Slashdot Mirror


OpenGL Programming Guide

Martin Ecker writes "The Red Book, also known as the OpenGL Programming Guide, is back in its fifth edition. It received the name Red Book because of the nice red book cover, and possibly also because it has remained the standard introductory text on the OpenGL graphics API for years, and always referring to it as "OpenGL Programming Guide" is too long. This fifth edition now also covers new features introduced with versions 1.5 and 2.0 of the OpenGL standard. So let me take you on a tour through the pages of this book to see what it has to offer." Ecker's review continues below. OpenGL Programming Guide (5th Ed.) - The Official Guide to Learning OpenGL, Version 2 author Dave Shreiner, Mason Woo, Jackie Neider, Tom Davis pages 838 publisher Addison-Wesley Publishing rating 8 reviewer Martin Ecker ISBN 0321335732 summary A very complete and thorough introduction to OpenGL

I should mention that the last edition I read of the Red Book was the first edition, and a lot of material has been added to the book in the meantime. Just as the first edition, however, the fifth edition is still incredibly complete and thorough. It contains explanations of pretty much every feature of OpenGL, even the rarely used ones. You want to know about the new occlusion queries added to OpenGL recently? It's in this book. You want to know about the accumulation buffer and its uses? It's in this book. You want to know about the (mostly deprecated) use of indexed color buffers? It's in this book. The only thing the book does not cover in detail is vertex and fragment shaders because they have their own book, the Orange Book (aka The OpenGL Shading Language) -- see my previous Slashdot review.

The Red Book is aimed at the beginning to intermediate graphics programmer who is not yet familiar with OpenGL. It assumes a basic background in computer graphics theory and working knowledge of the C programming language. The book consists of 15 chapters and 9 appendices that together span approximately 800 pages.

The first chapter gives a brief introduction to the basic concepts of OpenGL and describes the rendering pipeline model used in the API. GLUT, a cross-platform library that allows easily creating OpenGL applications, is also shortly discussed together with a program that shows GLUT in action. The following chapters proceed to explain the basic geometric primitives, such as lines and polygons, supported by OpenGL and how to render them in different positions and from different viewpoints using the various OpenGL matrix stacks. The authors also discuss here the basics of using colors, fixed-function lighting, framebuffer blending, and fog.

Chapter seven contains a description of display lists, a unique feature of OpenGL that allows to store OpenGL API calls for efficient multiple use later on in a program. Chapter eight then moves on to discuss what an image is for OpenGL, which brings us straight to chapter nine on texture mapping, one of the largest chapters in the book. This chapter discusses everything you need to know on textures, from specifying texture images in uncompressed and compressed form to applying textures to primitives using the various kinds of supported texture filters. Also depth textures and their application as shadow maps are presented.

In chapter ten the authors discuss the buffers that make up the framebuffer, such as the color buffer, depth buffer, and stencil buffer. This chapter summarizes some of the things already presented in the earlier chapters and then describes the various framebuffer operations in more detail. Also the accumulation buffer and its uses, such as motion blur and depth of field effects, are discussed. Chapter eleven and twelve are on the tools provided by GLU, the GL utility library, in particular tesselators, quadrics, evaluators, and NURBs. GLU is nowadays rarely ever used in production code, so these chapters mostly demonstrate just how complete the Red Book is in its coverage of OpenGL. This also applies to chapter thirteen on selection and feedback, which are rarely used features, mostly because of the lack of hardware acceleration.

Finally, chapter fourteen is a collection of topics that didn't fit into the other chapters, such as error handling and the OpenGL extension mechanism. Additionally, this chapter presents various higher level techniques and tricks, for example how to implement a simple fade effect, how to render antialiased text, and some examples of using the stencil buffer. The final chapter of the book - newly added in the fifth addition -- is a short introduction to the OpenGL Shading Language (GLSL, for short). Even though the OpenGL API functions required to use GLSL are presented, this is only a quick overview of how programmable shaders are used in OpenGL. For a more detailed description of GLSL the reader is referred to the Orange Book.

The book closes with quite a few appendices on the order of operations in the OpenGL rendering pipeline, the state variables that can be queried, the interaction of OpenGL with the operating system-specific windowing systems, a brief discussion of homogeneous coordinates as used in OpenGL, and some programming tips. Also a reference of the built-in GLSL variables and functions is included, which is a bit odd considering that the Red Book actually doesn't really concentrate on programmable shaders or GLSL. It's a good reference nevertheless.

The book contains a large number of images and diagrams, all of them in black and white except for 32 color plates in the middle of the book. The illustrations are of high quality and generally help make the explained concepts and techniques easier to understand. Most of the color plates depict spheres, teapots, and other simple geometric objects, so they aren't overly eye-catching but do serve their purpose of showing what can be achieved with OpenGL.

The Red Book remains the definitive guide to learning OpenGL. Whenever someone asks me "What book should I read first to learn OpenGL?" this is the book I refer them to. Apart from being a good introduction, it also contains many interesting tips and tricks that make the experienced OpenGL programmer come back to it often. If you've read through this book in its entirety you pretty much know everything there is to know about OpenGL.

Martin Ecker has been involved in real-time graphics programming for more than 9 years and works as a games developer for casual arcade games. In his rare spare time he works on a graphics-related open source project called XEngine. You can purchase OpenGL Programming Guide (5th Ed.) - The Official Guide to Learning OpenGL, Version 2 from bn.com. Slashdot welcomes readers' book reviews -- to see your own review here, read the book review guidelines, then visit the submission page.

143 comments

  1. RIght on time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wow, my company wants me to become an expert on
    OpenGL because we're looking into all the possible
    uses of GPU-based computing for general info
    processing.

    This book will get an order from me^H^H my company!

    1. Re:RIght on time by LifesABeach · · Score: 2, Funny

      I'm glad its NOT referred to as the "'Little' Red Book". That would just not be acceptable.

    2. Re:RIght on time by Conspiracy_Of_Doves · · Score: 1

      Kind of like the book I had to get for one of my college english classes, the "Little, Brown Handbook"

      'Little' and 'Brown' were the names of the authors of the first edition.

    3. Re:RIght on time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, it's not like that at all.

  2. Microsoft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    There's still the problem of Windows Vista making DirectX much faster than OpenGL.

    1. Re:Microsoft by shis-ka-bob · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      reference please ....

      --
      Think global, act loco
    2. Re:Microsoft by myukew · · Score: 1, Insightful

      it's always better to install proper driver for your graphics card if you want full performance. same for directx performance btw...

    3. Re:Microsoft by dyefade · · Score: 1

      http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/08/06/177251 &tid=109/

      It's, only being discussed, but still, a worthy comment. Whether this has any weight to it or not, it's on-topic (ish).

    4. Re:Microsoft by Decimal+Dave · · Score: 4, Informative

      Microsoft's OGL wrapper for DirectX does add a lot of overhead, but it doesn't matter - hardly anyone uses that. Normally under Windows you use the OpenGL implementation that comes from the graphics chipset manufacturer. NVIDIA, ATI, 3DLabs, etc. all have their own, which can be very fast without any sort of DirectX involvement. These are generally much more up to data than MS OGL anyway.

      --

      "Leave the strategizing to those of us with planet-sized brains." -Tycho
    5. Re:Microsoft by msh104 · · Score: 1

      but using one of those will disable your hardware accelerated windows desktop candy thingy's.

    6. Re:Microsoft by 2008 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      A gamer craves not these things.

      Seriously, not only are games full-screen most of the time, but I would much rather have my graphics card working on my framerate than transparent jiggly menus.

      --
      I quit!
    7. Re:Microsoft by egoots · · Score: 1

      see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opengl and scroll down to the section entitled "Future in Microsoft Windows".

      It includes excerpts from some meetings at the recent Siggraph... it doesnt look good for OpenGL under Vista?

    8. Re:Microsoft by AndreiK · · Score: 1

      Why would it do such a stupid thing? Does Windows not display video if you aren't using a MS video card? Then why would it shut it down if you aren't using MS drivers?

    9. Re:Microsoft by CyricZ · · Score: 1

      There comes a point when your framerate is basically irrelevant. The human eye and brain can only capture and process about 26 images per second. So once you get past about 30 frames/second, any additional frames that are rendered are basically useless. They're just not observed by the human vision. So getting a few extra frames per second once you're already at 180+ fps is a pointless task, in practicality.

      --
      Cyric Zndovzny at your service.
    10. Re:Microsoft by TrancePhreak · · Score: 1

      It appears everyone is forgetting that this is to allow the desktop renderer to use DirectX in a fairly exclusive mode. This is good for the desktop as switching between OGL/DX contexts is a big hit. And of course, should you want you can get a third party OGL driver (NV/ATI likely) that will fully accelerate your OGL stuff, but disable your eye candy desktop.

      --

      -]Phreak Out[-
    11. Re:Microsoft by Edgewize · · Score: 2, Informative

      False. Additional frames pass too quickly to be perceived as individual images, but they still add to the perception of smooth motion.

    12. Re:Microsoft by CyricZ · · Score: 1

      Up until a point. And that is usually around 30 frames per second for most individuals, which is indeed above the perceivable ~26 fps. An increase from 185 fps to 189 fps will not be noticed as either a single image nor as better flowing animation.

      --
      Cyric Zndovzny at your service.
    13. Re:Microsoft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... Use a 30 hz Monitor then, bitch.

    14. Re:Microsoft by Taladar · · Score: 1

      And even if the human eye would be able to see faster changes it makes no sense to render more frames than the monitor refresh rate allows it to display.

    15. Re:Microsoft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Warning: this guy doesn't know what he is talking about, anyone else here who *can* see the difference between, say, 30 fps and 60 fps?

      If he can't, so be it, but touting it as a proven fact is just plain wrong. I'd take anything he says regarding this topic with a grain or dozen of salt.

      You been warned.

    16. Re:Microsoft by CyricZ · · Score: 1

      It's quite plausible that some people could tell the difference at that lower range. That is still relatively close to the ~26 fps limit of human vision. Of course there will be people with brains that are capable of processing more images/second. I don't doubt that for a moment. But what we're talking about here is the unnoticeable effects of minor fps jumps when we're in the 180 fps and above range.

      --
      Cyric Zndovzny at your service.
    17. Re:Microsoft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're missing the point. If the limit is 26 frames per second, we still need a signal at atleast twice the frequency to avoid aliasing, ditto: 52 frames per second.

      Therefore, it is beneficial to have framerate hover a magnitude higher than what you were proposing as the "limit", however, I agree that detecting miniscule differences at framerate differences above the refresh rate of the display device are very hard to notice in practise, that is, with a naked eye!

      Please never again mention 26, 30, or other figure as limit and giving impression striving to achieve better throughput from graphics system than that as wasted effort: it's not. Thank you for your attention.

      Heck, even late 3dfx tried to debunk this myth with a simple demo, roughly a decade (?) ago. The muth seems to be alive and well, please don't feed the myth.

    18. Re:Microsoft by grumbel · · Score: 1

      ### And that is usually around 30 frames per second for most individuals

      Detecting a difference between 30fps and 60fps is pretty easy for basically any gamer, detecting a difference between 60fps and 100fps already gets a bit more difficult, but is still doable for many people. So up until you have at the very least 60fps, better 100fps, constantly in all situations I wouldn't call the framerate irrelevant, sure, a game gets playable much earlier, but that wasn't the point. Everything above 100fps gets rather irrelevant quickly since it goes bejoint monitor refresh rates, but the human can pretty well detect framerate changes well bejoint 30fps.

    19. Re:Microsoft by CyricZ · · Score: 1

      Of course 3dfx attempted to promote the idea that throughput is more important than implementing far more complex graphics-related tasks in silicon. It was far easier and cheaper for them to take an existing design and increase the GPU clockrate and the on-board memory clockrate, thus increasing throughput, rather than implementing various graphics algorithms in hardware. So they hyped throughput over features, as would be expected when considering their financial/economical considerations.

      --
      Cyric Zndovzny at your service.
    20. Re:Microsoft by jkuff · · Score: 1

      Actually, the human eye (and optic nervous system) can indeed process events at more than 26 fps. However, the so-called "persistence of vision" prevents the discrimination of distinct events that are too close in time. Biologists have measured the smallest time interval between events to be perceived independently to be roughly 10 milliseconds for the case of a flickering light (which corresponds to 100 Hz).

      Note that "frame rate" is different than "flicker rate". Even though movies are filmed at 24 fps, they are actually played back on modern projectors at 48 fps to reduce flicker. This means that you are actually seeing each frame twice. Some newer projectors actually run at 72 fps and display each frame three times. Tests have shown that humans will object to flicker rates lower than 16 as being too distracting. One reason AC current (in the US) runs at 60 Hz is so that we do not see our light bulbs flicker.

      Note that smooth motion can be perceived at rates as low as 10 fps, but this depends strongly on the speed of moving objects. Thus, for games with fast-moving objects, the frame rate needs to be higher in order for smooth motion to be perceived. NTSC signals on a TV run at 30 Hz, but are interlaced so that motion appears smoother.

