Slashdot Mirror


The State of OpenGL

CowboyRobot writes "No longer vapor, but a true 3D-embedded engine, OpenGL is on the move. Pixar and others would love to be able to render their movies in realtime, and that desire has prompted the intended release of OpenGL 2.0, due in a few months. Khronos is now in charge of further extending OpenGL to cellphones and handheld gaming devices."

26 of 273 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Pixlet by PurdueGraphicsMan · · Score: 4, Informative

    Pixlet is for playback (a codec), not for rendering films. Unless I'm missing something in your post.

    --


    The guitars sound good, now give me about 10db more on the cow bell.
  2. Re:OpenGL is Dead by b0r0din · · Score: 5, Funny

    I thought we told you not to come back here after that Monkey Boy Dance incident, Steve.

  3. Damn them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    When will they figure it out OpenGL is not necessarily desirable in a cellular phone?

    I want business class reliability, not a the ability to rent subpar games on my cell phone for $5/month.

    When I'm on the phone all day because of my work I want it to be there for important calls, not fizzle out after an hour because it's got a 640x480 pixel screen with 24-bit color.

    1. Re:Damn them by Azghoul · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Hmm, funny, I don't remember you being declared the only person to own a cell phone.

      How about realizing that there are other users out there? How about realizing that teenagers ( a gigantic market, by any measure ) might WANT their phones to play games?

      Be a little more myopic next time, AC...

    2. Re:Damn them by sbaker · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If there *is* going to be 3D on cellphones and PDA's then I'd much prefer that they ran a standard API than a non-standard one. Given that there really are only two 3D standards, I'd much rather it was OpenGL than Direct3D.

      So - *IF* we want 3D then we want OpenGL.

      But do we want 3D in cellphones?

      The supposed 'killer app' for 3D on cellphones is the idea of using the positioning detecting capability of the phone - along with network access - to provide an annotated 3D map of your present location. Think of the navigation systems in cars - but in 3D - so you can find the elevator you need to get to a particular office in a big unfamiliar building - or find where you left your car in an multistory parking lot.

      Games will obviously use the technology too.

      I don't know whether this is important to people or not - but if 3D is happening, it should CERTAINLY be in OpenGL - initially a small subset - gradually improving to a full-blown implementation in every phone as the technology catches up.

      Personally, I'd be much happier with a last-generation basic phone that had 10x battery life and didn't lose service quite so easily.

      --
      www.sjbaker.org
    3. Re:Damn them by stienman · · Score: 4, Insightful

      1) You are not their target audience.

      2) Eventually cell phones, pdas, computers, entertainment devices (tivo,etc) will converge into one or two devices, one of which will be portable. This is one item on the continuum leading towards the ubiquitous always on computing device.

      3) OpenGL on the cell phone is simply a way of saying, "OpenGL on any platform requiring 3d graphics." It's marketting. It may not be used heavily on cell phones, but perhaps new a new HDTV format will allow for an opengl data stream to place products in pretaped shows for different areas (ie, midwest viewers see a CVS pharmacy, while southeast see an Eckard). Having a pared down implementation meant for little processors and low resolution screens is an asset. Don't abuse the implementation if the idea can be generalized.

      -Adam

  4. OpenGL ES with hardware support? by Stiletto · · Score: 4, Insightful


    Although right now OpenGL is all that's out there for low-cost portable embedded 3D software, no one is going to develop with it until hardware support emerges. Who wants a handheld 3D mapping device that takes 10 seconds to redraw a frame using an ARM9 software renderer?

    1. Re:OpenGL ES with hardware support? by arbitrary+nickname · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's *not* really designed for software implementations. This is a common misconception. Relies on depth buffers for sorting - which can be wasteful on memory bandwidth for software implementations (there are better alternatives in many cases (BSP trees, portals, bucket sorting)

      After having a look at the spec, OpenGL ES seems -1, Redundant. Why not just aim for full OpenGL, starting with a 'MiniGL/QuakeGL' style implementation, of the sort which really got the ball rolling on the PC.

      However, I believe it does include fixed-point maths support - very useful for all the ARM-based devices out there with no FPU.

