If I'm reading this article right, they're claiming that it also hinders normal screen captures.
That would mean that software like VNC would have much higher performance, if the drivers were updated, the way these guys are demanding. (Wouldn't it?)
Works pretty good - but it's too damned small for my hands. I'd need to modify it, if I was going to use it for an extended period of time. Aftter all of my investigations, the Twiddler is still the best one-handed keyboard, in my opinion.
I bought one, after I was in a cast for three months. I never want to struggle to type like that, again.
Obviously, I wasn't. Otherwise I wouldn't have pointed out that the images were NOT actually generated by the new hardware. Read all of the other posts in this article - most people WERE deceived. Yell at them, not at me.
"You should pay a little better attention to what you are reading."
Back at you.
"Pay attention to the details you read"
The burden of clarity rests on the publisher of news articles. When an article is UNCLEAR, this kind of forum is a perfect place to attack it. Why are you so eager to criticize ME? When I'M one of the FEW people who actually understood what these images are?
"you ASSUME"
You assumed I was trying to hold them to some legal definitions and business practices, and to somehow build a legal case against them. I couldn't care less about that. Bad assumption on your part. I was just publicly flogging them for their deceitful practices. I take it you yourself have never been deceived? I guess you should cancel your subscription to Consumer's Digest, huh?
Back to the coder analogy, the comments at the top of this source file sucked. They were unclear, and I'm trying to clear them up. If I *could* edit the page to say "THESE IMAGES NOT CREATED ON THE NV30" then I would. Since I can't, I'm doing what I can to make sure people realize that, here. Again, why does this somehow earn me your criticism?
I don't EXPECT any kind of behavior from vendors and news agencies. I don't EXPECT the law to protect me. But I'm glad that I can publicly criticize their deceitful practices. Repetition is boring, but - WHY ARE YOU YELLING AT ME? YELL AT THE IDIOTS WHO FELL FOR IT. And maybe, just maybe, join me in yelling at them for being deceitful, okay?
Look - I'm pointing out that these images were not produced by their hardware. That's NEWS to most of the people in this forum. Read the rest of the posts.
"Of course it is meant as a deception." As a consumer, I like not to be deceived. Being deceived enrages me. Especially when there are supposed to be layers of "fact checkers" between me and the news that I read. Those fact checkers have failed, and I am doing what I can to educate the public about this FRAUD.
"Like" is not a sufficient disclaimer, in the opinion of most engineers.
I'm pointing out the difference between what is implicitly claimed, and what is technological truth. If you're going to get pissed at me for that, then you have to understand that out in the real world, there are engineers who debunk myths and falsehoods. I'm doing my job, and I'm trying to educate the/. readership. On who's behalf are you acting?
"The only way to call them on it is to take them to court."
Or to humiliate them in a public forum, such as this one. The law is not your only defense - it's the last defense. Public ridicule can be an amazingly valuable tool.
I think it's a reasonable expectation that rendered images in the context of a new piece of graphics hardware were actually produced using that new graphics hardware.
I'm making the assertion that these specific images were instead produced by BMRT, and I'm even citing original images which can be compared with the images supposedly produced on the NV30. I think I've clearly demonstrated that there's a striking resemblance. It would have been far, far better if the article cited the source of the models, and further went on to detail the process by which the original scene data was instead rendered on the NV30. Not doing so leaves me with no choice other than to assume that the images were falsely produced (ie forgeries.)
The responsibility to accurately and without question disclaim the images as NOT being actual new renderings produced by the hardware lies with the vendor (or the person presenting them). Since that was not uniformly done, I am accusing them of forgery.
Given the news that nVidia bought Exluna, I suppose it IS possible that they rendered from original data. Hmph.
I'd appreciate it if they fessed up and reported that they make a RenderMan renderer. I actually think that's bigger news than their exact hardware specs. It means "One interface to rule them all..."
I believe I've pretty definitively shown that either they have an actual RenderMan renderer running on their hardware (and access to the original data by four different authors), or this is a fake.
Sorry, I can't find the coffee cup or the Final Fantasy image. Maybe someone else can.
Given this "nVidia rendered image" and this BMRT rendered image, I see three possibilities.
One - the guys at nVidia painstakingly translated each aspect of the original image to Cg.
Two - the guys at nVidia have some technology that translates RenderMan to something they know how to render. It could be RenderMonkey-like technology. It could literally be RenderMonkey, with some nVidia back-end. It could be they contacted the original artist, John Monos, and took his original data and reformatted it (skipping RenderMan, entirely).
"hemisphere". Defined using a 2d map. Right. Where'd you come up with that piece of twisted logic?
