Re:You'll need more to bring about OpenGL support.
on
Doom3 and OpenGL2.0
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
Two things: 1) Its Doom 3. It is guaranteed to sell like crazy, whether its good or not. If you're card doesn't run Doom 3 well, you might was well just not release it.
2) ID licenses the engines. Doom 3 will be *the* engine to have over the next year or two. If you're hardware can't run all those games (definately more than a dozen) again, don't even bother releasing it.
Actually, I am in need of a laptop to replace my desktop machine. I'm trying to figure out how to stuff Dual Athlons, a GeForce-4, and a RAID array into a laptop. Doesn't seem to be working;) I can afford a high-end laptop or a high-end desktop, but not both. I'd like to get a laptop because its portable. Even a heavy one can easily be moved from room to room, or building to building, which is what I need, rather than ultra-portability on planes and whatnot. So in my case, your hypothetical latpop would be perfect!
Actually, the don't have any right to limit what you can do with the hardware you bought. If they sold it to you for a loss, stupid them. The hardware itself is completely yours to do with as you please. What MS is using, and what companies who invoke legal action for hacking systems generally use, is the fact that in some part of the hacked system, MS-developed software is being used. In the case of this, its the code in the XDK. Since software isn't bought in the traditional sense, but instead licensed, they have a hook to stick it to you legally. Companies can use BIOS code in a similar manner. What we need now is somebody to make a clone of the XDK software (maybe using stuff from WINE...) so resulting binaries are "clean." That would stick it to them!
3: From PERSONAL experience, Matrox has traditionally supplied the most stable drivers with the most features RIGHT OUT OF THE BOX!!! You can go pull an old G400 card off the shelf of some store room, plug it in, install the drivers and it'll be as stable as if you went and downloaded their latest (Obviously you'd have to to get support for the newer OS's but the point is valid) >>>>>>>>> Like the abysmal OpenGL drivers in the G200 era?
The problem is that C# is a fully-VM language, and neither is Java. Both (C# more so than most Java VMs) compile to native code as the program runs and caches the native code. After awhile, all the performance critical paths (ie. the ones that are called more than once) are running directly on the hardware. The speedup you see with C++ is not so much the performance hit of running on the VM, but the hit due to less mature optimizers in the C# compilers and the overhead of various saftey features in C$. These fancy-smancy new languages are nice, but I think the real reason they're so popular is the great class libraries supporting them. If C++ had nearly as nice and unified a set of class libraries, it would have a significant advantage over Java and C#. C++ is a far more powerful language. It doesn't force the programmer to a particular way of doing things. As I was learning Java, I kept coming across statements that to the effect of "feature X could be misused by the programmer, so we chose to leave it out." I'm not five years old, and don't like being treated like one.
Does anybody else wish bad mojo on the guy who decided to give Pango yet another font configuration system? I mean I just got a hang of dealing with the standard X11, Xft, and ghostscript font configs, and now somebody introduces another one with Pango? Does the clue train just not make stops in GTK-land anymore?
It's really not that complicated. Most distros don't ship with XFS turned on anymore, since XF 4.x subsumes most of what it did. Freetype is installed by default in all XF 4.x systems, so that's in there. Basically, all you need is to make sure Xft is there, that you're using GTK+ 2.0 or Qt 2.0+ and hit the little checkbox in the control panel.
Too bad it doesn't work properly. For a long time, I ran my monitor at 1152x864 @ 85Hz. XFree 4.x ran 1152x864 at 75Hz instead, which drove me insane (flickering). I ended up booting into BeOS, manually setting 1152x864 @ 85Hz, and copying the modelines over to XF86Config. When I moved up to 1280x1024, I panicked because I had deleted BeOS from my system. As I expected, the default 'nv' driver only wanted to run at 75Hz. Luckily, NVIDIA's driver booted up in the correct 85Hz mode.
If you're a web developer trying to see how your pages look at different resolutions? If you're an app developer trying to see if your app works at 640x480? Geez, you X people are such neanderthals. I've been running Linux as my main desktop for a while now, but sometimes I still miss stuff like having 8 different viewports with 8 different resolutions and color depths like I did in BeOS. Hmm. Maybe the lack of on-the-fly resize is why the new GTK+/KDE widgets take up far too much desktop space on anything less than the 2048x1536 21" screens I'm sure all the KDE artist-types have...
