all these areas. When Bob and I offer our OSG course, we allow students to bring in the laptop of their choice -- Windows, Linux, and Mac. In spite of this heterogeneous environment, after a short period of tweaking CMake and building OSG, we're up and running on everyone's box. I can't emphasize enough how incredible a feat this is, and it's possible because of OpenGL. Upon re-reading the D3D/OpenGL blog, I see I failed to address a couple issues, and I intend to post an update to clarify. Thanks for translating the German, which pointed this out. I doubt it will result in converting any of the D3D faithful, but I want the blog to be as blemish-free and objective as possible. Paul Martz Skew Matrix Software LLC http://www.skew-matrix.com +1 303 859 9466 ___ osg-users mailing list osg-users@lists.openscenegraph.org http://lists.openscenegraph.org/listinfo.cgi/osg-users-openscenegraph.org
Re: [osg-users] OpenGL 3.1 at GDC
I'd like to attempt to dispel the myth that game development wouldn't benefit from a stable cross platform API. The application software stack is more complex than a single monolithic chunk of code. Supporting any application or game title is a myriad of internal proprietary core libraries, many of which are consistent from one product release to the next, which in turn rely on support from other external libraries and APIs. This internal proprietary code base needs to port forward to new platforms and new releases of their supporting APIs. When a game company puts out a new title, of course it contains a lot of new software and rendering effects, but a significant percentage of the code that's running was probably present in past product generations. Porting this internal code forward takes a non-zero amount of effort. Many games run on more that just Windows/Xbox and clearly the code for that game title needs to be ported to other consoles. I have several associates in the game industry who've assured me that code does get ported forward and across platform. They've also relayed to me that pay is often low and hours are long because there are so many who want to work in this industry. I imagine that access to cheap programmer labor helps alleviate the financial pain associated with porting code forward. One might speculate that support for D3D is tantamount to advocating lower pay and longer hours for software developers. Paul Martz Skew Matrix Software LLC http://www.skew-matrix.com +1 303 859 9466 ___ osg-users mailing list osg-users@lists.openscenegraph.org http://lists.openscenegraph.org/listinfo.cgi/osg-users-openscenegraph.org
Re: [osg-users] OpenGL 3.1 at GDC
-Original Message- From: osg-users-boun...@lists.openscenegraph.org [mailto:osg-users-boun...@lists.openscenegraph.org] On Behalf Of Robert Osfield Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2009 2:53 AM To: OpenSceneGraph Users Subject: Re: [osg-users] OpenGL 3.1 at GDC With OpenGL you can migrate steadily from one rev to the next, an application written back in 1992 is still runable today, if you your application lives any period of time - like successful software does then longivity is good thing. Robert, Are you implying that the current D3D is not backwards compatible with previous versions? I believe that a current D3D application can query earlier versions of the D3D interface through COM. A D3D 3.0 application can still run under D3D 10.0 as I understand it... -Shayne smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature ___ osg-users mailing list osg-users@lists.openscenegraph.org http://lists.openscenegraph.org/listinfo.cgi/osg-users-openscenegraph.org
Re: [osg-users] OpenGL 3.1 at GDC