According to those idiots at the USGS, "The northern hemisphere has positive latitudes. The southern hemisphere has negative latitudes. Longitudes are perpendicular to the Equator are range from -180 degrees (International Date Line) to +179.99999... degrees (just west of the International Date Line). Under this convention -- the western hemisphere has negative longitudes and the eastern hemisphere has positive longitudes."
Yeah. All Americans are dumb. Good call.
Re:Not as great as it sounds for OpenGL 2.0
on
Doom3 and OpenGL2.0
·
· Score: 2
It won't be very easy to selectively implement the parts of OpenGL 2.0 that DOOM 3 uses. It's kind of like the developers of gcc trying to pick which parts of C++ that DOOM 3 uses, and only support those. (It's probably easier to just do it right!)
I know what you're saying, but that kind of trickiness is much, much harder to pull of with OpenGL 2.0 than it was with OpenGL 1.x.
I think this is an unreasonable goal (replacing offline rendering with motion capture and realtime rendering, for motion pictures), and Dr. Alvy Ray Smith agrees with me. (And he knows more about the subject than anyone likely to post on Slashdot, myself included.)
Yes, I've heard him talk, and I know he's not addressing exactly what this article talks about. What I'm saying is that the task of making computer animation truly realistic is more difficult than we are capable of, using the most advanced tools available today. That, to me, means that it's much, much more difficult to do it in real time using algorithms and hardware that is much less sophisticated.
Can you do something cartoon like? Certainly. Look at Clippy. Can you make it believable and real? No.
You've made some excellent points, but I don't think you're correct in a fundemental assumption.
I don't think people are free to write a back-end compiler for Cg. I don't think nVidia has released the Cg language into the public domain, and I don't think they intend to license the language for reasonable terms. I think they intend to control the language, with the option of other vendors supplying profiles to the one and only Cg compiler (e.g. fp20, vp20, dx8vs, dx8ps).
You are absolutely correct that competition has ultimately helped the graphics industry. I just wish that the competition of shading languages was between competing open standards. Not one open standard, and one closed standard.
Ayup. I always view new languages through the eyes of Pascal. What I mean is, the Pascal (Delphi) community tends to be more unified than the C/C++ community, at using the same toolkits all of the time, and solving problems in the same way.
I find that's typically the greatest advantage of any new programming language, is that the developers all tend to agree (or at least agree more often), and to make as many of the libraries standard as possible. It's fun to be part of a community that all agrees with each other.
It's much harder to rework an old environment (C++) than it is to design a new one (Python, Perl, Java, etc.) You have to try to get an already existing community to agree to some standard, and they'll all have opinions. But it's important work to do - it helps everyone to try to improve the single environment with the most users, across platforms. That's one of the reasons why I think STL is fantastic. (And scary - I don't love every bit of it, but by and large, I think it's a wonderful tool.) It's good to see the C++ community work together to improve their environment by setting new standards that we can all live with.
Much like the OpenGL community! Which goes back to why I don't like Cg!!! =) (You just knew I had to work that in there, didn't ya?)
According to what you said (and I agree with), Cg is an alternate implementation of the shading language component of OpenGL 2.0. In which case, the OTHER components of OpenGL 2.0 will need to be re-implemented with a different API, to be viable with the Cg platform. I stand by this assertion, because I don't think that OpenGL 2.0 and Cg will play nicely with eachother. Cg proclaims to run "on top" of OpenGL 1.4, but I suspect that it will have so many platform specific hooks that the OpenGL 1.4 code it produces will only work on the nVidia platform. OpenGL 1.4 merely allows nVidia to expose the necessary API for them to make Cg work on top of it.
What makes you think there isn't a prototype implementation of OpenGL 2.0?
nVidia had the opportunity, ALL ALONG to drive the development of the next generation of OpenGL so that it could be capable of supporting the features that nVidia wants. I'm pissed off that everyone forgets this fact. They chose not to. They went off in isolation, and developed their own propietary API, which is incompatible with the OpenGL 2.0 specification (the shading language part.) It's not as though OpenGL 2.0 happened all of a sudden, without nVidia's involvement. They had every chance to steer the proposed standard to their liking. Instead, they abandoned the proposals, and they're releasing a closed solution. And you like them for this behavior? This is Microsoft and DirectX all over again.
Would you agree that SGI did a pretty good job in producing OpenGL? I think they did an amazing job. I've also read the OpenGL 2.0 specification. It's just as stunning as the original OpenGL specification. And nVidia had every opportunity to make it work the way that they wanted to, or to make it even better. Don't try to defend their actions as though this is 3dlabs forcing their closed solution on everyone. 3dlabs is playing nice with others, nVidia is not. I suppose it's pointless for us to continue discussing the matter, if you disagree on that simple point.