That's a lot of assumptions to make. I guess we will have to see what NVIDIA does. However, the article did point out explicitly that NVIDIA intended to keep parts of the compiler open and allow other vendors to write customized backends optimizing for their hardware. The main issue here is that NVIDIA has almost zero control over what Cg has the capability to do. Cg has to map fairly strictly the underlying capabilities of the DirectX and OpenGL shader languages. If it doesn't, NVIDIA risks producing a language which nobody will use. In addition, NVIDIA has been pretty good to the community in the past. They've release a lot of their programming tools for free, they've made drivers for Linux, and they were instrumental (with the Riva TNT-1, back in the day of Glide and MiniGL drivers) in getting full OpenGL ICDs onto consumer level platforms. So I would give them the benifet of the doubt and see what they do before expecting the worst...
I'm impressed. This is the second time this has been posted on/., and people are STILL clueless about what Cg is! Incredible!
Cluestick: Cg is not a language like C/C++. It is not an API like OpenGL/DirectX. Instead, it is a simple, high-level replacement for the assembly language traditionally used to program pixel and vertex shader units on graphics cards. These programs are typically a few dozen instructions long and basically map a small set of inputs to a small set of outputs. So you could write a program to rotate a vertex around a point in Cg, but not something like Quake...
Its interesting the top two grips (no break and no pointers) are totally irrelevent to shaders. We're not talking generic vector processors here, but specifically vertex and pixel shaders. Current shaders don't do conditionals, and they don't process sections of a scene. They get a few floats as input (vertex coordinates and normals) and produce a few numbers as output.
How true. I think they should just formally introduce the semicolon as the method of seperating statements in math problems. Makes life so simple. Besides, if Perl does it, it must be right!
Since when is criticizing apartheid anything like criticizing a movie company? Since when has our society become so soft that watching TV and movies is somehow a necessity of life? People paid taxes to aparteid government because otherwise they'd go to jail. People operated within communist governments because otherwise they'd go to jail (or worse). Not watching TV or movies simply means you might (gasp!) have to read a book once in a while. Besides, you took the comment out of context. The original poster was criticizing ILM for working for the "evil" movie companies. I pointed out, that by watching movies and TV, he was in no position to criticize ILM for working for Sony and Universal. Under your logic, ILM is in a better position than the original poster. Making special effects it their livelihood, how they earn money to survive. If they have to do it in cooperation with the "evil" movie companies, then that's what they have to do. The poster, on the other hand, watches movies merely for entertainment. For him to pay the "evil" movie comapnies is ideologically unsupportable, because he is entirely free to not watch without undue trauma to himself.
I'm not claiming that the shader language for OpenGL 2.0 is not important. But it is still a relatively small part of a much bigger overhaul. They key idea in OpenGL 2.0 is that GPUs should be programmable. What language is used to do it is really not relevent, since it will all get compiled down to GPU-specific code anyway. As for how you feel about multiple languages, you're entitled to your opinion. But I'd argue that you're in the minority on this point. Most people feel that choice in languages is a good thing. The fact that there are many active, popular languages today (C++, C, Perl, Java) is an indication that the market is large enough for multiple choices. As long as Cg is relatively open (ie: anyone can write back-end compilers for it) then I don't see the harm in it existing alongside OpenGL 2.0. And remember, while people might not like proprietory APIs like Direct3D, they have ultimately helped OpenGL in the end. I'd venture that if it wasn't for DirectX 7.0 and up being really good, there would not have been a push for OpenGL 2.0 to even exist. The sole fact that Microsoft and NVIDIA are pushing the limits of consumer 3D hardware is forcing OpenGL to become better instead of simply stagnating as it was previously.
This isn't game programming. Its very low-level, per pixel stuff. A sample pixel shader program (multitexturing) , written in BFSL (be-fan shader language):
The programs are extremely simple, with a few inputs, one output, and a few dozen instructions. More of a function than a program, really. These programs in no way replace any game logic. They just transform the vertex and pixel values passed to the graphics card.