Paul, In what way has D3D screwed the existing user base with each new release? I'm not trying to argue your point, I just want to understand where you're coming from here. -Shayne -Original Message- From: osg-users-boun...@lists.openscenegraph.org [mailto:osg-users-boun...@lists.openscenegraph.org] On Behalf Of Paul Martz Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2009 8:31 AM To: 'OpenSceneGraph Users' Subject: Re: [osg-users] OpenGL 3.1 at GDC YES :))) but robert, thanks for your arguments! i will use them there. ;) best regards to all and other arguments are welcome too! I agree with Robert's sentiment. In many ways, D3D has chosen the easy way out -- supporting only one platform, and screwing the existing user base with each new release. This is the easy way to develop an API. Running cross platform, continuing to evolve and remain relevant, and not screwing existing users is a much harder task, but OpenGL has a proven track record of success in all these areas. ___ osg-users mailing list osg-users@lists.openscenegraph.org http://lists.openscenegraph.org/listinfo.cgi/osg-users-openscenegraph.org smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature ___ osg-users mailing list osg-users@lists.openscenegraph.org http://lists.openscenegraph.org/listinfo.cgi/osg-users-openscenegraph.org
Re: [osg-users] OpenGL 3.1 at GDC
Referring to the 3.0 release discussion, these are the type of comments that I'd expect from people that have grown numb and accepting of non-backwards compatible API releases. They believe that this is the only way to move forward. Many in the OpenGL ARB were ready to drink this kool-aid too, which is what spurred the announcement at s2007. Fortunately, the ARB had second thoughts and decided to tackle the harder question of how to move forward and deprecate old functionality without screwing existing customers. Other APIs could learn a lot from closely examining OpenGL's deprecation model. Paul Martz Skew Matrix Software LLC http://www.skew-matrix.com +1 303 859 9466 -Original Message- From: osg-users-boun...@lists.openscenegraph.org [mailto:osg-users-boun...@lists.openscenegraph.org] On Behalf Of Raymond Dahlberg Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2009 5:53 AM To: osg-users@lists.openscenegraph.org Subject: Re: [osg-users] OpenGL 3.1 at GDC I took the liberty to post a link to Pauls article in the GameDev.net forums: http://www.gamedev.net/community/forums/topic.asp?topic_id=528879. Thought it was interesting to see what the GameDev.net community said about the 3.1 release, since the 3.0 release caused a lot of reactions: http://www.gamedev.net/community/forums/topic.asp?topic_id=504547 -- Read this topic online here: http://forum.openscenegraph.org/viewtopic.php?p=9189#9189 ___ osg-users mailing list osg-users@lists.openscenegraph.org http://lists.openscenegraph.org/listinfo.cgi/osg-users-openscenegraph.org ___ osg-users mailing list osg-users@lists.openscenegraph.org http://lists.openscenegraph.org/listinfo.cgi/osg-users-openscenegraph.org
Re: [osg-users] OpenGL 3.1 at GDC
Does that D3D 3.0 app get access to any new features? OpenGL 3.1 adds new ARB extensions to OpenGL 2.1, so that old OpenGL apps (even OpenGL 1.0 apps) running on an OpenGL 2.1 implementation can access new features analogous to those found in OpenGL 3.1. Paul Martz Skew Matrix Software LLC http://www.skew-matrix.com +1 303 859 9466 -Original Message- From: osg-users-boun...@lists.openscenegraph.org [mailto:osg-users-boun...@lists.openscenegraph.org] On Behalf Of Tueller, Shayne R Civ USAF AFMC 519 SMXS/MXDEC Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2009 9:08 AM To: OpenSceneGraph Users Subject: Re: [osg-users] OpenGL 3.1 at GDC Are you implying that the current D3D is not backwards compatible with previous versions? I believe that a current D3D application can query earlier versions of the D3D interface through COM. A D3D 3.0 application can still run under D3D 10.0 as I understand it... -Shayne ___ osg-users mailing list osg-users@lists.openscenegraph.org http://lists.openscenegraph.org/listinfo.cgi/osg-users-openscenegraph.org
Re: [osg-users] OpenGL 3.1 at GDC