I do cross-platform development all of the time, thank you. And I happen to do OpenGL things all of the time, as commercial products, and I've never once licensed the name from the ARB. Oh, you meant preparing an OpenGL implementation. So, you're saying that licensing the name from the steering committee is a bad thing? I suppose you think that Microsoft's Java implementation was good, too.
I do not believe that nVidia has a strong investment in OpenGL 2.0. Why would they spend their money twice, and implement Cg? It doesn't make any sense. Why not implement the OpenGL 2.0 shading language, as defined in the proposal, and start shipping it as a provisional implementation? *shrug* I don't blame them for the behavior, and I don't think it's horrible - but I don't like it, and I don't think it's a good thing.
"A de facto standard is not a true standard." So, you don't use Ethernet? Or GIF? PostScript?
Same way as you have to license the OpenGL name, you have to license the RenderMan name. It's the same thing. And I don't disagree with either tactic. I do disagree when one company hopes to control the only implementation.
I hope you're right with your Glide prediction. Then again, DirectX is still shockingly popular. Help me kill DirectX. =)
I'm intimately familiar with the details of OpenGL 2.0. I would disagree with your assesment that "most of it is about making OpenGL object-oriented, programmable, etc. One small part of it is a high-level shader language." I disagree entirely with your assesment that it's a small part.
C and Pascal are most definately competing with each other and replacing eachother. I've been programming in Pascal for 21 years and C (and C++) for 14 or so. I never get to code in both languages at the same time. It's possible to mix code from each, but it doesn't happen that often (other than in the form of pre-compiled libraries.) It's simply not efficient to ask all of the developers on one project to understand the intracacies of both programming languages and be effective at programming in both at the same time.
The same argument holds for Cg and the shading language component of OpenGL 2.0. I doubt that people will be succesful at mixing Cg in with OpenGL 2.0 code.
If OpenGL 2.0 covers a lot more ground than shaders, and if you agree that some of that is good - then you think that companies will need to reinvent a lot of OpenGL 2.0 if they want to support Cg at the same time. See what I mean? In essence, nVidia is re-inventing the wheel, just so that they can control exactly what's on their GPU. And you know what, I'd probably do the same thing in their position - if, as you assert, they can't ship OpenGL 2.0 until it's fully ratified.
I'm not arguing that people shouldn't use shading languages. They're fantastic. They're the best thing ever to hit the PC graphics marketplace. It's unfortunate that a closed-source, non-free implementation is available before the open-source, free implementation. Companies can move faster than comittees. (Especially when the companies are on the comittees, too.) It's almost as though a bi-law of the OpenGL review board should be that memebers can not publish competing standards. (It's like a conflict of interests.) That would encourage them to play nice with eachother. I don't know, I'm just venting steam.
I have to throw words like "closed standard" around because this is a closed standard. As to throwing around "monopoly", the reason I do it is because nVidia could either play with the proposed open standard, or invent their own closed standard. I'm not saying that they're abusing their monopoly. I'm just saying that they're trying to establish one. There's nothing illegal about having a monopoly - it's illegal to abuse it. Everyone in their right mind wants their company to have a monopoly.
I disagree strongly with your assesment that they are taking "an extremely active role in the development of OpenGL 2.0." Based on that disagreement, you can imagine why I'm frustrated at their behavior. If you are correct, then I agree, they can potentially dramatically improve the OpenGL 2.0 standard. (And I hope they do!) When 2.0 is ratified, we'll see how quickly they come out with an implementation. I hope for everyone's sakes that they do it quickly, and that it's good.
You can ship a proposed standard. People do it all the time. C++ compilers come to mind.
If they're out to "kill Direct3D 9", I'm happy. Granted, they'd only be trying to "kill" the shader language part - but that's fine by me. I just hope, hope, hope, hope, hope that they don't kill OpenGL 2.0 before it's born.
Yes, I think Microsoft is happy that Cg supports OpenGL. Because I think you'll find that Cg works much better on DirectX than it does on OpenGL 1.4 (which, by the way, has not yet been ratified - which proves my side of the argument, not yours). That's just my guess, but it's what I think will happen. And I think that developers will tend to chose the platform that supports it better. (Other than Carmack, who always seems to chose the standard he thinks is better in the long run.) It's embrace and extend all over again.
Honestly, I wish there was only one shading language : RenderMan Shading Language. Not that it couldn't use some improving, but wouldn't it be cool if you could literally use the exact same code on every platform? Offline renderers, included?
I don't fault NVidia's marketing department, and I don't fault their technology guys. As far as NVidia is concerned, this is the best way to sell products in the best manner, right now.
