Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Mesa 5.0 Released

Posted by Hemos on from the make-the-pretty-graphics dept.

Eugenia writes "Mesa 5.0 has been released. It implements the OpenGL 1.4 specification." There's more information as to what's been fixed/added/changed on their SF.net project page.

8 of 142 comments (clear)

  1. cute by sanermind · · Score: 5, Funny
    Cute description in the changelog:

    - OpenGL 1.4 support (glGetString(GL_VERSION) returns "1.4")

    So that's all it takes, eh?
    <grin>
    --

    ---
    the pen is mightier than the sword, the sword is mightier than the court, the court is mightier than the pen.
  2. How does it compare on windows? by Max+Romantschuk · · Score: 5, Interesting

    It'd be interresting to know how this release compares to other OpenGL implementations on Windows. Anyone looked into this?

    Why Windows? It's always interresting to see how any open software solutions stack up versus their proprietary cousins on a proprietary system.

    --
    .: Max Romantschuk :: http://max.romantschuk.fi/
    1. Re:How does it compare on windows? by The+Original+Yama · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I personally would like to see how this compares to the OpenGL implementation in the nVIDIA Linux drivers. Anybody got any benchmark figures?

      --
      OLPC Australia
  3. I don't know what they did by RomikQ · · Score: 5, Informative

    But the new mesa seems to have intelligent workload distribution between the cpu and the gpu, i e

    glxgears running in a small window - 200 fps, average 2% cpu load(with Mesa 4.1 it was 800 fps 100% load),
    running maximized in 1600x1200 - 80 fps, 100% load(exactly as with Mesa 4.1).
    And all the games and etc run at exactly the same speeds with less cpu load.

    All I can say is this is great - nobody needs insane fps numbers above 100 and it saves cpu for my poor apache running in the background :). Server gaming woohoo!

    --
    Join the elite! Post at score:2! Ghostwheel is online.
  4. Re:mesa sucks compared to dx 9 by quigonn · · Score: 5, Informative

    Hey, OpenGL is at least standardized, something you can build on for years. Nobody can guarantee you that the next version of DirectX will be compatible with the current version.

    In fact, there are only two 3D APIs that are standardized and (more or less) widely used: OpenGL and OpenInventor.

    --
    A monkey is doing the real work for me.
  5. in the long run, that will change by g4dget · · Score: 5, Insightful

    A good game generally needs a good budget to back it.

    A flashy game with a lot of graphics may need a big budget. But those games are not necessarily good, nor do good games necessarily need flashy graphics. For example, many of the movie-tie-in 3D games are financed heavily and anywhere from mediocre to horrible. On the other hand, excellent games like chess or go are of utmost graphical simplicity, and they have been refined over centuries and millenia in a process akin to open source. Furthermore, there are quite a few excellent open source games with minimal graphics and excellent gameplay.

    Closed source, heavily financed games satisfy a yearning for novelty. They spend a lot of money on eye candy and pushing technology to the limit. But really good game design is a long-term, open process. For computer games, that has barely begun. I suspect that in another few years, you are going to see open source games whose graphics is simpler than Doom but whose gameplay beats anything commercially available. And closed source games won't be able to compete with that because they simply can't have thousands of game players contributing directly to the evolution of the game.

    Open source is slow--but eventually, it gets there, and it usually ends up doing a better job.

    1. Re:in the long run, that will change by g4dget · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Open source development is design-by-committee by its nature.

      No, it's implementation-by-contributors, which is very different. Design-by-committee is what happens in many companies: a lot of people who don't have to do any of the real work sit around and talk a lot, then dump some non-sensical specification on their programmers. Design-by-committee is bad. Implementation-by-contributors is good.

      It takes a long time and if it ever finishes it's a compromise.

      Making a good game or good piece of software always takes a long time--because it requires extensive feedback from users. Open source is actually better at that because the users are the developers.

      As for being a compromise, of course it is. However, if it's a compromise a substantial number of people can't live with, the project forks. This, again, is good. Closed source doesn't have that option: just because many people think MS Office sucks doesn't mean they can take it, split it off, and fix it.

  6. who cares about "the lead"? by g4dget · · Score: 5, Insightful

    i agree. OpenGL lost the lead a long time ago.

    So? Who cares? I'd much rather use an open API than some snazzy, proprietary thing.

    Wait for 2.0 to come out. MS is going to lock Linux out of 2.0 as some of the api's are based on dx9

    Again, who cares? If MS has the power to lock Linux out of OpenGL 2.0 (through patents?), then open source will just not use it and instead evolve OpenGL 1.* in a different direction.