Hi Shayne, 2009/3/25 Tueller, Shayne R Civ USAF AFMC 519 SMXS/MXDEC shayne.tuel...@hill.af.mil Are you implying that the current D3D is not backwards compatible with previous versions? I believe that a current D3D application can query earlier versions of the D3D interface through COM. A D3D 3.0 application can still run under D3D 10.0 as I understand it... The problem is not the the old D3D versions API aren't available, but the fact that the jump between versions is discrete. If you want D3D 10.0 functionality you have to use D3D 10, you can't just use one part of D3D 10 and keep the rest of your app building against D3D 9. You can't get access to D3D features unless you are on Vista. This a very different situation to that of OpenGL based apps that like the OSG have been able to evolve bit by bit as few hardware + API features were exposed in OpenGL. If you are trying to maintain an application for a long period then handling widely different hardware and OS combinations is key. The D3D model really doesn't help you at all. The D3D model only suits making an app for specific era, once that era is gone the app just stays in that era unless you retool in a significant way. For a game that is developed and sells for a couple of years it might be able to come and go in just one era, but for most applications this isn't the case. Interestingly for open source games that take many years to write and evolve over time their lifetime is potentially far longer than commericial games, so open source games have more similar needs to API evolution and portability that conventional long lived graphis applications have. Robert. ___ osg-users mailing list osg-users@lists.openscenegraph.org http://lists.openscenegraph.org/listinfo.cgi/osg-users-openscenegraph.org
Re: [osg-users] OpenGL 3.1 at GDC
Paul, In answer to your question, the answer is no, it can't. I appreciate what OpenGL can do in terms of its extensions but that isn't what my response was in reference to. I was asking Robert if he was implying that D3D is not backwards compatible in his earlier comment... -Shayne -Original Message- From: osg-users-boun...@lists.openscenegraph.org [mailto:osg-users-boun...@lists.openscenegraph.org] On Behalf Of Paul Martz Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2009 9:20 AM To: 'OpenSceneGraph Users' Subject: Re: [osg-users] OpenGL 3.1 at GDC Does that D3D 3.0 app get access to any new features? OpenGL 3.1 adds new ARB extensions to OpenGL 2.1, so that old OpenGL apps (even OpenGL 1.0 apps) running on an OpenGL 2.1 implementation can access new features analogous to those found in OpenGL 3.1. Paul Martz Skew Matrix Software LLC http://www.skew-matrix.com +1 303 859 9466 -Original Message- From: osg-users-boun...@lists.openscenegraph.org [mailto:osg-users-boun...@lists.openscenegraph.org] On Behalf Of Tueller, Shayne R Civ USAF AFMC 519 SMXS/MXDEC Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2009 9:08 AM To: OpenSceneGraph Users Subject: Re: [osg-users] OpenGL 3.1 at GDC Are you implying that the current D3D is not backwards compatible with previous versions? I believe that a current D3D application can query earlier versions of the D3D interface through COM. A D3D 3.0 application can still run under D3D 10.0 as I understand it... -Shayne ___ osg-users mailing list osg-users@lists.openscenegraph.org http://lists.openscenegraph.org/listinfo.cgi/osg-users-openscenegraph.org smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature ___ osg-users mailing list osg-users@lists.openscenegraph.org http://lists.openscenegraph.org/listinfo.cgi/osg-users-openscenegraph.org
Re: [osg-users] OpenGL 3.1 at GDC
Hi Shayne, I think the answer would be it was partially compatible. Given a DirectX version, you couldn't ask for any older interface version, just for the newer ones. On recent versions of DirectX IIRC, you couldn't ask for a version older than version 5. However today the break is greater since DirectX 10 doesn't give access to older versions of the API. According to the Wikipedia, Windows keep several versions of DirectX in order to continue running older programs: Prior to DirectX 10, DirectX was designed to be backward compatible with older drivers, meaning that newer versions of the APIs were designed to interoperate with older drivers written against a previous version's DDI. For example, a game designed for and running on Direct3D 9 with a graphics adapter driver designed for Direct3D 6 would still work, albeit possibly with gracefully degraded functionality. However, as of Windows Vista, due to the significantly updated DDI for Windows Display Driver Model drivers, Direct3D 10 cannot run on older hardware drivers. Various releases of Windows have included and supported various versions of DirectX, allowing newer versions of the operating system to continue running applications designed for earlier versions of DirectX until those versions can be gradually phased out in favor of newer APIs, drivers, and hardware. Regards, Alberto El Miércoles 25 Marzo 2009ES 16:29:07 Tueller, Shayne R Civ USAF AFMC 519 SMXS/MXDEC escribió: Paul, In answer to your question, the answer is no, it can't. I appreciate what OpenGL can do in terms of its extensions but that isn't what my response was in reference to. I was asking Robert if he was implying that D3D is not backwards compatible in his earlier comment... -Shayne -Original Message- From: osg-users-boun...@lists.openscenegraph.org [mailto:osg-users-boun...@lists.openscenegraph.org] On Behalf Of Paul Martz Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2009 9:20 AM To: 'OpenSceneGraph Users' Subject: Re: [osg-users] OpenGL 3.1 at GDC Does that D3D 3.0 app get access to any new features? OpenGL 3.1 adds new ARB extensions to OpenGL 2.1, so that old OpenGL apps (even OpenGL 1.0 apps) running on an OpenGL 2.1 implementation can access new features analogous to those found in OpenGL 3.1. Paul Martz Skew Matrix Software LLC http://www.skew-matrix.com +1 303 859 9466 -Original Message- From: osg-users-boun...@lists.openscenegraph.org [mailto:osg-users-boun...@lists.openscenegraph.org] On Behalf Of Tueller, Shayne R Civ USAF AFMC 519 SMXS/MXDEC Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2009 9:08 AM To: OpenSceneGraph Users Subject: Re: [osg-users] OpenGL 3.1 at GDC Are you implying that the current D3D is not backwards compatible with previous versions? I believe that a current D3D application can query earlier versions of the D3D interface through COM. A D3D 3.0 application can still run under D3D 10.0 as I understand it... -Shayne ___ osg-users mailing list osg-users@lists.openscenegraph.org http://lists.openscenegraph.org/listinfo.cgi/osg-users-openscenegraph.org ___ osg-users mailing list osg-users@lists.openscenegraph.org http://lists.openscenegraph.org/listinfo.cgi/osg-users-openscenegraph.org
Re: [osg-users] OpenGL 3.1 at GDC
Sorry. I didn't think I needed to explain this, I mistakenly thought everyone knew it. Take your example of a DX3 app running on a DX10 implementation. The DX3 app gets nothing other than the DX3 API. Should the software developer attempt to use just one new feature in DX10, the only route forward is to port the _entire_ app to the new DX10 API. Compare this to OpenGL. An OpenGL 1.0 app running on an OpenGL 2.1 implementation has access to all the features that have been added in each successive release, and you can modify the app to access those features without porting your entire app. Only in OpenGL 3.1 does this model change, but now you have a couple choices as an app developer: * Don't modify context creation. You continue to get a 2.1 context, but you also have access to many new 3.x features available as ARB extensions. * Create a 3.0 context, or a 3.1 context with the compatibility extension. You get essentially the same results as with 2.1, except the same new features you had access to as ARB extensions are now core features, and there are additional new ARB features available. You'll eventually port away from 1.x/2.x, but this system allows you to do so on your timetable, not someone else's. That is the compatibility difference between the two APIs in a nutshell. Paul Martz Skew Matrix Software LLC http://www.skew-matrix.com +1 303 859 9466 -Original Message- From: osg-users-boun...@lists.openscenegraph.org [mailto:osg-users-boun...