It doesn't help the rest of the industry, though. I wish OpenGL 2.0 were already ratified. That's the problem with standards like that, though - they don't like to ratify them until the hardware exists to test out the theories on. Well, no hardware that's shipping today can support OpenGL 2.0. Chicken and the egg.
I just with NVidia were being more supportive of OpenGL 2.0. Because it's the better of the two standards, in respect to its effects on the industry as a whole.
Same way that I wish Microsoft had never developed DirectX. Sure, it has more features today, but in the long run OpenGL is a better alternative.
What disturbs me though, is NVidia's behavior in the matter.
They could either push to ratify OpenGL 2.0 early, and do everything they can to help the process... Which helps the industry a lot, and helps them, too!
OR, they could create their own closed standard, not help OpenGL 2.0, do everything they can to hurt the process... Which helps them a lot, and makes their competitors in the industry license their technology...
*sigh*
I'd be a lot more comfortable if NVidia were saying things like, "and it provides for the direct and easy translation of Cg code into the proposed OpenGL 2.0 standard, so that code written today can be easily migrated to the OpenGL 2.0 standard, once it's ratified."
"Cg is only for shaders." What do you think OpenGL 2.0 is? Have you read the OpenGL 2.0 specs? It provides an exact competitor to the language that NVidia has proposed. Vertex and fragment shaders. It's the same thing, in two different ways - one open and free, one propietary.
I agree it might be possible to write code for the NVidia platform which can be redirected to the proposed standard of OpenGL 2.0. But in a year from now, I hope everyone's using OpenGL 2.0 instead of Cg.
Yes, you can make hardware support a proposed standard. How do you think hardware gets designed in the first place?
By the way - that's a silly argument - "don't make hardware until the standard exists," and "don't make the standard until hardware exists." I'm hearing both of those arguments at the same time in here, which is pretty amazing.
It does not have cross-platform support. It is not hardware independant. They say that other vendors will be able to support it, they don't say that it's a free or open standard.
Think about the compiler part of it, for a second. So what if the compiler supports multiple targets? Each compiled program will only be able to run on that one platform! Does that sound like OpenGL to you? Even if they allow a mechanism where the code can be targeted to multiple platforms in one executable, they're still making that decision at compile time. As opposed to at runtime, like OpenGL 2.0. That means that an executable today will be able to run on future hardware. Not true with Cg. Also, the compiler they talk about in Cg is an NVidia product. They're giving it away like free beer, not like free speach. In order for any given company to have Cg targeted to their platform, they'll need to go through NVidia to make it happen. Doesn't this scare you?
Other video card manufacturers can not write their own compilers. The intended method is for other manufacturers to provide new "profiles" (eg fp20, vp20, dx8vs, dx8ps) which will be integrated into the one and only Cg compiler, which NVidia controls.
That's how it locks people in to NVidia.
I'm not talking about ATI. I'm talking about 3dlabs, the people who created the OpenGL 2.0 standard.
I agree that it's to NVidia's advantage to release their hardware sooner rather than later, and that the OpenGL 2.0 standard won't be a standard for some time to come. But NVidia could put their weight behind it, or they could write their own thing. They chose to abandon OpenGL 2.0. Entirely. And they're hoping everyone else will, too.
The Cg language is different from the OpenGL 2.0 shader and vertex language. They're different, but they do the same thing, essentially. To rephrase your question, perhaps someone will be able to provide a translator from Cg to OpenGL 2.0 and vice-versa. Just as people have created a layer that makes DirectX work on top of OpenGL.
Is there really a question in your mind about whether OpenGL is a better standard that we can all live with than DirectX?
The possible objections are the fact that DirectX has more features than OpenGL. Well, that's why OpenGL 2.0 is a good thing.
Throwing Cg into the mix doesn't make OpenGL 2.0 any less of a good thing.
I'm pissed at NVidia for deciding to go with a closed standard, rather than an open standard. What else is new?
Slashdot Mirror
If I'm reading this article right, they're claiming that it also hinders normal screen captures.
That would mean that software like VNC would have much higher performance, if the drivers were updated, the way these guys are demanding. (Wouldn't it?)
That'd be fantastic!
I work with data much, much larger than 128 MB. If the board had 2 GB of memory, I'd use it.
Not everyone is using their video card to play Quake. =) (Although, I do that, too.)
Alton,
I love your show, even though I can't cook. Can't. As in "genetically incapable". As an example, I once burned spaghetti noodles. As in, on fire.
What's the worst mistake you've ever made, in food preparation?