      You can find a nice overview of persistence of vision here:

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persistence_of_vision

    21. Re:Microsoft by JourneyExpertApe · · Score: 2, Informative
      I'm not entirely sure that this is the case. The news item currently at the top of opengl.org is:
      Full performance OpenGL under Windows Vista Aero - Contact your hardware and software manufacturers Microsoft's current plan for OpenGL on Windows Vista is to layer OpenGL over Direct3D in order to use OpenGL with a composited desktop to obtain the Aeroglass experience. If an an application runs using an OpenGL ICD - the desktop compositor will switch off - significantly degrading the user experience. This is only a first technical beta of Vista, so this is a problem that can be solved. Write to your preferred software developer, hardware developer and video card manufacturer (e.g. 3Dlabs, ATI, Intel, Matrox, NVIDIA, SIS HP, Dell, Leenovo) and tell them to bring this up with Microsoft. Hardware and software vendors do listen to the developers. This will be the most effective action you can take. Don't be passive - send those emails and keep the topic in the foreground
      OpenGL under Windows works like this:
      you pick a graphics mode, which may be provided by MS (software) or by the hardware manufacturer (accelerated).

      According to the text from OpenGL.org, most OGL applications (which use ICD) will indead run through the DirectX layer. If MS is making hardware manufacturers go through DirectX, then I think this will be a big problem. If you are at all concerned with this issue, then I suggest you read up on the history of OpenGL on Windows.
      --
      If you can read this sig, you're too close.
    22. Re:Microsoft by -noefordeg- · · Score: 1

      You are both wrong... It really bothers me that every time someone mentions fps, someone will come with the clueless statement about how ~30fps is what we are able to perceive.

      For computer generated graphics, without -motion blur-, ~72 fps is what you should aim for.
      Why 72 fps?
      Google it up on the net. (Wikipedia doesn't seem to be quite so good on this)
      It's all down to how fast signals from the screen, hits your eyes, signals from eyes reach your brain and your brain interprets the signals as an image. Anything -above- 72fps will only add to the perception of smooth motion.

      This is really not hard to try out for yourself either. Since I find it extremely easy to see the difference between 30fps and say 70fps or 100fps.
      Or look at those small led lights on most electronic equipment like a heater. It operates at 50Hz (60Hz in US). It's really easy to see the light flicker. So why wouldn't it be the same for a computerscreen? (remember that the even TV has the same refresh rate, but a only shows a new frame at around 25fps).

      Hope that helps!

    23. Re:Microsoft by drgonzo59 · · Score: 1
      Good point.

      The ~30 fps is the minimum below which you will start seeing individual frames. It doesn't mean that 30 is the best, if you look at the source with a corner of your eye, up to 70-75Hz you will still see the flickering. One can tell the difference between a 60Hz refresh rate on a monitor and 85Hz. Also if you stare at a Also, as you say, the motion blur will be there at 30 fps but that depends also on the fluorescence of the materials used. The same 30 fps on CRT will look different than 30 fps on an LCD or projected on a screen.

    24. Re:Microsoft by 4of12 · · Score: 1
      Microsoft's OGL wrapper for DirectX does add a lot of overhead,

      Is it even technically possible and/or has anyone considered constructing wrappers so that DirectX API may overlay an OpenGL implementation?

      Or should we abandon DirectX and OpenGL for this Cg I hear about?

      --
      "Provided by the management for your protection."
    25. Re:Microsoft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But what we're talking about here is the unnoticeable effects of minor fps jumps when we're in the 180 fps and above range.

      No, that's not what you were talking about. 180 fps would be defensible. What you said before was "30 fps", which is flat-out absolutely wrong:

      once you get past about 30 frames/second, any additional frames that are rendered are basically useless.

      If you meant "180", why did you type "30"?

    26. Re:Microsoft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I assume you didn't ever see the 30vs60 fps demo then? You *would* have a different opinion.

      I'm saddened by the fact that someone doesn't for real know that he might even possibly perceive the difference between 30 and 60 frames per second. Because you would. Your own statement infact backs this up, if the LIMIT is 26 frames per second as you claim, someone must make sure that those are the frames that they WANT you to see. Now if the signal is aliasing you might see funny things like wheels turning to opposite direction and what not.

      QED: even you yourself want atlest 2 x 26 frames per second rendering..

    27. Re:Microsoft by drsquare · · Score: 1

      The main issue is that when a game gets to a complicated bit, like where there are a hundred characters on the screen, the framerate goes down. If your framerate is 30fps, then in a busy bit it might go down to 10, hwich the eye can detect. If you start with 90, it might go down to 30.

    28. Re:Microsoft by CastrTroy · · Score: 1

      If you want 70 fps, your monitor better be running at lease 70 Hz. Most monitors run around 75 Hz. So any FPS rating above 75 is probably useless to just about everyone. Unless you have a really good monitor. You are right though about your brain being able to see it. I can tell when a computer monitor is set to 60 Hz. Drives me crazy.

      --

      Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
    29. Re:Microsoft by lordholm · · Score: 1

      Yes, IIRC MacDX, a library to ease the porting of windows-based games to the Mac, does this.

      My guess is that wrapping DX over OpenGL yields a better performance than the oposite.

      --
      "Civis Europaeus sum!"
    30. Re:Microsoft by Hast · · Score: 1

      Cg doesn't replace DirectX nor OpenGL. It replaces the native shader languages used in these two however (HLSL and GLSL respectively).

      If you do an application with Cg you will most likely use OpenGL or D3D for the rest of the engine.

  3. What about this site? by irtza · · Score: 5, Interesting

    How does this new version compare to this site: The red book?? Is it worth the money to buy it if you are a true beginner with a decent C background, but little prior work with 3D graphics? Or would it be fair to say that the online book would suffice and that a API reference for changes and updates would allow you to do simple rendering?

    --
    When all else fails, try.
    1. Re:What about this site? by pstreck · · Score: 4, Informative

      thats the 1st edition up there. If you are serious about writing with the opengl api, I highly reccomend getting the latest revision.

      --

      Later,
      Phil
    2. Re:What about this site? by TomorrowPlusX · · Score: 1

      I don't know about you, but when I'm studying a complicated topic, be it programming or something in the real world, I prefer to have a real book to read, which I can hilight, post-it-note and carry into the toilet with me for deep thinking time.

      Also, I'm not a cheap bastard. The book's good, so I paid for it.

      --

      lorem ipsum, dolor sit amet
    3. Re:What about this site? by ezweave · · Score: 1

      I would be curious to know how the newer edition stands up to the old edition. OpenGL programming is very math ("maths" for the UK) intensive (canonical view volumes, vectors, etc). Of course, game mechanics are complicated enough.

      If you are trying to learn OpenGL, Neon Helium is more useful (I have an older edition of the red book).

    4. Re:What about this site? by TomorrowPlusX · · Score: 2, Informative

      Sorry about the rant.