@lists.openscenegraph.org] On Behalf Of Tueller, Shayne R Civ USAF AFMC 519 SMXS/MXDEC Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2009 9:09 AM To: OpenSceneGraph Users Subject: Re: [osg-users] OpenGL 3.1 at GDC Paul, In what way has D3D screwed the existing user base with each new release? I'm not trying to argue your point, I just want to understand where you're coming from here. -Shayne -Original Message- From: osg-users-boun...@lists.openscenegraph.org [mailto:osg-users-boun...@lists.openscenegraph.org] On Behalf Of Paul Martz Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2009 8:31 AM To: 'OpenSceneGraph Users' Subject: Re: [osg-users] OpenGL 3.1 at GDC YES :))) but robert, thanks for your arguments! i will use them there. ;) best regards to all and other arguments are welcome too! I agree with Robert's sentiment. In many ways, D3D has chosen the easy way out -- supporting only one platform, and screwing the existing user base with each new release. This is the easy way to develop an API. Running cross platform, continuing to evolve and remain relevant, and not screwing existing users is a much harder task, but OpenGL has a proven track record of success in all these areas. ___ osg-users mailing list osg-users@lists.openscenegraph.org http://lists.openscenegraph.org/listinfo.cgi/osg-users-openscenegraph.org ___ osg-users mailing list osg-users@lists.openscenegraph.org http://lists.openscenegraph.org/listinfo.cgi/osg-users-openscenegraph.org
Re: [osg-users] OpenGL 3.1 at GDC
My point is that the DX3 and DX10 APIs are not compatible. The fact that the DX system allows apps to request DX3-only runtime on a DX10-capable implementation implies support but does not imply compatibility. Paul Martz Skew Matrix Software LLC http://www.skew-matrix.com +1 303 859 9466 ___ osg-users mailing list osg-users@lists.openscenegraph.org http://lists.openscenegraph.org/listinfo.cgi/osg-users-openscenegraph.org
Re: [osg-users] OpenGL 3.1 at GDC
Robert, Thanks for the clarification. I think this discussion is good for all involved when it comes to understanding the differences between D3D and OpenGL. For the record, I'm not an advocate of D3D or Microsoft. Far from it in fact... -Shayne -Original Message- From: osg-users-boun...@lists.openscenegraph.org [mailto:osg-users-boun...@lists.openscenegraph.org] On Behalf Of Robert Osfield Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2009 9:23 AM To: OpenSceneGraph Users Subject: Re: [osg-users] OpenGL 3.1 at GDC Hi Shayne, 2009/3/25 Tueller, Shayne R Civ USAF AFMC 519 SMXS/MXDEC shayne.tuel...@hill.af.mil Are you implying that the current D3D is not backwards compatible with previous versions? I believe that a current D3D application can query earlier versions of the D3D interface through COM. A D3D 3.0 application can still run under D3D 10.0 as I understand it... The problem is not the the old D3D versions API aren't available, but the fact that the jump between versions is discrete. If you want D3D 10.0 functionality you have to use D3D 10, you can't just use one part of D3D 10 and keep the rest of your app building against D3D 9. You can't get access to D3D features unless you are on Vista. This a very different situation to that of OpenGL based apps that like the OSG have been able to evolve bit by bit as few hardware + API features were exposed in OpenGL. If you are trying to maintain an application for a long period then handling widely different hardware and OS combinations is key. The D3D model really doesn't help you at all. The D3D model only suits making an app for specific era, once that era is gone the app just stays in that era unless you retool in a significant way. For a game that is developed and sells for a couple of years it might be able to come and go in just one era, but for most applications this isn't the case. Interestingly for open source games that take many years to write and evolve over time their lifetime is potentially far longer than commericial games, so open source games have more similar needs to API evolution and portability that conventional long lived graphis applications have. Robert. smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature ___ osg-users mailing list osg-users@lists.openscenegraph.org http://lists.openscenegraph.org/listinfo.cgi/osg-users-openscenegraph.org