Works pretty good - but it's too damned small for my hands. I'd need to modify it, if I was going to use it for an extended period of time. Aftter all of my investigations, the Twiddler is still the best one-handed keyboard, in my opinion.
I bought one, after I was in a cast for three months. I never want to struggle to type like that, again.
HOW DARE YOU - oh, wait - you said "Peace". Alright, I can go along with that. =)
"If you were deceived by that"
Obviously, I wasn't. Otherwise I wouldn't have pointed out that the images were NOT actually generated by the new hardware. Read all of the other posts in this article - most people WERE deceived. Yell at them, not at me.
"You should pay a little better attention to what you are reading."
Back at you.
"Pay attention to the details you read"
The burden of clarity rests on the publisher of news articles. When an article is UNCLEAR, this kind of forum is a perfect place to attack it. Why are you so eager to criticize ME? When I'M one of the FEW people who actually understood what these images are?
"you ASSUME"
You assumed I was trying to hold them to some legal definitions and business practices, and to somehow build a legal case against them. I couldn't care less about that. Bad assumption on your part. I was just publicly flogging them for their deceitful practices. I take it you yourself have never been deceived? I guess you should cancel your subscription to Consumer's Digest, huh?
Back to the coder analogy, the comments at the top of this source file sucked. They were unclear, and I'm trying to clear them up. If I *could* edit the page to say "THESE IMAGES NOT CREATED ON THE NV30" then I would. Since I can't, I'm doing what I can to make sure people realize that, here. Again, why does this somehow earn me your criticism?
I don't EXPECT any kind of behavior from vendors and news agencies. I don't EXPECT the law to protect me. But I'm glad that I can publicly criticize their deceitful practices. Repetition is boring, but - WHY ARE YOU YELLING AT ME? YELL AT THE IDIOTS WHO FELL FOR IT. And maybe, just maybe, join me in yelling at them for being deceitful, okay?
Look - I'm pointing out that these images were not produced by their hardware. That's NEWS to most of the people in this forum. Read the rest of the posts.
/. readership. On who's behalf are you acting?
"Of course it is meant as a deception." As a consumer, I like not to be deceived. Being deceived enrages me. Especially when there are supposed to be layers of "fact checkers" between me and the news that I read. Those fact checkers have failed, and I am doing what I can to educate the public about this FRAUD.
"Like" is not a sufficient disclaimer, in the opinion of most engineers.
I'm pointing out the difference between what is implicitly claimed, and what is technological truth. If you're going to get pissed at me for that, then you have to understand that out in the real world, there are engineers who debunk myths and falsehoods. I'm doing my job, and I'm trying to educate the
"The only way to call them on it is to take them to court."
Or to humiliate them in a public forum, such as this one. The law is not your only defense - it's the last defense. Public ridicule can be an amazingly valuable tool.
"Enough disclaimer." Interesting concept.
I think it's a reasonable expectation that rendered images in the context of a new piece of graphics hardware were actually produced using that new graphics hardware.
I'm making the assertion that these specific images were instead produced by BMRT, and I'm even citing original images which can be compared with the images supposedly produced on the NV30. I think I've clearly demonstrated that there's a striking resemblance. It would have been far, far better if the article cited the source of the models, and further went on to detail the process by which the original scene data was instead rendered on the NV30. Not doing so leaves me with no choice other than to assume that the images were falsely produced (ie forgeries.)
The responsibility to accurately and without question disclaim the images as NOT being actual new renderings produced by the hardware lies with the vendor (or the person presenting them). Since that was not uniformly done, I am accusing them of forgery.
I think deception was the goal.
It would be better if you added <sarcasm> tags to your message. =)
Found the coffee cup.
BMRT coffee (by Horvatth Szabolcs) vs. "nVidia coffee
Given the news that nVidia bought Exluna, I suppose it IS possible that they rendered from original data. Hmph.
I'd appreciate it if they fessed up and reported that they make a RenderMan renderer. I actually think that's bigger news than their exact hardware specs. It means "One interface to rule them all..."
Sorry, here's ALL the evidence that I found :
BMRT chess (by John Monos) vs. "nVidia chess"
BMRT Bike (by Don Kim) vs. "nVidia Bike"
BMRT Table (by Goran Kocov) vs. "nVidia Table"
BMRT Markers (by Rudy Poat) vs. "nVidia Markers"
I believe I've pretty definitively shown that either they have an actual RenderMan renderer running on their hardware (and access to the original data by four different authors), or this is a fake.
Sorry, I can't find the coffee cup or the Final Fantasy image. Maybe someone else can.
Given this "nVidia rendered image" and this BMRT rendered image, I see three possibilities.
One - the guys at nVidia painstakingly translated each aspect of the original image to Cg.
