OpenGL Spec Now Controlled by Khronos Group

99BottlesOfBeerInMyF writes "According to a recent press release, the OpenGL Architecture Review Board has voted to transfer control of the OpenGL API standard to the Khronos Group, an industry working group that seems mostly known for its focus on mobile applications. Apple Computer has also just joined the group, presumably because of their interest in OpenGL for the OS X platform. I wonder what affect, if any, this will have upon the future development of the OpenGL standard."

Comments

Kronos?

[Eideewt]

I can't believe I saw this and thought we were talking about Klingons until my brain caught up.

Re:Kronos?

[andphi]

That would be the Q'onos group, you spineless p'taq!

BTW, I included the "spineless p'taq" comment in order to keep with the theme, not because I'm trying to be insulting. I think of it as an "insensitive clod" joke, only with more glory and honor. Qapla!

Great!

[Gr8Apes]

Anything that helps OpenGL and provides drivers for it will be welcome. May it prod developers to write more OpenGL games (mainly) and thus make porting easier.

Re:Great!

[TheRaven64]

The problem with OpenGL hasn't been the drivers, it's been the fact that it took ages to promote extensions into the spec. The process for getting something added to the spec is something like this:

1. Vendor (e.g. nVidia) creates driver with support for the new feature, called something like NV_NEW_SHINY.[1]
2. The extension becomes stable (in the API sense) and popular, and the Architecture Review Board adopts it as ARB_NEW_SHINY. OpenGL implementers are encourage to add support for this extension to their version, but are not required to.
3. The next version of the spec is released, and the features of ARB_NEW_SHINY are now part of the core features, and not an extension. Any conforming OpenGL n.m driver must implement this extension (in hardware or software).

This has some advantages over the DirectX model. Hardware developers can create new features and expose them to OpenGL developers immediately. DirectX developers have to wait for the next revision from Microsoft to use them. It also has the corresponding disadvantage that, since there is often a relatively long delay between stage 1 and 3, there is a relatively long period when you can't guarantee the presence of a particular feature on a user's card / driver. This means that a lot of effort it required in terms of backwards compatibility. For reference, Mesa supports OpenGL 1.5 and a few extensions, even though OpenGL 2.0 has been out for a few years.

[1] Note that nVidia actually have more than one namespace for their extensions, depending on how stable they are.

What "affect" **

[just_another_sean]

I wonder what affect, if any, this will have upon the future development of the OpenGL standard.

Well reading TFA and not finding Microsoft on either their promoters page or their contributors page I'm cautiously optimistic.

** affect? effect? I can never keep this one straight either.

Google also a member

[Foofoobar]

If you look at the list of Members you will also spot Panasonic, Toshiba, Softimage, NCSoft and alot of other heavy hitters.

The fact that Google and Apple are involved gives me hope that people will start making applications for Linux and Macs soon. Also, since DirectX 10 is only available for Vista, this may be the prime time for OpenGL to start stealing some market share.

Re:Google also a member

[Quarters]

Also, since DirectX 10 is only available for Vista, this may be the prime time for OpenGL to start stealing some market share.

What would be so different about the exclusivity of DX10 on Vista as opposed to the exclusivity of DXs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 on Win 95, 98, NT (DX3 only), 2K, and XP that makes now the proper time for OpenGL to become dominant?

DX wins out in terms of "market share" (as if an API can be measured against something like that) becuase of two things...the dominance of Windows in the marketplace and the fact that DirectX has pretty much wiped the floor with OpenGL when it comes to support for contemporary rendering hardware features. Extensions be damned, the OpenGL ARB moves *way* to slowly to be competitive. Maybe the Khronos group will help with that...Lord knows they can't be any worse.

Will OpenGL have a ratified spec for equivilent DX10 features like geometry shaders by the time DX 10 comes out?

Re:Google also a member

[Quarters]

The difference would be that none of them REQUIRED you to update all your hardware in order to run it. DX10 requires it. Vista requires it.

All of them required you to update if you wanted to use the features. You can't run a DX9 app on DX3 hardware and get the advantages of DX. The necessary transistors aren't on the DX3 board. There's nothing different on the OpenGL side. To run OpenGL 1.x along with you *need* given board. If you don't have it the extension won't work.

Vista does not require DX10. It runs just fine under DX9. It will ship with both DX9 and DX10. The UI rendering layer is not DX10 specific. I've run Vista on a two year old machine with integrated Intel graphics (pixel shader 2.x, vertex shaders handled by the CPU) and Vista worked 100%, including Aero Glass.

Re:Google also a member

[2nd Post!]

Well, from my understanding:
DX3 shipped on NT4
DX4, DX5, DX6, DX7, DX8, and DX9 ship for Windows 2k
DX4, DX5, DX6, DX7, DX8, and DX9 ship for Windows XP

DX10 only ships on Vista.

So the difference that would allow OpenGL to become dominant is that, at least overnight with the release of Vista, you can install OpenGL on your Windows2k, WindowsXP, and your Vista OSes, whereas a game written in DX10 is only playable in Vista.

A game coded in OpenGL is therefore open to more users, a bigger customer base, and potentially more profit, than a game coded in DX10. As per support for geometry shaders, I guess it depends on whether the GLSL has it or not, I wouldn't know myself.

Re:Google also a member

[jonwil]

Basicly, on Vista, there are 3 ways to run OpenGL:
1.Microsoft implementation. This is basicly a layer that translates to Direct3D and supports up to OpenGL 1.4 plus a few selected extentions on top of that. (there is talk that MS deliberatly picked 1.4 over 1.5 because the main difference is that 1.5 supports Vertex Buffer Objects which are important for high speed games but not for stuff like CAD and 3D)

2.Existing OpenGL ICD provided by the hardware vendor. This will work just fine and give the same full OpenGL interface as you get now on windows XP (including all provided extentions). However, when this is used, the Vista Aeroglass interface is disabled.

and 3.A new OpenGL ICD built to cooperate with DirectX and Aeroglass. This option is the prefered option however microsoft has so far refused to provide graphics card vendors with all the information and specs required to make it happen (again, there is speculation that this is to "cripple" OpenGL). Of course, microsoft may provide (or may have already provided) the necessary information that the vendors require.

Anyone running games knows to install the latest graphics card drivers for their card (and game readme files often say to do that anyway) so gamers who choose to upgrade to Vista will just download and install an ICD written by the display card manufacturer following option 3 and everyone is happy.

Good -- maybe now it will progress faster!

[mrchaotica]

Part of the reason Direct3D took off (aside from Microsoft's market influence) is that the ARB worked too damn slow and caused OpenGL to lag behind in terms of capability. If Khronos can make decisions faster such that OpenGL can keep feature parity with (or even get ahead of) Direct3D, it'll be great!

It would also probably help if they form close ties with the people making OpenAL, SDL, etc. so that there can be a big, open, complete solution to compete with the whole of DirectX.

FYI

[earbenT]

Sony is also a member of the consortium, and is providing the API suite as part of the PS3 development kit.

CAN WE PLEASE NOT HAVE THIS DISCUSSION?!

[mrchaotica]

Whether Apple contributes back to Free Software isn't really relevant here, and it's been beaten to death in other threads already. Could we please save it for the next KHTML article, at least?!

Besides, the more relevant thing regarding Apple is their behavior regarding other standards (as opposed to software implementations), such as USB, WebDAV, ZeroConf (aka Rendesvous, Bonjour), etc.

Should assure future of OpenGL for a while

[Anonymous Coward]

Khronos *already* handled most OpenGL related specs, like OpenGL ES.

On the negative side, this probably means that yes, SGI is going to be asset-stripped and wound up in short order. One must remember that the writing was on the wall a long time ago. Like CBM before them, Microsoft placed a "mole" in an executive position to wreak havoc, and SGI never really recovered from that period of moronic rebranding and windows NT workstations.

COLLADA

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

I did a little more looking after submitting this article and while I was not familiar with the Khronos group's work aside from mobile applications, it seems they are also responsible for the COLLADA standard Sony is promoting for open exchange of graphics/models primarily for video games. Perhaps with OpenGL, COLLADA, and some multimedia standards all under the same roof, we'll see development directed to be a better alternative to OpenGL aimed at multiple platforms (Windows, PS3, Mac, and Nintendo?) to offset the threat of MS's DirectX development aimed at Windows and Xbox simultaneously.

of course...

[everphilski]

... Because this is a direct competitor to DirectX.

Although Microsoft has not been openly hostile. They distribute OpenGL with Windows. And although there are concerns that they are "crippling" the implementation they are shipping with Vista (of which I, personally, am skeptical), hardware vendors ATI and nVidia will be shipping the latest versions with their cards.

Effect as verb

[WilliamSChips]

can also mean to bring into existence.

Re:This might be good

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

OpenGL, IMHO, has no place on mobile phones... not yet anyway... How on earth can OpenGL grow if it always has to support the lowest common denominator.

I agree. Since Khronos already maintains OpenGL ES for phones, hopefully they will not unify them.

Some notes to people that may not know a whole lot

[Anonymous Coward]

!. Direct3D vs OpenGL:

Doesn't realy matter, for a couple reasons:
Only games are written using Direct3D/DirectX. It is very rarely used for anything beyond that. If given a choice no developer would ever use Direct3d for anything.. but if your making games for technically challenged people and your target platform is Windows then writing it to use Direct3D/directX makes more sense since it's more likely to work well in Windows.

All the major gaming engines already run on Linux. They already run using either OpenGL or Direct3D.. All except HL2/Steam stuff.

The reason Linux doesn't have more games isn't because of DirectX. It's because of lack of ease of use for OpenGL acceleration and market share.

Also DirectX/Direct3d is tied directly to the hardware. If your card doesn't support DirectX 9 your not going to be able to run DirectX 9 application.

For OpenGL it doesn't work that way. It's a programming API that can be accelerated. If you have a card that was designed to accelerate OpenGL 1.x you can still run OpenGL 2.x. It just won't all be hardware accelerated.

If your programming a 3d application and it's not a game and your not Microsoft.. Then your using OpenGL or OpenGL-based system. Period, end of story.

2. OpenGL ARB is 'Advanced Review Board'. They create a set of extensions to the current OpenGL standard to create proven/established OpenGL-related stuff that they can then wrap up together and place into the next generation OpenGL standard.

This is were all that extra stuff goes that people say that OpenGL lacks and DirectX has. OpenGL has a much more formal review system then DirectX/3D has. It needs to be carefull as any standard they create will need to be replicated by multiple people on multiple platforms and be sustainable into the forseeable future.

Microsoft and Direct3D/DirectX doesn't have to deal with that. They can abtrarially make decisions becasue they only have to worry about one platform.

3. Kronos group is partially responsable for the OpenGL-EGL extensions which allow for easier OpenGL based displays for embedded devices.

This is required for a stand-alone XGL-based X Windows server. Current AIGLX (Redhat) and XGLX (Novel) require you to either run a OpenGL-based X server on top of a normal X server (XGLX) or run OpenGL extensions to a normal X server (AIGLX).

This approach has numerious issues. Instead of making a clean break and going with pure OpenGL system your dealing with multiple legacy drivers that can only do a fraction of what OpenGL can do in addition to OpenGL acceleration drivers.

To put it another way.. The current driver model for X is broken. Right now we have 2-3 drivers acting on the same video card at the same time and they need to share resources. These drivers come from different vendors. This is technically difficult and doesn't lead to good acceleration or performance.

Another point:
Legacy 2D X drivers (EXA, XAA) can only provide 2D acceleration.
OpenGL 3d drivers can provide 2D AND 3D acceleration.
OpenGL 3d drivers can provide faster 2D acceleration then what the legacy 2D drivers can do. (due to the nature of the hardware GPU, not so much the drivers)
Having 2D and 3D drivers at the same time makes things much more complecated then just having 3D that can do everything.
3D acceleration is a hard requirement for a modern desktop.

So obviously having OpenGL-based X server is the way to go. And stuff like GLITZ (Xrender replacement) and other things means we can move to a pure OpenGL X server and still keep binary compatability. It's quite a acheivement.

Now the reason we cna't have a pure OpenGL-based display yet is because OpenGL lacks the API hooks to allow you to control the display and other items like that. There is nothing in OpenGL that says "Set the monitor at this resolution". That has to be handled by other stuff.

Kronos had to solve this same exact problem for it's embedded OpenGL display stuff. So they created the OpenGL-EG

Pretty hard, I guess....

[Dcnjoe60]

Jesus fucking GOD how hard is it?

It amazes me that you have such a grasp of the use of "affect" and "effect" but don't seem to grasp that the word "fucking" should only be used as a verb or adverb and not an adjective. Unless your really meant to express that Jesus is copulating with God, which to answer your question, would seem to be pretty hard to do.

Re:Pretty hard, I guess....

[Petrushka]

Unless your really meant to express that Jesus is copulating with God, which to answer your question, would seem to be pretty hard to do.

I dunno, I think that'd be a pretty good expletive. Certainly better than things like "By the balls of Zeus!" or "May Apollo rape me in the night!" or "By Aphrodite's breasts!" (OT: at least one of these expletives is genuine.) In any case, since they're supposed to be "consubstantial" with one another, it'd be at most just a kinky kind of masturbation (which also wouldn't be offensive in most pagan religions, incidentally).

Re:Maybe OpenGL and DirectX need to diverge

[mrchaotica]

Maybe the two just need to diverge, with OpenGL returning to what it was intended for - enterprise apps, while leaving DirectX to cater to the games market.

The problem with that is that DirectX isn't a standard -- it's a proprietary Microsoft technology. We'd still need a standard to use for gaming on Mac, Linux, PS3, Wii, etc.

Re:Some notes to people that may not know a whole

[Assmasher]

(1)Ironically, you yourself appear to "not know a whole lot." There are several reasons that developers use D3D over OpenGL. Personally, if I need cross platform, for example Sense8's WorldToolKit back when I used to work there, I used OpenGL. If I need multi-monitor and/or multi-device hardware acceleration on anything other than an upper end SGI, like what I currently work on, I HAVE to use DirectX9/10 and Win32. There are other reasons to prefer D3D over OpenGL but they are somewhat subjective (i.e. some people absolutely detest the extensions mechanism in OpenGL for example while others don't really care.) Some people like to write simpler code to support multiple rendering paths, et cetera. There are subjective reasons to use OpenGL as well, but this is unimportant, what is important is pointing out that "If given a choice no developer would ever use Direct3d for anything" is a ridiculous and biased statement. Also, if your hardware doesn't support OpenGL 2.0, and your application uses OpenGL 2.0, your application isn't going to run either, so the statements:

"Also DirectX/Direct3d is tied directly to the hardware. If your card doesn't support DirectX 9 your not going to be able to run DirectX 9 application. For OpenGL it doesn't work that way. It's a programming API that can be accelerated. If you have a card that was designed to accelerate OpenGL 1.x you can still run OpenGL 2.x. It just won't all be hardware accelerated."

This is VERY misleading. Presuming scenario 1 where the developer (for either D3D or OpenGL) has coded a support for only a particular version of the API, neither API will run partially in software if the driver does not support that level of the API. D3D9 will not run in software unless you're going to use a debugging rasterizer (highly unlikely), and OpenGL 2.0 WILL NOT RUN on a card with a 1.0, 1.1, 1.2, 1.4 driver. Now, there are some 1.4 drivers which were written so that people like myself could write 2.0 code and execute before the hardware was available, in which case the 2.0 distinctions were supported via software emulation, but this was for developers. You're confusing the ability of a specific OpenGL implementation supporting a specification to the maximum of its ability. For example, if a I have an OpenGL 1.4 driver but the card I'm running on doesn't have Hardware T&L, OpenGL's pipeline is quite capable of transparently deciding whether or not it should offload the lighting to the card or doing it in software. This is not the same as some future version of OpenGL running on my old OpenGL card with an old driver.

"If your programming a 3d application and it's not a game and your not Microsoft.. Then your using OpenGL or OpenGL-based system. Period, end of story" - I certainly hope you're not in a decision making capacity at your job (or that your job is doing something other than writing rendering code) because you're screwing your company over. Right tool for the right job, every time. It's a toolbox not a religious jihad.

(2)"OpenGL has a much more formal review system then DirectX/3D has" - No it doesn't. Crimony. Do you know what the specification process for DirectX is? You can say they're different, but it certainly isn't less "formal." You could say it is less open, but that's because it isn't an open API.

Re:ITM effects.

[Petrushka]

I guess I'm a bit more tired than I thought...

Yes, your tiredness had an effect on your affect and affected the effect of your post.