Re: [osg-users] OpenGL 3.1 at GDC
Paul, Alberto, and Robert, Thanks for the feedback. Good stuff and details that outline the differences between the two APIs... -Shayne -Original Message- From: osg-users-boun...@lists.openscenegraph.org [mailto:osg-users-boun...@lists.openscenegraph.org] On Behalf Of Paul Martz Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2009 9:57 AM To: 'OpenSceneGraph Users' Subject: Re: [osg-users] OpenGL 3.1 at GDC My point is that the DX3 and DX10 APIs are not compatible. The fact that the DX system allows apps to request DX3-only runtime on a DX10-capable implementation implies support but does not imply compatibility. Paul Martz Skew Matrix Software LLC http://www.skew-matrix.com +1 303 859 9466 ___ osg-users mailing list osg-users@lists.openscenegraph.org http://lists.openscenegraph.org/listinfo.cgi/osg-users-openscenegraph.org smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature ___ osg-users mailing list osg-users@lists.openscenegraph.org http://lists.openscenegraph.org/listinfo.cgi/osg-users-openscenegraph.org
Re: [osg-users] OpenGL 3.1 at GDC
I realize that by speaking out, I'm running the risk of looking just as closed-minded, opinionated, and foolish as we view the D3D community. If I'm ever _way_ off base, please call me on it. I'd rather be quiet than somehow do OpenGL a disservice. Paul Martz Skew Matrix Software LLC http://www.skew-matrix.com +1 303 859 9466 ___ osg-users mailing list osg-users@lists.openscenegraph.org http://lists.openscenegraph.org/listinfo.cgi/osg-users-openscenegraph.org
Re: [osg-users] OpenGL 3.1 at GDC
Paul, I, for one, appreciate you speaking out and keeping us informed... I look forward to more information and insight that you may be able to share with the rest of us regarding OpenGL...and D3D...;^) -Shayne -Original Message- From: osg-users-boun...@lists.openscenegraph.org [mailto:osg-users-boun...@lists.openscenegraph.org] On Behalf Of Paul Martz Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2009 11:05 AM To: 'OpenSceneGraph Users' Subject: Re: [osg-users] OpenGL 3.1 at GDC I realize that by speaking out, I'm running the risk of looking just as closed-minded, opinionated, and foolish as we view the D3D community. If I'm ever _way_ off base, please call me on it. I'd rather be quiet than somehow do OpenGL a disservice. Paul Martz Skew Matrix Software LLC http://www.skew-matrix.com +1 303 859 9466 ___ osg-users mailing list osg-users@lists.openscenegraph.org http://lists.openscenegraph.org/listinfo.cgi/osg-users-openscenegraph.org smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature ___ osg-users mailing list osg-users@lists.openscenegraph.org http://lists.openscenegraph.org/listinfo.cgi/osg-users-openscenegraph.org
Re: [osg-users] OpenGL 3.1 at GDC
Here's a smattering of OpenGL 3.1 commentary. http://www.opengl.org/discussion_boards/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflatNumber=2 54833nt=allfpart=1 http://www.opengl.org/discussion_boards/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflatNumber=2 55002#Post255002 http://www.gamedev.net/community/forums/topic.asp?topic_id=528879 http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/509/1051509/khronos-cranks-opengl-s pec http://venturebeat.com/2009/03/24/khronos-group-launches-a-lighter-version-o f-opengl-graphics-standard/ Paul Martz Skew Matrix Software LLC http://www.skew-matrix.com +1 303 859 9466 ___ osg-users mailing list osg-users@lists.openscenegraph.org http://lists.openscenegraph.org/listinfo.cgi/osg-users-openscenegraph.org
Re: [osg-users] OpenGL 3.1 at GDC