  5. Re:OpenGL is Dead by Xeo+024 · · Score: 5, Informative
    DirectX has won the war, with better features, performance, and availability.

    I don't know about availability, OpenGL is cross-platform (works on OS X, Linux, Windows, etc.) while DirectX is Windows only. OpenGL is also included with many if not all graphic cards. So it's just as widely available, if not more, than DirectX.

  6. Sun by Brando_Calrisean · · Score: 5, Funny

    What about the ability to stick to-do notes on the BACK of your cellphone? Wouldn't that make mobile 3D worthwhile?!

    --
    Don't call me a cowboy, and don't tell me to slow down!
  7. I hope so by re-Verse · · Score: 4, Interesting

    For so long, DirectX had to struggle and claw to keep up with OpenGL - they did just that, while OpenGL sat mainly idle (well, John Carmack was a big help to it)... Now it seems the shoe is on the other foot, and OpenGL is going to have to move deftly to surpass DX9, and soon enough 10...

    I sincerely hope it happens. I wish developers felt more inclinded to make their 3D engined GL based rather than DX based, so the day where I can play any game in linux may actually arrive. Of course, we have to give massive amounts of respect to those who do make OpenGL platforms for their games (ID, Epic), but what about those who feel DX is easier and more practical for what they do(Valve).

    Maybe if we're lucky, the Carmack will drop in to this discussion and tell us exactly what he thinks needs to happen to really make GL a reality for most gamaes again.

  8. Famous misquote from the old Batman show by Pike · · Score: 4, Funny

    "Touch one hair on her head and I'll render you limb from limb!"

  9. OGL alone is not enough for gaming by BigBuckHunter · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Hopefully, this will prompt more developers to join efforts to create a feature rich gaming framework for *nix. SDL is a great start, but lags behind DirectX in a number of ways. I look forward to seeing this 2.0 release breathe new life/blood into this area of development.

    Thank you for your time,

    BBH

    1. Re:OGL alone is not enough for gaming by fforw · · Score: 4, Funny
      Your friend's project sure sounds exciting. Now there will be nine hundred and ONE incomplete, poorly-written, multipurpose game engines on Freshmeat! Praise the Lord!

      .. still bitter about yours ?

      --
      while (!asleep()) sheep++
  10. OpenGL 1.5 by PlatinumInitiate · · Score: 5, Interesting

    OpenGL is used in the Torque engine alongside Direct3D (D3D on Windows, OpenGL on Mac and Linux). It would be great if OpenGL could eclipse Direct3D, and become the premiere 3D platform once again. Perhaps we will see this with the release of OpenGL 2.0, but for a few years Direct3D has been slowly but surely catching up and then surpassing the aging OpenGL standard.

    A lot of our customers demand Linux in their solutions (networked gaming terminals) to avoid the cost of licensing Windows XP Embedded for each machine, and the option so far has been to go the Mesa/OpenGL/SDL route (WineX is still too slow for what we do), which, while it has worked, is technically slightly inferior to our Windows equivalents. Hopefully OpenGL 2.0 will change this.

  11. Re:article text by Funk_dat69 · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Many developers, however, believe Java 3D is at too low a level.

    Say what?
    You don't get much higher-level than a scenegraph API like Java3D.

    I think the author may have been confused, although he did get the overall point right. OpenGL ES on J2ME will probably be the way this goes.
    --
    FUNK!
  12. OpenGL 2 by woodhouse · · Score: 5, Informative

    OpenGL 2.0 is not as exciting as the new major version number might indicate. Probably the most important new feature of OpenGL 2.0 was going to be the GLSL high level shader language. However, in order to speed up its support by hardware companies, this was instead put into OpenGL 1.5 spec when it was announced last year; GLSL already has implementations by 3DLabs, ATi and nVidia. OpenGL 2.0 will still add some useful new features, but it won't be the world-shattering event that 3DLabs promised in their original proposals.

  13. Java on top of OpenGL is happening... by tommck · · Score: 4, Interesting

    My cousin's husband works for Sun and he said that the next version (1.5?) of Java will have Swing ported to OpenGL underpinnings... that way, even 2D apps will be MUCH faster.