Two - the guys at nVidia have some technology that translates RenderMan to something they know how to render. It could be RenderMonkey-like technology. It could literally be RenderMonkey, with some nVidia back-end. It could be they contacted the original artist, John Monos, and took his original data and reformatted it (skipping RenderMan, entirely).
Three - the images are a forgery.
I'm betting on Three.
I hope this post gets modded up. I wish /. had a "fact checking" department.
I read it on the Internet! It must be true!
According to those idiots at the USGS, "The northern hemisphere has positive latitudes. The southern hemisphere has negative latitudes. Longitudes are perpendicular to the Equator are range from -180 degrees (International Date Line) to +179.99999... degrees (just west of the International Date Line). Under this convention -- the western hemisphere has negative longitudes and the eastern hemisphere has positive longitudes."
Yeah. All Americans are dumb. Good call.
It won't be very easy to selectively implement the parts of OpenGL 2.0 that DOOM 3 uses. It's kind of like the developers of gcc trying to pick which parts of C++ that DOOM 3 uses, and only support those. (It's probably easier to just do it right!)
I know what you're saying, but that kind of trickiness is much, much harder to pull of with OpenGL 2.0 than it was with OpenGL 1.x.
I think this is an unreasonable goal (replacing offline rendering with motion capture and realtime rendering, for motion pictures), and Dr. Alvy Ray Smith agrees with me. (And he knows more about the subject than anyone likely to post on Slashdot, myself included.)
Yes, I've heard him talk, and I know he's not addressing exactly what this article talks about. What I'm saying is that the task of making computer animation truly realistic is more difficult than we are capable of, using the most advanced tools available today. That, to me, means that it's much, much more difficult to do it in real time using algorithms and hardware that is much less sophisticated.
Can you do something cartoon like? Certainly. Look at Clippy. Can you make it believable and real? No.
You've made some excellent points, but I don't think you're correct in a fundemental assumption.
I don't think people are free to write a back-end compiler for Cg. I don't think nVidia has released the Cg language into the public domain, and I don't think they intend to license the language for reasonable terms. I think they intend to control the language, with the option of other vendors supplying profiles to the one and only Cg compiler (e.g. fp20, vp20, dx8vs, dx8ps).
You are absolutely correct that competition has ultimately helped the graphics industry. I just wish that the competition of shading languages was between competing open standards. Not one open standard, and one closed standard.
Ayup. I always view new languages through the eyes of Pascal. What I mean is, the Pascal (Delphi) community tends to be more unified than the C/C++ community, at using the same toolkits all of the time, and solving problems in the same way.
I find that's typically the greatest advantage of any new programming language, is that the developers all tend to agree (or at least agree more often), and to make as many of the libraries standard as possible. It's fun to be part of a community that all agrees with each other.
It's much harder to rework an old environment (C++) than it is to design a new one (Python, Perl, Java, etc.) You have to try to get an already existing community to agree to some standard, and they'll all have opinions. But it's important work to do - it helps everyone to try to improve the single environment with the most users, across platforms. That's one of the reasons why I think STL is fantastic. (And scary - I don't love every bit of it, but by and large, I think it's a wonderful tool.) It's good to see the C++ community work together to improve their environment by setting new standards that we can all live with.
Much like the OpenGL community! Which goes back to why I don't like Cg!!! =) (You just knew I had to work that in there, didn't ya?)
According to what you said (and I agree with), Cg is an alternate implementation of the shading language component of OpenGL 2.0. In which case, the OTHER components of OpenGL 2.0 will need to be re-implemented with a different API, to be viable with the Cg platform. I stand by this assertion, because I don't think that OpenGL 2.0 and Cg will play nicely with eachother. Cg proclaims to run "on top" of OpenGL 1.4, but I suspect that it will have so many platform specific hooks that the OpenGL 1.4 code it produces will only work on the nVidia platform. OpenGL 1.4 merely allows nVidia to expose the necessary API for them to make Cg work on top of it.
What makes you think there isn't a prototype implementation of OpenGL 2.0?
nVidia had the opportunity, ALL ALONG to drive the development of the next generation of OpenGL so that it could be capable of supporting the features that nVidia wants. I'm pissed off that everyone forgets this fact. They chose not to. They went off in isolation, and developed their own propietary API, which is incompatible with the OpenGL 2.0 specification (the shading language part.) It's not as though OpenGL 2.0 happened all of a sudden, without nVidia's involvement. They had every chance to steer the proposed standard to their liking. Instead, they abandoned the proposals, and they're releasing a closed solution. And you like them for this behavior? This is Microsoft and DirectX all over again.