Try reading the article. OpenGL 2.0 is the next version of OpenGL. Most of it is about making OpenGL object-oriented, programmble, etc. One small part of it is a high-level shader language. Cg is another high level shader language. Both can be compiled to any particular hardware. An analogy is C and Pascal. Both ultimately compile down to x86 or MIPS or whatever, so they're actually not competing with each other or replacing each other.
Are you on crack? You can't compare Ogre to OpenGL, or DirectX. All game engines have a scene graph in them, usually coded on top of the native 3D API (OpenGL, DirectX). What Ogre does is to allow game developers to use Ogre as the graphics engine for their game, and save themselves the trouble of actually writing it (which can be one of the most difficult portions of writing a game engine). Where do you get off claiming that "they don't do enough of the job to justify the trouble." Have you written something using Ogre?
Actually, artists or on the other side of the visuals vs. gameplay debate. Good artistry is not the same thing as good graphics. Good artistry is about taking whatever the capabilities of the engine and hardware is and making something asthetically pleasing to the user. On the other hand, a lot of games today are just how many particles the engine can throw onscreen at 60fps.
True, but the Athlon 4 mobile core is 128 square mm, significantly bigger than the Clawhammer. Also, they managed to fit a Pentium 4 into a laptop, so a clawhammer chip should be a cinch!
Actually, its terribly useful to the OS to have a large address space. With the super-limited 1GB address space Linux gets on a x86 system, it has to keep remapping physical memory > 1GB into an address window. 64 bit addresses would allow the kernel to just keep everything mapped all the time. Also, there are a lot of cool MM tricks you can do when you've got such a large address space. Of course, there's the most important arguement: memory is freaking dirt cheap these days. You can get 4GB of memory for $500 now.
Slashdot Mirror
Two things:
1) Its Doom 3. It is guaranteed to sell like crazy, whether its good or not. If you're card doesn't run Doom 3 well, you might was well just not release it.
2) ID licenses the engines. Doom 3 will be *the* engine to have over the next year or two. If you're hardware can't run all those games (definately more than a dozen) again, don't even bother releasing it.
Actually, I am in need of a laptop to replace my desktop machine. I'm trying to figure out how to stuff Dual Athlons, a GeForce-4, and a RAID array into a laptop. Doesn't seem to be working ;) I can afford a high-end laptop or a high-end desktop, but not both. I'd like to get a laptop because its portable. Even a heavy one can easily be moved from room to room, or building to building, which is what I need, rather than ultra-portability on planes and whatnot. So in my case, your hypothetical latpop would be perfect!
Actually, the don't have any right to limit what you can do with the hardware you bought. If they sold it to you for a loss, stupid them. The hardware itself is completely yours to do with as you please. What MS is using, and what companies who invoke legal action for hacking systems generally use, is the fact that in some part of the hacked system, MS-developed software is being used. In the case of this, its the code in the XDK. Since software isn't bought in the traditional sense, but instead licensed, they have a hook to stick it to you legally. Companies can use BIOS code in a similar manner. What we need now is somebody to make a clone of the XDK software (maybe using stuff from WINE...) so resulting binaries are "clean." That would stick it to them!
3: From PERSONAL experience, Matrox has traditionally supplied the most stable drivers with the most features RIGHT OUT OF THE BOX!!! You can go pull an old G400 card off the shelf of some store room, plug it in, install the drivers and it'll be as stable as if you went and downloaded their latest (Obviously you'd have to to get support for the newer OS's but the point is valid)
>>>>>>>>>
Like the abysmal OpenGL drivers in the G200 era?