I've already written and posted an OpenGL 3.1 blog, and you can read it here... http://www.skew-matrix.com/bb/viewtopic.php?f=3t=4 Paul Martz Skew Matrix Software LLC http://www.skew-matrix.com +1 303 859 9466 -Original Message- Subject: Re: [osg-users] OpenGL 3.1 at GDC Hi Paul, Ooh, please keep us updated. I can't be at GDC (maybe next year) but I'd like to know what's going to be revealed... Are most/all deprecated features in OpenGL 3.0 being removed/changed to extension status for OpenGL 3.1? Any other features being promoted to the core? Thanks, J-S ___ osg-users mailing list osg-users@lists.openscenegraph.org http://lists.openscenegraph.org/listinfo.cgi/osg-users-openscenegraph.org
Re: [osg-users] OpenGL 3.1 at GDC
Hi Paul, On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 2:16 PM, Paul Martz pma...@skew-matrix.com wrote: I've already written and posted an OpenGL 3.1 blog, and you can read it here... http://www.skew-matrix.com/bb/viewtopic.php?f=3t=4 Thanks for putting up the entry, like your previous entry it's an excellent read ;-) Robert. ___ osg-users mailing list osg-users@lists.openscenegraph.org http://lists.openscenegraph.org/listinfo.cgi/osg-users-openscenegraph.org
Re: [osg-users] OpenGL 3.1 at GDC
Thanks, Robert. FYI, the specs are now posted: This is the OpenGL 3.1 spec, with all 3.0-deprecated features removed. http://www.opengl.org/registry/doc/glspec31.20090324.pdf http://www.opengl.org/registry/doc/glspec31.20090324.pdf This is a version of the 3.1 spec that includes the finctionality of the GL_ARB_compatibility extension, as if the features had never been removed. http://www.opengl.org/registry/doc/glspec31undep.20090324.pdf http://www.opengl.org/registry/doc/glspec31undep.20090324.pdf This is the GLSL 1.40 spec. http://www.opengl.org/registry/doc/GLSLangSpec.Full.1.40.05.pdf http://www.opengl.org/registry/doc/GLSLangSpec.Full.1.40.05.pdf Paul Martz Skew Matrix Software LLC http://www.skew-matrix.com http://www.skew-matrix.com/ +1 303 859 9466 _ From: osg-users-boun...@lists.openscenegraph.org [mailto:osg-users-boun...@lists.openscenegraph.org] On Behalf Of Robert Osfield Sent: Tuesday, March 24, 2009 8:31 AM To: OpenSceneGraph Users Subject: Re: [osg-users] OpenGL 3.1 at GDC Hi Paul, On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 2:16 PM, Paul Martz pma...@skew-matrix.com wrote: I've already written and posted an OpenGL 3.1 blog, and you can read it here... http://www.skew-matrix.com/bb/viewtopic.php?f=3 http://www.skew-matrix.com/bb/viewtopic.php?f=3t=4 t=4 Thanks for putting up the entry, like your previous entry it's an excellent read ;-) Robert. ___ osg-users mailing list osg-users@lists.openscenegraph.org http://lists.openscenegraph.org/listinfo.cgi/osg-users-openscenegraph.org
Re: [osg-users] OpenGL 3.1 at GDC
Hi Paul, FYI, the specs are now posted: Nice, thanks for keeping us up to date, looks like I have some reading to do :-) J-S -- __ Jean-Sebastien Guayjean-sebastien.g...@cm-labs.com http://www.cm-labs.com/ http://whitestar02.webhop.org/ ___ osg-users mailing list osg-users@lists.openscenegraph.org http://lists.openscenegraph.org/listinfo.cgi/osg-users-openscenegraph.org
Re: [osg-users] OpenGL 3.1 at GDC
A little less reading than in the past... 3.0 spec was 510 pages, 3.1 is 352 pages. :-) Paul Martz Skew Matrix Software LLC http://www.skew-matrix.com +1 303 859 9466 -Original Message- From: osg-users-boun...@lists.openscenegraph.org [mailto:osg-users-boun...@lists.openscenegraph.org] On Behalf Of Jean-Sébastien Guay Sent: Tuesday, March 24, 2009 11:16 AM To: OpenSceneGraph Users Subject: Re: [osg-users] OpenGL 3.1 at GDC Hi Paul, FYI, the specs are now posted: Nice, thanks for keeping us up to date, looks like I have some reading to do :-) J-S -- __ Jean-Sebastien Guayjean-sebastien.g...@cm-labs.com http://www.cm-labs.com/ http://whitestar02.webhop.org/ ___ osg-users mailing list osg-users@lists.openscenegraph.org http://lists.openscenegraph.org/listinfo.cgi/osg-users-openscenegraph.org ___ osg-users mailing list osg-users@lists.openscenegraph.org http://lists.openscenegraph.org/listinfo.cgi/osg-users-openscenegraph.org
Re: [osg-users] OpenGL 3.1 at GDC