Would you agree that SGI did a pretty good job in producing OpenGL? I think they did an amazing job. I've also read the OpenGL 2.0 specification. It's just as stunning as the original OpenGL specification. And nVidia had every opportunity to make it work the way that they wanted to, or to make it even better. Don't try to defend their actions as though this is 3dlabs forcing their closed solution on everyone. 3dlabs is playing nice with others, nVidia is not. I suppose it's pointless for us to continue discussing the matter, if you disagree on that simple point.
I do cross-platform development all of the time, thank you. And I happen to do OpenGL things all of the time, as commercial products, and I've never once licensed the name from the ARB. Oh, you meant preparing an OpenGL implementation. So, you're saying that licensing the name from the steering committee is a bad thing? I suppose you think that Microsoft's Java implementation was good, too.
I do not believe that nVidia has a strong investment in OpenGL 2.0. Why would they spend their money twice, and implement Cg? It doesn't make any sense. Why not implement the OpenGL 2.0 shading language, as defined in the proposal, and start shipping it as a provisional implementation? *shrug* I don't blame them for the behavior, and I don't think it's horrible - but I don't like it, and I don't think it's a good thing.
"A de facto standard is not a true standard." So, you don't use Ethernet? Or GIF? PostScript?
Same way as you have to license the OpenGL name, you have to license the RenderMan name. It's the same thing. And I don't disagree with either tactic. I do disagree when one company hopes to control the only implementation.
I hope you're right with your Glide prediction. Then again, DirectX is still shockingly popular. Help me kill DirectX. =)
I'm intimately familiar with the details of OpenGL 2.0. I would disagree with your assesment that "most of it is about making OpenGL object-oriented, programmable, etc. One small part of it is a high-level shader language." I disagree entirely with your assesment that it's a small part.
C and Pascal are most definately competing with each other and replacing eachother. I've been programming in Pascal for 21 years and C (and C++) for 14 or so. I never get to code in both languages at the same time. It's possible to mix code from each, but it doesn't happen that often (other than in the form of pre-compiled libraries.) It's simply not efficient to ask all of the developers on one project to understand the intracacies of both programming languages and be effective at programming in both at the same time.
The same argument holds for Cg and the shading language component of OpenGL 2.0. I doubt that people will be succesful at mixing Cg in with OpenGL 2.0 code.
If OpenGL 2.0 covers a lot more ground than shaders, and if you agree that some of that is good - then you think that companies will need to reinvent a lot of OpenGL 2.0 if they want to support Cg at the same time. See what I mean? In essence, nVidia is re-inventing the wheel, just so that they can control exactly what's on their GPU. And you know what, I'd probably do the same thing in their position - if, as you assert, they can't ship OpenGL 2.0 until it's fully ratified.
I'm not arguing that people shouldn't use shading languages. They're fantastic. They're the best thing ever to hit the PC graphics marketplace. It's unfortunate that a closed-source, non-free implementation is available before the open-source, free implementation. Companies can move faster than comittees. (Especially when the companies are on the comittees, too.) It's almost as though a bi-law of the OpenGL review board should be that memebers can not publish competing standards. (It's like a conflict of interests.) That would encourage them to play nice with eachother. I don't know, I'm just venting steam.
I have to throw words like "closed standard" around because this is a closed standard. As to throwing around "monopoly", the reason I do it is because nVidia could either play with the proposed open standard, or invent their own closed standard. I'm not saying that they're abusing their monopoly. I'm just saying that they're trying to establish one. There's nothing illegal about having a monopoly - it's illegal to abuse it. Everyone in their right mind wants their company to have a monopoly.
I disagree strongly with your assesment that they are taking "an extremely active role in the development of OpenGL 2.0." Based on that disagreement, you can imagine why I'm frustrated at their behavior. If you are correct, then I agree, they can potentially dramatically improve the OpenGL 2.0 standard. (And I hope they do!) When 2.0 is ratified, we'll see how quickly they come out with an implementation. I hope for everyone's sakes that they do it quickly, and that it's good.
You can ship a proposed standard. People do it all the time. C++ compilers come to mind.
If they're out to "kill Direct3D 9", I'm happy. Granted, they'd only be trying to "kill" the shader language part - but that's fine by me. I just hope, hope, hope, hope, hope that they don't kill OpenGL 2.0 before it's born.
I don't think I'm saying there are conspiracies. And I don't think my standpoint is "absurd." Maybe you disagree with my conclusions, and some of my assumptions - but do you honestly think I'm acting in an "absurd" manner? You think that I'm "manifesting the view that there is no order or value in human life or in the universe"? =)
Yes, I think Microsoft is happy that Cg supports OpenGL. Because I think you'll find that Cg works much better on DirectX than it does on OpenGL 1.4 (which, by the way, has not yet been ratified - which proves my side of the argument, not yours). That's just my guess, but it's what I think will happen. And I think that developers will tend to chose the platform that supports it better. (Other than Carmack, who always seems to chose the standard he thinks is better in the long run.) It's embrace and extend all over again.