The problem is that C# is a fully-VM language, and neither is Java. Both (C# more so than most Java VMs) compile to native code as the program runs and caches the native code. After awhile, all the performance critical paths (ie. the ones that are called more than once) are running directly on the hardware. The speedup you see with C++ is not so much the performance hit of running on the VM, but the hit due to less mature optimizers in the C# compilers and the overhead of various saftey features in C$. These fancy-smancy new languages are nice, but I think the real reason they're so popular is the great class libraries supporting them. If C++ had nearly as nice and unified a set of class libraries, it would have a significant advantage over Java and C#. C++ is a far more powerful language. It doesn't force the programmer to a particular way of doing things. As I was learning Java, I kept coming across statements that to the effect of "feature X could be misused by the programmer, so we chose to leave it out." I'm not five years old, and don't like being treated like one.
Does anybody else wish bad mojo on the guy who decided to give Pango yet another font configuration system? I mean I just got a hang of dealing with the standard X11, Xft, and ghostscript font configs, and now somebody introduces another one with Pango? Does the clue train just not make stops in GTK-land anymore?
It's really not that complicated. Most distros don't ship with XFS turned on anymore, since XF 4.x subsumes most of what it did. Freetype is installed by default in all XF 4.x systems, so that's in there. Basically, all you need is to make sure Xft is there, that you're using GTK+ 2.0 or Qt 2.0+ and hit the little checkbox in the control panel.
Too bad it doesn't work properly. For a long time, I ran my monitor at 1152x864 @ 85Hz. XFree 4.x ran 1152x864 at 75Hz instead, which drove me insane (flickering). I ended up booting into BeOS, manually setting 1152x864 @ 85Hz, and copying the modelines over to XF86Config. When I moved up to 1280x1024, I panicked because I had deleted BeOS from my system. As I expected, the default 'nv' driver only wanted to run at 75Hz. Luckily, NVIDIA's driver booted up in the correct 85Hz mode.
If you're a web developer trying to see how your pages look at different resolutions? If you're an app developer trying to see if your app works at 640x480? Geez, you X people are such neanderthals. I've been running Linux as my main desktop for a while now, but sometimes I still miss stuff like having 8 different viewports with 8 different resolutions and color depths like I did in BeOS. Hmm. Maybe the lack of on-the-fly resize is why the new GTK+/KDE widgets take up far too much desktop space on anything less than the 2048x1536 21" screens I'm sure all the KDE artist-types have...
That's a lot of assumptions to make. I guess we will have to see what NVIDIA does. However, the article did point out explicitly that NVIDIA intended to keep parts of the compiler open and allow other vendors to write customized backends optimizing for their hardware. The main issue here is that NVIDIA has almost zero control over what Cg has the capability to do. Cg has to map fairly strictly the underlying capabilities of the DirectX and OpenGL shader languages. If it doesn't, NVIDIA risks producing a language which nobody will use. In addition, NVIDIA has been pretty good to the community in the past. They've release a lot of their programming tools for free, they've made drivers for Linux, and they were instrumental (with the Riva TNT-1, back in the day of Glide and MiniGL drivers) in getting full OpenGL ICDs onto consumer level platforms. So I would give them the benifet of the doubt and see what they do before expecting the worst...
I'm impressed. This is the second time this has been posted on /., and people are STILL clueless about what Cg is! Incredible!
Cluestick: Cg is not a language like C/C++. It is not an API like OpenGL/DirectX. Instead, it is a simple, high-level replacement for the assembly language traditionally used to program pixel and vertex shader units on graphics cards. These programs are typically a few dozen instructions long and basically map a small set of inputs to a small set of outputs. So you could write a program to rotate a vertex around a point in Cg, but not something like Quake...
Its interesting the top two grips (no break and no pointers) are totally irrelevent to shaders. We're not talking generic vector processors here, but specifically vertex and pixel shaders. Current shaders don't do conditionals, and they don't process sections of a scene. They get a few floats as input (vertex coordinates and normals) and produce a few numbers as output.
How true. I think they should just formally introduce the semicolon as the method of seperating statements in math problems. Makes life so simple. Besides, if Perl does it, it must be right!