    He said they're realizing 4X speed increases on plain old 2D apps.

    They're also working on making 3D game demos (some with 3rd parties) to demo that Java can actually now compete in the desktop game market...

    --
    ---- It puts the lotion on its skin or else it gets the hose again. It does this whenever it's told.
  14. Ahem... by dustman · · Score: 4, Interesting

    No longer vapor, but a true 3D-embedded engine...

    Since when has OpenGL been vapor?

  15. To my understanding... by mark-t · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Direct3d has a few advantages over OpenGL that can't really be addressed by OpenGL.

    For one, direct3d is integrated into the direct api which handles a multitude of things, multimedia and game input devices among others, that game developers are almost naturally drawn to by the appeal that so much work has already been done for them

    OpenGL can't and really shouldn't have to address all these requirements, but it's just part of why there's been this ongoing struggle. SDL is a reasonable answer to portability while still accomplishing the integration that MS has achieved, but SDL isn't really as mainstream as OpenGL is.

    I've seen soap opera plots that were less convoluted than this mess.

    1. Re:To my understanding... by omicronish · · Score: 4, Informative

      From coding experience the integration is pretty much non-existent or not very strong. APIs such as Direct3D and DirectSound have consistent API styles, but they don't share much API. It is possible to write an OpenGL application that uses DirectSound and DirectInput, like GLQuake.

  16. OpenGL | ES is not OpenGL by Performer+Guy · · Score: 4, Informative

    The original article post seems to confuse different forms of OpenGL. OpenGL|ES is the embeded stripped down OpenGL for mobile & embeded systems. OpenGL 2.0 is just a proposal from 3DLabs and may never get off the drawing board. Most of the significant changes that OpenGL 2.0 introduced have been implemented and released either as extensions or as part of OpenGL 1.5, so it's just not clear if or when OpenGL 2.0 will actually arrive, there's a lot of resistance because 2.0 intended to throw some stuff out and many developing, selling & using OpenGL implementations think that it's a REALLY bad idea to do that. With OpenGL|ES there is already a version 1.0 and you can actually get this in several forms from implementations that run on phones to wrappers around OpenGL that you can use on the desktop to emulate OpenGL|ES. OpenGL|ES is in the process of developing version 1.1 right now.

  17. Re:gl pipeline not for raytracing by One+Louder · · Score: 4, Informative
    Uh, no. Pixar movies typically use the REYES micropolygon algorithm, with some assists from raytracing for certain effects as necessary, implemented within their Photorealistic Renderman (PRMan) product.

    The notion that Pixar would use OpenGL for final rendering if only it were fast enough comes up every time a new video card or GL enhancement comes along just indicates how little people understand how Pixar actually makes their films. Oddly, Pixar really doesn't make this information much of a secret, and they'll even sell you the same software they use.

  18. Re:Small Cell Screen by Salsaman · · Score: 4, Funny

    No, you just need to buy two phones, one for the left eye, and one for the right eye, and a special new 'hands free' kit that holds the phones in front of your face.

  19. Re:gl pipeline not for raytracing by Viking+Coder · · Score: 4, Informative

    Peercy and Olano (Click on "PDF" in the upper right)

    Presentation

    ASHLI

    GPGPU

    More than Moore's Law

    Moore's law : still for wimps

    Using programmable graphics hardware (possibly through OpenGL) for final rendering is not that far off. (Definitely not in real-time, but as a more cost-effective way to do it, anyway.) Especially with the massive parallelism of rendering, and the fact that GPUs are far outpacing CPUs in terms of their speed and transistor counts.

    OpenGL is much more similar to micropolygon rendering (REYES) than it is to raytracing in the first place. The shaders are where you spend all of your time, anyway.

    Heck, do you think nVIDIA bought ExLuna (Larry Gritz, author of BMRT, and former Pixar employee) just for the fun of it?

    Software for translating from RenderMan Shading Language to Cg?

    And what about RenderMonkey supporting RenderMan?

    Do you even remember PixelFlow from Pixar? Do you see the name Marc Olano on that paper? The same Marc Olano who talks about rendering on consumer-level graphics hardware? These things have far more in common than you seem to realize.

    --
    Education is the silver bullet.