Honestly, I wish there was only one shading language : RenderMan Shading Language. Not that it couldn't use some improving, but wouldn't it be cool if you could literally use the exact same code on every platform? Offline renderers, included?
I don't fault NVidia's marketing department, and I don't fault their technology guys. As far as NVidia is concerned, this is the best way to sell products in the best manner, right now.
It doesn't help the rest of the industry, though. I wish OpenGL 2.0 were already ratified. That's the problem with standards like that, though - they don't like to ratify them until the hardware exists to test out the theories on. Well, no hardware that's shipping today can support OpenGL 2.0. Chicken and the egg.
I just with NVidia were being more supportive of OpenGL 2.0. Because it's the better of the two standards, in respect to its effects on the industry as a whole.
Same way that I wish Microsoft had never developed DirectX. Sure, it has more features today, but in the long run OpenGL is a better alternative.
I find your points interesting.
What disturbs me though, is NVidia's behavior in the matter.
They could either push to ratify OpenGL 2.0 early, and do everything they can to help the process... Which helps the industry a lot, and helps them, too!
OR, they could create their own closed standard, not help OpenGL 2.0, do everything they can to hurt the process... Which helps them a lot, and makes their competitors in the industry license their technology...
*sigh*
I'd be a lot more comfortable if NVidia were saying things like, "and it provides for the direct and easy translation of Cg code into the proposed OpenGL 2.0 standard, so that code written today can be easily migrated to the OpenGL 2.0 standard, once it's ratified."
"Cg is only for shaders." What do you think OpenGL 2.0 is? Have you read the OpenGL 2.0 specs? It provides an exact competitor to the language that NVidia has proposed. Vertex and fragment shaders. It's the same thing, in two different ways - one open and free, one propietary.
I agree it might be possible to write code for the NVidia platform which can be redirected to the proposed standard of OpenGL 2.0. But in a year from now, I hope everyone's using OpenGL 2.0 instead of Cg.
Yes, you can make hardware support a proposed standard. How do you think hardware gets designed in the first place?
By the way - that's a silly argument - "don't make hardware until the standard exists," and "don't make the standard until hardware exists." I'm hearing both of those arguments at the same time in here, which is pretty amazing.
Don't be rude, dude.
Yes, I have read the article.
It does not have cross-platform support. It is not hardware independant. They say that other vendors will be able to support it, they don't say that it's a free or open standard.
Think about the compiler part of it, for a second. So what if the compiler supports multiple targets? Each compiled program will only be able to run on that one platform! Does that sound like OpenGL to you? Even if they allow a mechanism where the code can be targeted to multiple platforms in one executable, they're still making that decision at compile time. As opposed to at runtime, like OpenGL 2.0. That means that an executable today will be able to run on future hardware. Not true with Cg. Also, the compiler they talk about in Cg is an NVidia product. They're giving it away like free beer, not like free speach. In order for any given company to have Cg targeted to their platform, they'll need to go through NVidia to make it happen. Doesn't this scare you?
Other video card manufacturers can not write their own compilers. The intended method is for other manufacturers to provide new "profiles" (eg fp20, vp20, dx8vs, dx8ps) which will be integrated into the one and only Cg compiler, which NVidia controls.
That's how it locks people in to NVidia.
I'm not talking about ATI. I'm talking about 3dlabs, the people who created the OpenGL 2.0 standard.
I agree that it's to NVidia's advantage to release their hardware sooner rather than later, and that the OpenGL 2.0 standard won't be a standard for some time to come. But NVidia could put their weight behind it, or they could write their own thing. They chose to abandon OpenGL 2.0. Entirely. And they're hoping everyone else will, too.
The Cg language is different from the OpenGL 2.0 shader and vertex language. They're different, but they do the same thing, essentially. To rephrase your question, perhaps someone will be able to provide a translator from Cg to OpenGL 2.0 and vice-versa. Just as people have created a layer that makes DirectX work on top of OpenGL.
Is there really a question in your mind about whether OpenGL is a better standard that we can all live with than DirectX?
The possible objections are the fact that DirectX has more features than OpenGL. Well, that's why OpenGL 2.0 is a good thing.
Throwing Cg into the mix doesn't make OpenGL 2.0 any less of a good thing.
I'm pissed at NVidia for deciding to go with a closed standard, rather than an open standard. What else is new?