Then what’s the hype about DX10?
As my understanding, it’s a change in the API way of passing things and specifying rendering states…the core things are the same…added geometry shaders which is exposed in OpenGL 2.1 already by extensions. You don’t like extensions because of HW vendors…there r only 2 major gaming vendors…the caps are in the Shading language itself…so the hardware is hardware binaries are binaries but different interfaces…then I will go for OpenGL.
I have no idea what this “sentence” means.
Sometimes, hype has no reason.
Extensions or not, certain features can’t be viable until the required hardware reached a certain saturation among the public.
By that time these features are probably booth standardized and core in the APIs.
Therefore hype like that has little or no point other than the ad value.
No, it is not real-time. This images were discussed some time ago in this forum.
I too dislike that people tend to be so DX-oriented (all taht DX-blabla hardware class stuff), but I guess they need an icon .
Real-time is as real-time does.
Is there a suggestion for OpenGL to be inferred from all this? Or is this just some good old fashioned chin wagging?
Since when is rendering a single static bumpmapped mesh an indicator of GPU quality or performance?
Customers are losing interest because each new “next-gen” image looks like the last one, and never comes to be.