      To answer your actual question, you *do* need a relatively modern API reference, if you're studying from the 1.1 spec ( I learned off the 1.2 spec ). But the thing is, OpenGL is very well backwards compatible, so code written for the first edition will work fine on a modern OpenGL 2 driver.

      Still, but it: It's a good book. I went from *zero* opengl experience to My mediocre game in 1.5 years, with a robotics simulator in the interim.

      --

      lorem ipsum, dolor sit amet
    5. Re:What about this site? by Winckle · · Score: 0

      Hey, neat looking game, anymore details?

    6. Re:What about this site? by legirons · · Score: 1

      More to the point, which book do you get when you want to know how fast each operation is, what optimisations are likely to affect each operation, and how that varies between different graphics-card technologies?

      The red book is okay for getting the basic program up and running, but what then...?

  4. Try before you buy... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    Book is available online here (and a few other places/formats, try google):

    http://fly.cc.fer.hr/~unreal/theredbook/

    This is an older version, but still a very good grounding in the basics of interactive 3d graphics.

    1. Re:Try before you buy... by lys · · Score: 1

      Such a great book! A must read for any OpenGL supporter!

    2. Re:Try before you buy... by Kjellander · · Score: 4, Informative

      That one is an old version. Get Edition 4 here instead:

      http://opengl.org/documentation/red_book_1.0/

      Don't know if the fifth is online yet.

    3. Re:Try before you buy... by shawnkirst · · Score: 3, Informative

      That's only a sample chapter from Edition 4. The rest of the links are for the first edition.

  5. Is the shading language *going* anywhere? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It just kind of seems like opengl has been standing still for the last several years while microsoft falls over themselves to make overwrought glittery things possible on their platforms, with the result being that directx has been gradually nabbing up all the major game developers and ending any hope of their stuff being crossplatform.

    But after all these years of stagnation now we've finally got this standard shading language. Is this going to cover the technological and mindshare gap with directx, or is it too little too late? Is anybody going to actually read this orange book?

  6. The Red Book is not the Blue Book by webbroberts · · Score: 5, Informative

    The reason they call it the red book is to distinguish it from the blue book, which is the OpenGL reference manual.

    http://www.opengl.org/documentation/blue_book_1.0/

    1. Re:The Red Book is not the Blue Book by hackwrench · · Score: 1

      Yeah great, but when I hear "Red Book" I think audio CD's http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Book_(audio_CD_st andard)

    2. Re:The Red Book is not the Blue Book by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why do they call the blue book as blue book?

    3. Re:The Red Book is not the Blue Book by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      --
      #include <windows.h>
      void start()
      {
      MessageBox(0, "Hello", "World", MB_OK);
      return;
      }
      Wow, the simplest program in the world and you fucked it up.
  7. Figures by iSlak · · Score: 3, Funny

    Damn it! I just bought the 4th edition two days ago on Amazon.

    1. Re:Figures by guaigean · · Score: 1

      I did the same thing when the 4th came out. I bought the 3rd from Barnes & Noble (locally) 3-4 days before the 4th came out. Although I had the ability to return it. Don't worry excessively though, the 4th is still impressive and recent (only 1.5 yrs old?) and covers tha majority of OpenGL functionality. If you wait until the most recent Blue Book comes out (the Reference) you should be able to function just fine.

      --
      Microsoft Sucks, F/OSS Rocks. I get mod points now right?
    2. Re:Figures by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Damn it! I just bought the 4th edition two days ago on Amazon.

      Oh? You did, did you? May I ask why you purchased the 4th edition--and then later complained about it--when the 5th edition was published on August 1, nearly a month prior to when you say you bought the 4th edition?

      What's that, you say? You made the whole thing up so that you could use a tired old joke? Well, why didn't you say that earlier?

  8. Free version by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    You can get this book in PDF or HTML for free from here. Obviously it's as up to date as this edition but probably good enough for most beginners.

  9. And the green book is this! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    1. Re:And the green book is this! by trewornan · · Score: 1

      "The green book" is a phrase you hear a lot in the UK if you have much to do with the government. It means something totally different to UK civil servants.

  10. Did I miss something by MatthewNewberg · · Score: 1

    From the review it just basically looks like the last edition but with a little bit added for GLSL. I think most people that are interested have already read the Red Book and many other OpenGL texts so it seems kinda unneeded. What would be really interesting is a book about implementing Shaders in OpenGL or other advance features coming in OpenGL 2.0.

    1. Re:Did I miss something by guaigean · · Score: 1

      It's not 2.0, but they do have the Orange Book. Still covers quite a bit of the shading language.

      --
      Microsoft Sucks, F/OSS Rocks. I get mod points now right?
    2. Re:Did I miss something by evol262 · · Score: 1

      I know you can't bother reading the articles, but not even the review? The book covers OGL 2.0, and the Orange Book (which covers vertex/pixel/fragment shaders) if alluded to several times as well as directly referenced with a clear explanation of what it is.

      --
      "The more corrupt a society, the more numerous are its laws." -Tacticus
    3. Re:Did I miss something by chemistry · · Score: 0

      What would be really interesting is if the next openGL implementation provided GLU triangulation algorithms. why oh why do I have to continue t implement these when there has been so much research published on how to do this?

  11. games by BillFarber · · Score: 3, Funny

    Maybe the people who complain about the lack of quality games should put the book to use.

    1. Re:games by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You probably could have saved yourself a lot of effort by just posting this link.

    2. Re:games by ytm · · Score: 2

      I don't think that graphics is the most important problem with latest games and many comments to the story you mentioned agree with that.

    3. Re:games by justinhj · · Score: 1

      Yeah you're right. Compared to making a fun game the graphics part is easy. At least the technical side is, you still need skilled artists to get a good looking game regardless of the tech. Good gameplay takes longer and is more difficult than implementing the latest shaders and advanced physics. I can say that as someone who has written low level graphics code on Playstation 1 and 2, and then specialised in game and AI code.

    4. Re:games by agraupe · · Score: 1

      Well, although graphics is not a problem with many of the blockbuster games of the day (quite the opposite, in fact), it could be said that graphics represent the biggest barrier to entry when it comes to indie and open source developers, who may have a great, fun idea.

    5. Re:games by CastrTroy · · Score: 1

      Actually, I would have to say you are wrong. Most of my favourite games for my gamecube are actually some of the ones with the worst graphics. Viewtiful Joe, Zelda WW, Animal Crossing, Mario Sunshine. Mind you the graphics aren't terrible, but they definitely aren't the best thing available. I think there's still room for developers to put out stuff that's simple and addictive, and still make a pretty good profit. Remember, graphics cost money, if you spend less money on them, the money can go to other places.

      --

      Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
  12. That's not the red book! by merreborn · · Score: 4, Funny

    I've seen "Hackers"! They use the Red Book to hack the Gibson.

    Also, hacking looks a lot like a bad screensaver. There's never any text editing or commandlines involved.

    1. Re:That's not the red book! by cwebster · · Score: 4, Informative

      no, that would be this red book

    2. Re:That's not the red book! by deinol · · Score: 2, Funny

      I always think of this little red book.

      --
      Got Apathy?
    3. Re:That's not the red book! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's not what people call "the little red book" (since, for starters, I don't think the association between Communism and the colour red really kicked in until the Russian revolution).

      This is what most people refer to as "the little red book".

    4. Re:That's not the red book! by tim_mathews · · Score: 1

      Which can be found in the NCSC Rainbow Series Library along with most of the other books in that very neat picture.

    5. Re:That's not the red book! by cwebster · · Score: 1

      yup, thats where i got them (the ordering info for CDROM used to also offer hardcoopies).

  13. Save Some 1.57%! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    Save yourself some money by buying the book here and using the "secret" 1.57% A9 discount you get by using a9.com: OpenGL Programming Guide

    1. Re:Save Some 1.57%! by StrayJay · · Score: 1

      And if you buy the new edition together with the old one, you only pay $106.60! Good deal!

      --
      If you're old enough to get screwed, you should be old enough to get hammered.
  14. You would think... by Nom+du+Keyboard · · Score: 1, Insightful
    It contains explanations of pretty much every feature of OpenGL, even the rarely used ones.

    You would think, wouldn't you, that it would contain explanations of every feature of OpenGL? After all, if it's not in the book, should it be in the language?

    --
    "It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
    1. Re:You would think... by forkazoo · · Score: 1

      First off, OpenGL isn't a language. Second off, just because somebody leaves something out of a book, you think they should remove the feature?! So, if I write an introductory C++ book, but don't mention everything in the STL, the whole STL should be removed?

    2. Re:You would think... by Matimus · · Score: 1

      Since the book is written and published by the OpenGL Review Board, yeah, it should contain every feature in the API. The 'Red Book' is not just an introductory book on OpenGL. The purpose of the Specification is to show someone how to write an implementation of OpenGL. The purpose of the Red Book is to show someone how to use any conforming implementation of OpenGL. IMO the parrent is correct, since the book is produced by OpenGLs governing body, it should cover everything. I'm not going to dispute with you about OpenGL being an API though, because it is an API, not a language.

      --
      GENERATION 25: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation. Social exper
    3. Re:You would think... by amendol · · Score: 1

      This was true before 2.0 with the GLslang language...

      Strictly speaking though it is an API that includes a GLSlang language.

    4. Re:You would think... by lustforlike · · Score: 1

      The blue book - the OpenGL Reference Manual - does contain every feature in the API. The red book is an introduction to the API, not a complete reference.

  15. Mod down, same kaleidojewel spam as always... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... trying to push the book by offering a <2% "discount", while spamming the forum with his referral-fee link. Truly pathetic.

  16. Hard cover? by gr8_phk · · Score: 2

    Is this book available in hard cover?

    1. Re:Hard cover? by Mundocani · · Score: 1

      No, all of the OpenGL ARB books are paperback only

  17. The real "Red Book" by mlheur · · Score: 1

    As far as I'm concerned, the red book is "Applied Cryptography"

  18. Covers & Colors by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    The thing about these OpenGL books that makes them different from all the others on the market is that they are DEFINITIVE. They are put out by the OpenGL Architecture Review Board - who are the very people who design and update the API. If the books don't agree with the implementation - it's the implementation that's wrong!

    The full set are as follows:

    Red Book - Programming guide - chatty description which still has all of the arguments of all of the functions described within it. You *need* this book...expect to buy a new one every couple of years as the API evolves. Keep one copy at work and the last generation one at home...maybe keep the one before that in your car!

    Blue Book - Reference Manual - quite literally a set of 'man' pages printed out and bound together in a book. Useful if you like to read books instead of screens.

    Green Book - GLUT. Covers the GL Utility Toolkit. This is really rather unnecessary.

    Alpha Book - OpenGL programming for Windows. (It actually has a white cover...but since we had the RGB books, we needed Alpha to complete the set!)

    Orange Book - OpenGL shader language (GLSL). If you want to program at the cutting edge of realtime graphics, you'll be using shaders. It's written in a style broadly similar to the way the Red Book is written and is very readable.

    Finally, there is the OpenGL specification document. This has (AFAIK) never been put into print (which is a great shame - I'd buy it) - you can download it from www.opengl.org and it contains VERY detailed documentation of every function that goes far beyond any of the printed manuals - but which presumes you already know OpenGL pretty well. However, if you need to know the mathematical description of how OpenGL implementations are supposed to calculate the level of detail of your texture map...this is where you'll find that.

    Whilst all the other books are handy to have around, the RedBook is utterly essential to OpenGL programmers (even those of us who've been using it for the whole eleven years of it's life will find themselves referring to it often enough to warrant owning a copy). The nice thing about it is that it's very readable. You can open it at page 1 knowing nothing - and read through to the end and wind up having learned all of OpenGL - or you can pretend it's a set of man pages and use the (excellent) index to find a simple description of every function and it's arguments that's *NEARLY* as good as the Blue Book.

    1. Re:Covers & Colors by spitzak · · Score: 1

      It looks like the "Alpha book" about wgl and also information about glx (the X-specific GL interface) have been added to the new Red book. They are in my copy of 5 but not in the version 3 copy I also have.

    2. Re:Covers & Colors by CastrTroy · · Score: 1

      Why couldn't they just give the alpha book a clear cover. Would have been very fitting. Even better would be to print the entire book on transparancies. Would make reading a little hard though, as you could see the pages behind the one you're reading. Would make for an interesting book though.

      --

      Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
  19. Re:Obsolete? by Gloume · · Score: 1

    An excellent example of disinformation and/or sarcasm. Well done.

  20. Too Bad OpenGL Is Getting Crippled by ThatDamnMurphyGuy · · Score: 0, Troll

    Too bad OpenGL is getting crippled in Windows Vista. By the time Vist is in full swng, OpelGL on windows can't possibly be as popular if it's performance is drained by the layering.

    1. Re:Too Bad OpenGL Is Getting Crippled by brain007 · · Score: 5, Informative

      It's great that you jump on the freak out bandwagon. MS has tried to kill OpenGL before and they will try again. It's not going to be that big of a deal. OpenGL is used way more then DirectX for everything non-games (yes, there is a world out there that doesn't involve games). Here's a clue for everyone who is freaking out about this and doesn't mind having an open mind and learning a thing or two in the process.

    2. Re:Too Bad OpenGL Is Getting Crippled by yo_tuco · · Score: 1

      Excellent link! Thanx.

    3. Re:Too Bad OpenGL Is Getting Crippled by IntergalacticWalrus · · Score: 1

      Yeah, though OpenGL on Windows has always been crippled to some extent on Windows.

      For example, there is no way to change resolutions or switch to windowed/fullscreen without losing the entire context. It's a well known limitation of WGL. Of course, Direct3D has no such problem...

      Also, out-of-the-box video drivers never include OpenGL support, and basically everyone but nVidia and ATI ships worthless OpenGL support with their drivers anyway.

    4. Re:Too Bad OpenGL Is Getting Crippled by daemonc · · Score: 1

      Yeah, though OpenGL on Windows has always been crippled to some extent on Windows.

      Who would do such a thing???
      Personally, I blame the Department of Redundancy Department.

      --
      All that we see or seem is but a dream within a dream.
    5. Re:Too Bad OpenGL Is Getting Crippled by daemonc · · Score: 1

      By the time Vist is in full swng, OpelGL on windows can't possibly be as popular if it's performance is drained by the layering.

      By the time Vista is in full swing (2010?), no one will care about OpenGL performance on Windows, because they already switched to Linux and/or OS X Intel, both of which happen to have great OpenGL support.

      --
      All that we see or seem is but a dream within a dream.
    6. Re:Too Bad OpenGL Is Getting Crippled by Paralizer · · Score: 1

      OpenGL will be around as long as lead figures such as Carmack desire to use them. John has expressed frustration with some of the OpenGL API, but currently has no plans (at least publicly stated) to drop development with it. It's pretty safe to say with the position he and other large developers have over Windows gaming, Microsoft would never ignore support for it. To do so would be financially hazardous, why they push Direct3D is beyond me. What do they care what API developers are using for games for their OS? From what I've read, Vista will still have OpenGL support in the form of a D3D wrapper, and hardware manufactures can still make their own API's.

  21. What the heck? by CrackHappy · · Score: 1

    Has anyone actually read the Red Book? WTF is GL, or Open GL, or an API? What the hell does any of that have to do with the adventures of Frodo, or Bilbo.

    I know - bad joke, but I just HAD to say it. The little elves in my head whisper evil things.

    --
    1f u c4n r34d th1s u r34lly n33d t0 g37 l41d Capitalization really works: i helped my uncle jack off a horse
    1. Re:What the heck? by p3d0 · · Score: 1

      I don't get it. How did you get from this book review to Tolkein?

      --
      Patrick Doyle
      I mod down every jackass who puts his moderation policy in his sig. Oh, wait a sec....
  22. The "Red Book" huh ? by justinmoo · · Score: 1

    Funny I thought that the Red Book refereed to all those nice free technical bookies that IBM has been providing for years.

    Or is that Aussies used car prices ..

  23. NeHe not so great by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    I don't recommend using NeHe any more. At one point, it was a great resource, but it has gone far downhill.

    For one thing, the sample code is pretty crappily written, sadly outdated, and makes use of obsolete stuff like glaux.

    For another, the maintainer has moved on...Gamedev.net is (kinda) maintaining the site now, and not much is happening in the way of new tutorials.

  24. Making DirectX faster isn't the issue by RoverDaddy · · Score: 1

    Making OpenGL slower is. If Microsoft can achieve real technical gains in DirectX, more power to them. If they're hobbling OpenGL, that's a different story. If, for instance, they're accepting optimized drivers from the hardware vendors for DirectX, but refusing to accept optimized OpenGL drivers for inclusion in Vista, that's playing dirty. If they're getting -no- optimized drivers from the vendors, but taking it upon themselves to make DirectX faster, I'm not sure how to take that. Does anybody know if ATI and nVidia are -offering- drivers to MS?

    --
    RETURN without GOSUB in line 1050
    1. Re:Making DirectX faster isn't the issue by egoots · · Score: 3, Informative

      What they are doing is layering the opengl icd on top of directx, freezing it at 1.4, disallowing extensions, and NOT providing info to 3rd parties to implement their own icd driver... Net result it will be 50% slower. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opengl for details (scroll to "Future in Microsoft Windows").

      If true, it sure sounds like they are hobbling Opengl

    2. Re:Making DirectX faster isn't the issue by 0rganicM0lecules · · Score: 1

      This is only when using the Aeroglass gui system; so presumably, you can turn off the eye-candy and enjoy full-excellerated GL. I wonder how Windows users who also run programs such as Maya/Blender/3dsMax/Lightwave will react to having thier programs broken.

      --
      Which is the More Universal Human Characteristic? Fear...... Or Laziness?
    3. Re:Making DirectX faster isn't the issue by andy55 · · Score: 1

      You made my fan list in a heartbeat when I saw your sig--I'm a huge fan of Waking Life and of course all of Linklater's stuff.

      Andy

    4. Re:Making DirectX faster isn't the issue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "move to linux" is the answer to that for the 3D Pros I know, anyway.

  25. Green Book by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My copy of the green book is titled "OpenGL Programming for the X Window System", and it's much more than just a book about the GLUT. You learn how limited the GLUT is, and how to get down to basics.

  26. Slightly Offtopic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I've always wanted to get into graphics programming, but my maths isn't strong. Can anyone recommend any maths book(s) that can help get started graphics programming?

    Thanks.

    1. Re:Slightly Offtopic by poopdeville · · Score: 1

      You're going to want to study linear algebra. Serge Lang's book is supposed to be pretty good. Halmos' Finite Dimensional Vector Spaces is classic.

      --
      After all, I am strangely colored.
  27. stop calling it the Red Book. by nblender · · Score: 1
    Everyone already knows the Red Book is the Postscript Language Reference.

    http://www.cs.wisc.edu/~ghost/doc/book s.htm

    1. Re:stop calling it the Red Book. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  28. I did the cover for the Red Book by Thagg · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I had originally wanted to make a Lego dinosaur, but the people in charge at SGI had thought that perhaps that was a message that they didn't want to put out there.

    Anyway, if you're wondering, the idea of the globe is that you can make the whole world out of little tiny pieces -- which seems like OpenGL to me. OpenGL is a great library, beautifully orthogonal, simple, and consistent, just the right thing for building 3D applications.

    And, btw, I think that the Google logo looks a whole lot like the OpenGL on the table in the book cover, but...hey, whatever.

    Thad Beier

    --
    I love Mondays. On a Monday, anything is possible.
    1. Re:I did the cover for the Red Book by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You actually did the cover? Cool.

  29. Red Book == Postscript by Sebastopol · · Score: 2, Insightful

    My googling for jargon revealed that the Red Book is really a Postscript manual.