Paul Martz wrote: A little less reading than in the past... 3.0 spec was 510 pages, 3.1 is 352 pages. :-) but i gave some people something to read. ;) german speaking forum http://www.forum-3dcenter.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=7189462#post7189462 if the full quote is not ok for you i will change it. best regards! :) ___ osg-users mailing list osg-users@lists.openscenegraph.org http://lists.openscenegraph.org/listinfo.cgi/osg-users-openscenegraph.org
Re: [osg-users] OpenGL 3.1 at GDC
Too bad I don't speak enough German to grok the replies... :-/ Paul Martz Skew Matrix Software LLC http://www.skew-matrix.com +1 303 859 9466 -Original Message- From: osg-users-boun...@lists.openscenegraph.org [mailto:osg-users-boun...@lists.openscenegraph.org] On Behalf Of hanne...@gmx.at Sent: Tuesday, March 24, 2009 1:33 PM To: OpenSceneGraph Users Subject: Re: [osg-users] OpenGL 3.1 at GDC Paul Martz wrote: A little less reading than in the past... 3.0 spec was 510 pages, 3.1 is 352 pages. :-) but i gave some people something to read. ;) german speaking forum http://www.forum-3dcenter.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=7189462#post7189462 if the full quote is not ok for you i will change it. best regards! :) ___ osg-users mailing list osg-users@lists.openscenegraph.org http://lists.openscenegraph.org/listinfo.cgi/osg-users-openscenegraph.org ___ osg-users mailing list osg-users@lists.openscenegraph.org http://lists.openscenegraph.org/listinfo.cgi/osg-users-openscenegraph.org
Re: [osg-users] OpenGL 3.1 at GDC
opengl is 2 years behind direct3d and direct3d is better. and now there is d3d10 and d3d11 will even be better and d3d9 already had instancing and opengl is now only a copy of d3d10 and more robust drivers is only a lie and they dont belive you because you are an opengl guy and dont know d3d... but what did you write at http://www.skew-matrix.com/bb/viewtopic.php?f=3t=2sid=f8c13badb04333f7e064fbab1a17c7c2 The debate between D3D and OpenGL has gone on longer than any API war I’ve witnessed. I’m not going to delude myself into believing that this blog makes any significant difference in that debate. ;) Paul Martz wrote: Too bad I don't speak enough German to grok the replies... :-/ Paul Martz Skew Matrix Software LLC http://www.skew-matrix.com +1 303 859 9466 -Original Message- From: osg-users-boun...@lists.openscenegraph.org [mailto:osg-users-boun...@lists.openscenegraph.org] On Behalf Of hanne...@gmx.at Sent: Tuesday, March 24, 2009 1:33 PM To: OpenSceneGraph Users Subject: Re: [osg-users] OpenGL 3.1 at GDC Paul Martz wrote: A little less reading than in the past... 3.0 spec was 510 pages, 3.1 is 352 pages. :-) but i gave some people something to read. ;) german speaking forum http://www.forum-3dcenter.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=7189462#post7189462 if the full quote is not ok for you i will change it. best regards! :) ___ osg-users mailing list osg-users@lists.openscenegraph.org http://lists.openscenegraph.org/listinfo.cgi/osg-users-openscenegraph.org ___ osg-users mailing list osg-users@lists.openscenegraph.org http://lists.openscenegraph.org/listinfo.cgi/osg-users-openscenegraph.org ___ osg-users mailing list osg-users@lists.openscenegraph.org http://lists.openscenegraph.org/listinfo.cgi/osg-users-openscenegraph.org
Re: [osg-users] OpenGL 3.1 at GDC
Hi Paul, Anyone at GDC this week should read this and attend if possible. Looks like it all goes down tomorrow. www.khronos.org http://www.khronos.org. Ooh, please keep us updated. I can't be at GDC (maybe next year) but I'd like to know what's going to be revealed... Are most/all deprecated features in OpenGL 3.0 being removed/changed to extension status for OpenGL 3.1? Any other features being promoted to the core? Thanks, J-S -- __ Jean-Sebastien Guayjean-sebastien.g...@cm-labs.com http://www.cm-labs.com/ http://whitestar02.webhop.org/ ___ osg-users mailing list osg-users@lists.openscenegraph.org http://lists.openscenegraph.org/listinfo.cgi/osg-users-openscenegraph.org
