Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in

OpenGL 3 (3DLabs And The Evolution Of OpenGL)

OpenGL 3 & DirectX 11: The War Is Over
By

To fully understand the controversy that surrounded the announcement of OpenGL 3, we have to go back a few years to 2002. At that time, as we said in our introduction, OpenGL was losing ground. Up until that point, DirectX had simply copied the capabilities of OpenGL. This time, however, SGI’s API had been overtaken. With DirectX 9, Microsoft introduced support for a high-level shader language, HLSL, and OpenGL had nothing to compare. It is important to note that OpenGL’s origins lie with IRIS GL, an API initially created by SGI to expose the functionality of its hardware. For a long time, ATI and Nvidia simply followed SGI’s rendering model, which meant that OpenGL was especially well-suited to the makers’ cards even before they were released. But with the introduction of shaders, the new GPUs moved away from the traditional rendering pipeline.

At the time, one company realized the importance of the need for a rapid evolution to OpenGL if the API had any hope of being applied to modern GPUs: 3DLabs. That’s not surprising, because 3DLabs abandoned gaming cards after its Permedia 2 was EoLed to concentrate on the professional market, where OpenGL is the standard. 3DLabs presented a plan with several points for bringing OpenGL into a new era. First was inclusion of a high-level shader language: GLSL. Then it called for complete revision of the API. Many of its features no longer made sense on modern 3D cards, but the need for backward compatibility required GPU manufacturers to support them at least at the software level. Not only does that make writing drivers more complex, increasing the occurrence of bugs, but the legacy capabilities also made the API confusing for new programmers.

So 3DLabs wanted to expose a subset of functionality that would guarantee efficient execution by the GPU and eliminate outmoded or redundant features. This subset was called OpenGL 2.0 Pure and was intended for developers of new applications. For backward compatibility, the full set of extensions in OpenGL 1.x was available in Open GL 2.0.

Unfortunately, after interminable discussions within the ARB, the plan was rejected. And when OpenGL 2.0 finally became available, all it did was to add support for GLSL to the API. All of 3DLabs’ other proposals ended up in the trash, leaving OpenGL still lagging behind the Microsoft API.

Display all 109 comments.
This thread is closed for comments
  • 2 Hide
    Gatekeeper_Guy , September 16, 2008 7:56 AM
    Cool, but it will be a few years before we see at DX11 graphic card on the market.
  • 0 Hide
    stridervm , September 16, 2008 8:02 AM
    Sadly, I agree by the author's opinions. Not simply for, but because it still give away the idea that PC gaming cannot be considered serious..... Unless you're using Windows, which is proprietary, the only viable alternative cannot be used because of the fear of losing compability. I just hope this can be remedied before Microsoft becomes.... Unreasonable and becomes power hungry..... If it isn't already. Look at how Windows systems cost now compared to the the alternative.
  • 1 Hide
    jimmysmitty , September 16, 2008 9:03 AM
    Gatekeeper_GuyCool, but it will be a few years before we see at DX11 graphic cardhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_card on the market.


    I thought the article said that DX11 is supposed to be compatable with previous gen hardware.

    I know the Gemoetry Shader with Tesselation is already in all of the ATI Radeon HD GPUs so thats one thing it will support.

    But no SP 5.0 support. I have heard that Intels GPU, Larrabee will support DX11. So that would mean late 2009/2010 will have at least one and that should mean that ATIs HD5K series and nVidias next step should includ support if they were smart and jumped on the wagon early.
  • 2 Hide
    Anonymous , September 16, 2008 9:11 AM
    OpenGL may not have gotten the changes it needed to compete with DirectX as a gaming graphics API. But then you have people like Tim Sweeney telling us that graphics APIs are not going to be relevant that much longer (http://arstechnica.com/articles/paedia/gpu-sweeney-interview.ars).

    Direct3D 10 has changed very little in the industry so far, predictably only a very small number of games us it. And those who do can do most of it on Direct3D 9 as well. Maybe MS learned by now that releasing a new API on only the latest platform is a huge mistake, but it will still be a while before people will adapt their new API. And if Tim Sweeney's predictions come true, it will likely not happen at all.
  • 3 Hide
    martel80 , September 16, 2008 10:04 AM
    johnbilickiLinux gurus, feel free to let us know in sixty years that I won't have to explain to my grandmother how to type console commands to install a copy of Opera.
    I have been able to "accidentally" (because I'm no Linux guru, you know) install Opera through the Synaptic Package Manager on Ubuntu. So please, stop talking nonsense. :) 
    The process was a bit different but overall faster than under Windows.
  • 1 Hide
    Anonymous , September 16, 2008 11:11 AM
    dx 10 may not appear major but for devs its actually is.. no more checking cap bits.. that is a big improvment. dx10 is alot more strict in terms of what the drivers should do and thats good. doing away with fixed functions is also great

    however hardware tesselation if huge.. dx 11 also allows for hardware voxel rendering /raymarching thru compute shaders and alot of other stuff.. as apis become more general [as dx 10/11 are] im sure the pace of new apis: will slow down, but that's not a indicator that pc gaming is dying (un informed people have claimed that the pc is dead since the ps1)

    as for the windows/other platforms discussion, it is not the fault of microsoft that there is no viable alternative on other platforms. if someone chose to compete with microsoft, they could. but no one seems willing. what really should be done is a port/implementation of dx11 in open source..

    however, in the cut throat buisness of game engines[epic vs whats-their-name anyone?] and gpu drivers, i seriously doubt that open source systems will ever be at the forefront of gaming
  • 1 Hide
    phantom93 , September 16, 2008 11:38 AM
    DX11 is compatiable with DX10 hardware. It should work when it is released unless they have bugs.
  • 1 Hide
    spaztic7 , September 16, 2008 1:08 PM
    From my understanding, all HD4800 serious are DX11 compatible... and the HD4800 line is ray tracing compatible at ray tracings frame cap. I do not know about the 4600 line, but I don’t see why they wouldn’t be.
  • 2 Hide
    romans11 , September 16, 2008 2:22 PM
    johnbilickiLinux gurus, feel free to let us know in sixty years that I won't have to explain to my grandmother how to type console commands to install a copy of Opera.


    If your Grandmother is still around in 60 years, I will personally install Opera (if it is still around) for her.
  • 3 Hide
    kschoche , September 16, 2008 2:49 PM
    al3891:
    "as for the windows/other platforms discussion, it is not the fault of microsoft that there is no viable alternative on other platforms. if someone chose to compete with microsoft, they could. but no one seems willing. what really should be done is a port/implementation of dx11 in open source.."
    Have fun making a viable open alternative to a closed source api that runs really close to the closed source kernel of the closed source OS. To even get access to the necessary functions you'd have to cripple your efforts with M$ bs.
  • 7 Hide
    cjl , September 16, 2008 3:07 PM
    stridervm Look at how Windows systems cost now compared to the the alternative.

    OK. A decent windows gaming machine can be had for around $800, the same one in Linux is $700, and you can't buy a mac for that price other than the pitiful (for anything like games) mac mini.
  • 0 Hide
    spaztic7 , September 16, 2008 3:24 PM
    Quote:
    ow PC gameing is dieing allright the major game componies are starting to squeese out the PC games from there production list useing the excuse that they are loosing money through pirecy but what they are realy doing is cutting out one version forcing PC gamers to evolve into console players
    And from this article I get the impresion that microsoft has a hand in it aswell by making sure that the console games end up running better or as good as PC games
    I think if the origenal Opengl was alowed to proceed years ago and if the follow up was taken and there wasnt any sabotage happening then the PC and its performance with mutly CPU GPU and the tecnolegy evolving with the progamers and propper apis in this area would have left the console market in the shade but this way Microsoft is eliminating other similar competion Apple
    To cut to the chace Apple and OpenGl is getting the Microsft squeese and who has an interest in a console product :-)
    I guess I might be one of the old dinosorse but I still am a PC gamer through and through even though I am grampar foda I love buiding PC units and playing well I havent been to a net game in a couple of years Pizza and beer he he heee But Il be buggered If I will lie down and die because of big buisness
    Gazza


    um... what?
  • 0 Hide
    knickle , September 16, 2008 3:28 PM
    aL3891if someone chose to compete with microsoft, they could. but no one seems willing. what really should be done is a port/implementation of dx11 in open source..however, in the cut throat buisness of game engines[epic vs whats-their-name anyone?] and gpu drivers, i seriously doubt that open source systems will ever be at the forefront of gaming


    Give it a few more years and I bet Google will take a stab at it. They have their paws into just about everything these days. Why not grahpics?
  • 2 Hide
    Kaldor , September 16, 2008 3:37 PM
    Great article. Reminds me of some of the old school Tom's articles we used to see.
  • -3 Hide
    tomc100 , September 16, 2008 3:42 PM
    If MS was smart they should release the xbox3 that is fully dx11 compliant several years before Windows 7 is released. That will ultimately increase the library of dx11 games, real FULL dx11 games incompatible with dx9. For dx11 to move forward and windows 7 to take hold, dx9 must die COMPLETELY. The dx11 games will then force people to upgrade to windows 7. As far as I know, dx11 features is not possible on the open platforms like the PS3 or 4 so multiplatform games will always look and run better (provided that dx11 does what it says it will do) on the xbox3 thus annihilating the console market.
  • 0 Hide
    LunaticWolf , September 16, 2008 4:05 PM
    Sadly Tom, that would ruin us all, as all new consoles would cost $1000s
  • 2 Hide
    eodeo , September 16, 2008 4:07 PM
    Great article- very interesting reading. I'm glad I didn't stop coming to THG.

    --

    It would be interesting (if possible at all) to make an unbiased API performance shootout. I know that professional 3d programs like max and maya run much smoother on d3d even when run on the non-crippled version of OpenGL (on workstation cards). Is this due to particular software optimizations or just speed deficiency of OGL?

    Also, you said that opengl 3.0 is more like 2.2, but you also said that it barely caches up with dx10. I find these to statements contradictory. I'm under impression that OGL 3.0 is in ~2003 while dx10 is ~2007. opengl 2.1 is in ~1999. How can .1 increase bring ~2007 things while staying 5 years behind. Or is my logic simply flawed here?

    Also, for 3ds Max specific, you are able to have real time shadows and lightning conditions in viewports, but only under d3d. Am I to understand that openGL can do the same, but the AutoDesk programmers chose not to implement them? I always assumed that ogl simply couldn’t due to obsoleteness.

    In conclusion, THG needs more of these articles. Latest GPU roundup was another massive success.
  • 2 Hide
    Anonymous , September 16, 2008 4:47 PM
    I use several AutoDesk products for engineering and AutoDesk made it clear about 1.5 years ago that their 3D products would only support DirectX in the future. This has already occurred for Inventor running on Vista, so I do not know how far the other products are. Their timeline may also be affected since those products have not been under the direct control of AutoDesk for quite as long (3ds Max and Maya).
Display more comments