    What gives?

    --
    https://www.accountkiller.com/removal-requested
    1. Re:Red Book == Postscript by nihilogos · · Score: 1

      There are, in fact, several red books. Another one is the 'Red Book of Westmarch' which is far more interesting reading than either.

      --
      :wq
  30. Really How. by hackwrench · · Score: 1

    How is it messed up pray tell?

    1. Re:Really How. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      It looks like it's trying to be a Windows C or C++ program, so:
      #1 - WTF is "start()"?
      #2 - In your message box you're going to have the message split between the client area of the window and the title bar.
      #3 - It's not like this function won't return if you don't add a "return" statement!
      Real men write it thusly:
      #include <cstdlib>
      #include <iostream>
       
      int main()
      {
          std::cout << "Hello, World" << std::endl;
          return EXIT_SUCCESS;
      }
    2. Re:Really How. by Minna+Kirai · · Score: 1

      How is it messed up pray tell?

      By using gratuitous newlines after { and before }, it wastes space on the HTML page, which is rude to everyone who reads slashdot. If you're trying to emphasize the brevity of the needed code, then omitting extraneous whitespace is a natural step.

  31. not quite, by circusboy · · Score: 1

    one of the things that @26 fps doesn't cover is the motion blur that would normally be a part of a 'moving' image. massive frame rates cover that part up. given how fast I've seen some of these games play, the possiblity of seeing the blur vs. finding out something hit you between frames, might make a difference.

    the bit that confuses me sometimes is that I don't recall ever seeing a monitor with better than a 120Hz frame rate... the one I'm working with now only goes as far as 90. is this not a barrier?

    --
    -- it's ridiculous how many people misspell ridiculous... (damn, damn, damn...)
    1. Re:not quite, by CyricZ · · Score: 1

      Indeed, monitors with refresh rates that are less than the FPS being displayed are indeed a technical limitation. But assuming that the technology is, in the future, capable of displaying 180+ frames per second, there is still the human limiting factor way back at approx. 30 frames/second.

      --
      Cyric Zndovzny at your service.
    2. Re:not quite, by circusboy · · Score: 1

      persistence of vision is closer to 18 fps, the only reason film goes faster (24) is for the optical audio track... for tv it was 30 (25 for europe et al.) due to the speed of the house current, ((60Hz/50Hz) though this is no longer the case.)
      (film is projected with a double shutter rate to appear at 48 to reduce flicker, but this of course does nothing for the motion.)

      but the fact remains that your eye does not see in fps, it sees in continuous time. just that the response rate of the average cone is rather slow. so showing a frame rate higher than perceptible would tend to present to the eye's interpretive mechanism a blurry image, which is what you would get in reality.

      What I would like to know is, if your game is running at a framre rate 3x what your monitor can display, are you getting a composite image every 3 frames? or just every third frame is being shown on screen... if the former, that would be pretty amazing, if the latter, so what.

      --
      -- it's ridiculous how many people misspell ridiculous... (damn, damn, damn...)
    3. Re:not quite, by Renegrade · · Score: 2, Interesting
      What I would like to know is, if your game is running at a framre rate 3x what your monitor can display, are you getting a composite image every 3 frames? or just every third frame is being shown on screen... if the former, that would be pretty amazing, if the latter, so what.

      You get a "composite" frame, as in the first third is current frame-2, the second third is current frame-1, and the final third is current frame. It's called "tearing" and looks ugly. The solution, of course, is vertical syncing (only flipping during the vertical retrace), but vsync has issues if you're running just above, at, or below the monitor's framerate. (If your render time is too long and you're missing the sync by a millisecond, you must wait until the next sync before flipping, which means that you're running at monitor rate/2. Without sync, it will be closer to the actual update rate.)

      To see tearing in action, watch vertical lines in animations/games as they move across the screen. With proper synconization, the line should always be vertical. If vsync is disabled, you'll see visible breaks in the vertical line.

      The ideal world would be one in which the update/render time is never longer than say half a frame, and vsync can be used without penalty always. However, there will always be variable render times in the real world as the number of objects and compexity of the geometry is highly variable.

      N.B. Tearing will occur even if the animation/update rate is less than the monitor's frequency.

    4. Re:not quite, by circusboy · · Score: 1

      pity, it seems what would be a neat idea, ( and an extension of the double buffered concept) is to accumulate frames, and spit them out as blended composites.

      I think this would tend to give you the best of all possible worlds for the price of a lot of extra ram... and look more realistic in the bargain.

      or am I way off base...

      --
      -- it's ridiculous how many people misspell ridiculous... (damn, damn, damn...)
  32. New Red Book is Disappointing by atcdevil · · Score: 1

    So the Red Book is going to continue down a path focusing on the fixed-function pipeline...

    I had such high expectations of the next Red Book. I was hoping for a more modern approach to OpenGL. What a shame.

    I'll wait for the next edition of the orange book

  33. Morpheus says... by chub_mackerel · · Score: 1

    I liked the part where Neo had to choose between the red book and the blue book.

  34. Real men wouldn't achieve the same result. by hackwrench · · Score: 1

    Start is what I call my entry point.
    I compile the program with:
    cl hello.c /link /SUBSYSTEM:WINDOWS /entry:start USER32.LIB #2, #3 This is somehow wrong because? I added the return; because I wasn't sure if some C's wouldn't do like assembler and run out the bottom of the program, and originally a ExitProcess was there. Having it there doesn't change anything, though. There is no need for WinMain, and that is the point that my program is supposed to illustrate in so limited space as a sig. In a more robust program one would do HINSTANCE inst = GetModuleHandle(NULL);
    With WinMain in a program, a bunch of protective but essentially worthless stuff gets linked in before WinMain gets called.

    1. Re:Real men wouldn't achieve the same result. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Well, that "essentially worthless stuff" sets up the CRT environment. Since you don't need it for your "World: Hello" program, I have in a tiny tray app I once wrote for myself the following, that I believe I got from a Jeff Prosise column:
      void __cdecl WinMainCRTStartup( void )
      {
          ExitProcess( WinMain( GetModuleHandle( NULL ),
                                NULL,
                                NULL,
                                SW_SHOWDEFAULT ) );
      }
      So:
      #1 - I believe the calling convention for the entry point is important.
      #2 - ExitProcess is most likely a cleaner shutdown.
      #3 - Unless a newer C standard has adopted the C++ syntax for declaring functions with no arguments, such C functions need to be declared with "void" as the parameter list.
      #4 - Something else I did in my li'l system tray utility is #define WIN32_LEAN_AND_MEAN and also a ton of the NOCLIPBOARD et al #defines in <windows.h> to eliminate all kinds of stuff that the compiler would normally have to slog thru.

