Long Peaks

I think that’s perhaps an issue for the hardware vendors to come up with a classification independent of the drawing api. Personally I look at the nv chipset revision number as an indicator of capabilities…never look at the dx shader model number - mind you, we do exclusively use nvidia hardware so it’s simple that way.
The version number in GL has historically not been used to describe a hardware revision until 2.0 came along. It was used to describe an API revision.
Longs Peak is a completely new API, not a modified version of an older one - therefore it really should have a new name. Calling it version 2.5 or 3.0 is suggesting it’s the same API, when it simply isn’t by any stretch of the imagination.

GL 2.1 covers 3 generation of shader model.
That’s what a good hardware abstraction does.

It abstracts the hardware so that you don’t have to care (much) about what “shader model” the hardware uses.

In the DX10 world, I can’t really use “SM2.0” hardware because it can’t do everything DX10 requires it to do. Even if all I want is to write DX10 code that only uses “SM2.0” features. I’d have to write a DX9 version of my rendering system.

With OpenGL 2.x/Longs Peak, that’s not even a concern. If I limit myself to a certain feature set for a particular card, then the code will work on that card and everything that is better than it, automatically.

A hardware abstraction should not describe the hardware it abstracts in any detailed way. It most certainly shouldn’t specify things to the level that Direct3D does.

Longs Peak is a completely new API, not a modified version of an older one - therefore it really should have a new name.
Direct3D alone has gone through, what, 5 major API revisions (DX3, DX5/6, DX7, DX8/9, DX10). We’re not just talking about a couple of different function names or adding a parameter here or there. We’re talking about substantial, “rewrite your graphics code” level changes.

Yet Microsoft still calls each one Direct3D. I see no reason why GL needs a new name just because it’s a fundamentally different API.

“Everybody else” doesn’t know what OpenGL is, at all.
I can’t really agree with that. Many gamers (and that’s a not so insignificant part of the market) “know” OpenGL. Some of them definitely “know” that OpenGL is better than Direct3D. Some of them “know” exactly the opposite. Even though nobody really knows anything about those two APIs except that you can choose which one to use in Half-Life, most have an opinion in the matter :stuck_out_tongue:

I have heard the same thing from alot of people:

“I have a DirectX card, it doesn’t do OpenGL.”

And those were people doing work at least somewhat related to realtime graphics and/or gaming (not developers).

I haven’t seen a graphics card being advertised featuring OpenGL in a looooong time. Only ShaderModel and DirectX versions are being mentioned. So, how should non developers know about OpenGL.
It’s just Microsoft doing its thing…

Originally posted by Korval:

In the DX10 world, I can’t really use “SM2.0” hardware because it can’t do everything DX10 requires it to do. Even if all I want is to write DX10 code that only uses “SM2.0” features. I’d have to write a DX9 version of my rendering system.

I thought you could use SM 2.0
I heard 1.x stuff is eliminated.

Also, from a developer’s POV, sure it is fine if GL can abstract well, but from a PR POV, it’s different.


I haven’t seen a graphics card being advertised featuring OpenGL in a looooong time. Only ShaderModel and DirectX versions are being mentioned. So, how should non developers know about OpenGL.
It’s just Microsoft doing its thing…

I have seen GL 2.0 mentioned quite often on hw sites that …actually sell.
But not anymore. I only see DX 10 for the new generation of cards.

For games, it is different. I haven’t seen any game mention GL. DCC software like 3DSmax have developed there DX backend quite a bit. The way I see it. I don’t know about Carmack. He will likely never use DX.

http://www.gameinformer.com/News/Story/200701/N07.0109.1737.15034.htm

Carmack likes DirectX9.

…we’ll have todo something about that… :wink:

Regards
elFarto

think of how cool a card with “OpenGI” written on the box would look. Something new and fresh, and more importantly distinctive.

Things are also a bit different than they were some years ago, before the Xbox. DirectX is now “cross-platform”, at least within its own microcosm. That’s an enormous additional incentive to use DX, if you plan on targeting Windows anyway.

But it looks to me like OpenGL 3.0 is going to counter with the GL/ES combo, and I think this looks awesome, potentially even better than D3D9/10, since you get all of the PC and Mac space, plus the handhelds and PS3 (but no Xbox, if that matters).

P.S. Most of the cards I see on sale mention OpenGL 2.0 support.

Originally posted by V-man:
I thought you could use SM 2.0
I heard 1.x stuff is eliminated.
D3D10 supports only SM 4.0.

They dropped PS 1.x support for the Direct3D 9 HLSL compiler that is part of D3DX.

Originally posted by F. ‘bonehead’ Leghorn:
But it looks to me like OpenGL 3.0 is going to counter with the GL/ES combo, and I think this looks awesome, potentially even better than D3D9/10, since you get all of the PC and Mac space, plus the handhelds and PS3 (but no Xbox, if that matters).
Remove the PS3 from your list. OpenGL is not the preferred graphic API for the PS3.

For D3D add Windows CE/Mobile.

Interesting. What API does the PS3 then use? I always thought one uses OpenGL ES for the PS3.

PS3:
From the horse’s mouth :
http://www.cg.tuwien.ac.at/events/EG06/gmgfiles/perthuis-talkeg2006.ppt

Basically you get an extended GL/ES+Cg as high level API with the SDK.
You can use the libGCM for low level access to the RSX.
And most game developers use some higher level game engine build on top of this low-level API.

DirectX is now “cross-platform”, at least within its own microcosm
You can remove Windows 2k/XP from the DirectX list. DX10 is not even cross platform on all windows platforms :stuck_out_tongue:

:stuck_out_tongue: