OpenGL 3 (3DLabs And The Evolution Of OpenGL)
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.
As for real gamers, we'll stick with XP until either Microsoft gets smart and clones XP and only adds on Aero or OpenGL gets it's act together and Linux becomes a viable gaming platform. It would be nice if it became a viable anything-other-then-a-web-server viable platform though. Linux 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.
OpenGL can go screw backwards compatibility, look what it's done to (competent) web designers who are stuck dealing with Internet Explorer.
All the bad news about DirectX, OpenGL, and DRM makes me wonder if these companies want us to pirate the hell out of everything. At this rate "next generation" consoles might actually become the next generation consoles!
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.
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.
The process was a bit different but overall faster than under Windows.
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 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 and gpu drivers, i seriously doubt that open source systems will ever be at the forefront of gaming
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