      Then again, real men write portable code whenever feasible, such as with a standard C or C++ solution. And delivering a one line message via a GUI is kind of overkill (and GUI's are for wimps anyways... j/k!)

            Bill Dog (been posting AC in this thread for karma protection from all the uptight trigger-happy "off-topic" down-modders)
    2. Re:Real men wouldn't achieve the same result. by hackwrench · · Score: 1

      Where did you get your education on the C standard?
      Also my little proggie has to fit in the sig space available, so some things can't be done. For such a program, ideally the necessary defines would be done in the program itself.
      Portable code as it is implemented today very often results in bloat.

      None of my messages in this thread have been modded down, and one or two mod downs generally doesn't effect my karma very much, which never seems to deviate from "excellent".

    3. Re:Real men wouldn't achieve the same result. by Bill+Dog · · Score: 1

      In college, pre the ANSI standard (I had the first edition of K&R). I did C for a couple of years after college, but have been C++ all the way since then, so admittedly have lost touch with modern C.

      I know it's just a sig. It piqued my interest, and I thought I'd just have a little fun semi-trolling. Just being light-hearted.

      I think if a topic is already a few days old, the "off-topic" nazis are generally gone. If you look at discussions where the topic still relatively new, it seems that semi-interesting side trips are often severely dealt with by uptight moderators. I'm here to socialize a little and talk of geeky things. What's the harm in that, even if it doesn't fit perfectly into some narrow criterion.

      --
      Attention zealots and haters: 00100 00100
    4. Re:Real men wouldn't achieve the same result. by hackwrench · · Score: 1

      The point of the sig was to invite discussion such as yours. I frequently ignore Anonymous Cowards, but found this case to be an exception.

  35. Dragon Book by Pman1 · · Score: 1

    "Red Book" reminds me of the "Dragon Book". Anyone know what I'm talking about? :)

    1. Re:Dragon Book by StrayJay · · Score: 1

      Aho, Sethi, Ullman.

      --
      If you're old enough to get screwed, you should be old enough to get hammered.
    2. Re:Dragon Book by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I liked the Dragon book when we were using it back in University. I keep meaning to dig it out again but never seem to get around to hauling out the trunks to search.

      Is it still considered relevent or is it one of those classics now that everyone recalls learning from but noone would use in a course today?

      Kevin

    3. Re:Dragon Book by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is it still considered relevent or is it one of those classics now that everyone recalls learning from but noone would use in a course today?

      I took a course last semester that used the book. It's still very relevant... Basic compiler theory hasn't changed too much since 1986, much like basic theory for almost anything. :) It's still the best text around.

    4. Re:Dragon Book by corvair2k1 · · Score: 1

      Quothe Hackers (the movie):

      PHREAK (to Cereal): D'you bring those Crayola books?
      CEREAL: Oh yeah, technicolor rainbow.

      Cereal brings a book out of his bag.

      CEREAL: Green one.
      JOEY: What is that, what is that? Lemmie see. What are these?
      DADE: International Unix Environments.

      Cereal pulls out another book.

      CEREAL: Luscious orange?

      Cereal hands the orange book to Phreak.

      DADE: Computer security criteria, DOD standards.

      Another book comes out.

      DADE: The Pink Shirt Book, Guide to IBM PCs. So called due to the nasty pink shirt the guy wears on the cover.

      Another one.

      CEREAL: What's that?
      DADE: Devil book. The Unix Bible.

      Another one.

      CEREAL: What's that?
      DADE: Dragon book. Compiler design.

      Cereal brings out a large red book.

      CEREAL: Oh yeah? What's that?
      DADE: The Red Book. NSA Trusted Networks. Otherwise known as the Ugly Red Book that won't fit on a shelf.

  36. I thought the Red Book... by WMD_88 · · Score: 1

    ...was the manual that came with the Apple II.

  37. I'd like to defend Microsoft on this one. by Corngood · · Score: 1

    The 'problem' really just stems from the fact that video hardware is becoming an operating system managed resource, instead of a thin interface to an essentially unmanaged device. DirectX is becoming a much more important part of the operating system now that the entire GUI is built on top of it. You can no longer just give applications full access to the video resources through OpenGL and the driver.

    Complaining about this is like complaining about how 32-bit x86 operating systems rendered DOS4GW useless. At some point video hardware was bound to become a more integral part of the operating system, and if you don't like that you even get the option to turn it off (for now).

  38. Red Book Blue Book, White Book Green Book by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Aside from the CD standards,
    * The Lord of the Rings
    * USAF UFO investigation

    Is there going to be a new White Book or Green Book coming to go along with the new Red Book, (and future new Blue Book)?

    Man... this hidden word image is almost unreadable!

  39. Version 1.1 of the Red Book is still very useful by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The online version of the Red Book is still extremely useful for learning OpenGL. Version 1.1 covers all the most important subjects, such as vertex arrays, transformations, texturing, and lighting.

    The new version of the book also covers features that have been added to the OpenGL standard in the last 4 years, such as shaders. However, you can learn everything you need to know about these from online documention (especially from ATI and nVidia's developer sites).

    If you want to save money, you can get a lot of mileage out of the old version of the book. That's the same edition that I personally own, and I haven't had to buy the newer one.

    The best part of the Red Book is the way it helps you learn the fundmental concepts of hardware accelerated 3D, and the old version is just as good for that.

  40. Have they stopped the false advertising? by renoX · · Score: 1

    I bought the previous edition of the red book because it was written in the summary that it was talking about the vertex and fragment shaders which they didn't.

    As you may guess, I was (and still am) quite pissed off by this false advertising, in the newsgroup an author said it was a mistake, a pretty big mistake if you ask me! Have they fixed this "mistake"?

  41. Re:Also a white book! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The reviewer mentioned that there is the orange book which is about the shading language. But there is also a white book which is about OpenGL on Windows. http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0201 407094/qid=1125797263/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/002-327367 7-6817646?v=glance&s=books OpenGL Programming for Windows 95 and Windows NT. These Win32/OpenGL commands should still work under 2000/XP. So in total there are 5 book on OpenGL in the Addison Wesley series. - OpenGL Programming Guide (Red) - OpenGL Reference Manual (Blue) - OpenGL for X Windows (Green) - OpenGL for Windows (White) - OpenGL Shading Language (Orange)

  42. Viva la OpenGL by agentdunken · · Score: 0

    Viva la OpenGL. OpenGL owns DX.

    --
    Linux, because a PC is a terrible thing to waste.
  43. Newer the better!! by usageman · · Score: 1

    I have the read the previous 4 edetions including one in German adn can NOT wait to get my hands on this new edition. I hope it jsut answers all teh questions the other did not. Just like software your book is only as good as its last publish