Since when is criticizing apartheid anything like criticizing a movie company? Since when has our society become so soft that watching TV and movies is somehow a necessity of life? People paid taxes to aparteid government because otherwise they'd go to jail. People operated within communist governments because otherwise they'd go to jail (or worse). Not watching TV or movies simply means you might (gasp!) have to read a book once in a while. Besides, you took the comment out of context. The original poster was criticizing ILM for working for the "evil" movie companies. I pointed out, that by watching movies and TV, he was in no position to criticize ILM for working for Sony and Universal. Under your logic, ILM is in a better position than the original poster. Making special effects it their livelihood, how they earn money to survive. If they have to do it in cooperation with the "evil" movie companies, then that's what they have to do. The poster, on the other hand, watches movies merely for entertainment. For him to pay the "evil" movie comapnies is ideologically unsupportable, because he is entirely free to not watch without undue trauma to himself.
I'm not claiming that the shader language for OpenGL 2.0 is not important. But it is still a relatively small part of a much bigger overhaul. They key idea in OpenGL 2.0 is that GPUs should be programmable. What language is used to do it is really not relevent, since it will all get compiled down to GPU-specific code anyway. As for how you feel about multiple languages, you're entitled to your opinion. But I'd argue that you're in the minority on this point. Most people feel that choice in languages is a good thing. The fact that there are many active, popular languages today (C++, C, Perl, Java) is an indication that the market is large enough for multiple choices. As long as Cg is relatively open (ie: anyone can write back-end compilers for it) then I don't see the harm in it existing alongside OpenGL 2.0. And remember, while people might not like proprietory APIs like Direct3D, they have ultimately helped OpenGL in the end. I'd venture that if it wasn't for DirectX 7.0 and up being really good, there would not have been a push for OpenGL 2.0 to even exist. The sole fact that Microsoft and NVIDIA are pushing the limits of consumer 3D hardware is forcing OpenGL to become better instead of simply stagnating as it was previously.
This isn't game programming. Its very low-level, per pixel stuff. A sample pixel shader program (multitexturing) , written in BFSL (be-fan shader language):
temp0=READ texture1[x, y];
temp1=READ texture2[x, y];
output=BLEND temp0, temp1;
The programs are extremely simple, with a few inputs, one output, and a few dozen instructions. More of a function than a program, really. These programs in no way replace any game logic. They just transform the vertex and pixel values passed to the graphics card.
Try reading the article. OpenGL 2.0 is the next version of OpenGL. Most of it is about making OpenGL object-oriented, programmble, etc. One small part of it is a high-level shader language. Cg is another high level shader language. Both can be compiled to any particular hardware. An analogy is C and Pascal. Both ultimately compile down to x86 or MIPS or whatever, so they're actually not competing with each other or replacing each other.
Now my PC133 RAM is *really* obsolete. It can't even handle an ethernet connection!
Who cares? I just want to know which distro is Natalie Portman...
Do you watch movies by any chance? Or TV? If so, then shut up, because you're helping to fund these guys...
Are you on crack? You can't compare Ogre to OpenGL, or DirectX. All game engines have a scene graph in them, usually coded on top of the native 3D API (OpenGL, DirectX). What Ogre does is to allow game developers to use Ogre as the graphics engine for their game, and save themselves the trouble of actually writing it (which can be one of the most difficult portions of writing a game engine). Where do you get off claiming that "they don't do enough of the job to justify the trouble." Have you written something using Ogre?
Actually, artists or on the other side of the visuals vs. gameplay debate. Good artistry is not the same thing as good graphics. Good artistry is about taking whatever the capabilities of the engine and hardware is and making something asthetically pleasing to the user. On the other hand, a lot of games today are just how many particles the engine can throw onscreen at 60fps.
True, but the Athlon 4 mobile core is 128 square mm, significantly bigger than the Clawhammer. Also, they managed to fit a Pentium 4 into a laptop, so a clawhammer chip should be a cinch!
Actually, its terribly useful to the OS to have a large address space. With the super-limited 1GB address space Linux gets on a x86 system, it has to keep remapping physical memory > 1GB into an address window. 64 bit addresses would allow the kernel to just keep everything mapped all the time. Also, there are a lot of cool MM tricks you can do when you've got such a large address space. Of course, there's the most important arguement: memory is freaking dirt cheap these days. You can get 4GB of memory for $500 now.
Actually, since PCI multiplexes data and address lines, 64-bit data path == 64-bit address path. More info here.