OpenGL Trying to save its a$$
BlitzMax Forums/OpenGL Module/OpenGL Trying to save its a$$
| ||
| Isnt this a little humerious: http://www.opengl.org/discussion_boards/cgi_directory/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=12;t=000001 |
| ||
 |
| ||
| As if the vendors would care, all they want is mo $$ |
| ||
| Most high end 3D apps run faster in D3D now, and none of them support GL shaders in viewports, whilst almost all of them support DX9 pixel and vertex shaders in viewports. GL need to sort themselves out and be faster at agreeing on and implementing new features. XSI, Maya and 3DS Max all seem to be focusing on D3D these days. |
| ||
| Maybe they should do a real, and sue MS for $780,000,000 probably the only thing realnetworks did that ever worked. |
| ||
| Yeah OpenGL sort of always has been the indie / get-you-started API in my opinion. Its powerful, but lacking. |
| ||
| Its almost naive thinking that we can sway Microsoft into making OpenGL a viable option when they have their own competing API. its the way of the future since Microsoft owns most of us. |
| ||
| Still using OpenGL only here. :-) There is no DirectX on the mac or linux. |
| ||
| The entire tv and film industry is built around opengl applications and this is set to continue. Financially, DX is for the little peoples market. OGL isn't going anywhere. I personally wish that DX was everywhere but until DX appears on IRIX/LINUX/MAC, then DX will be the domain of small time stuff like windows, xbox and games. Don't think DX is big - cos it isn't... at least not compared to tv and film industries, which are entirely OGL powered. |
| ||
| I personally wish that DX was everywhere but until DX appears on IRIX/LINUX/MAC, then DX will be the domain of small time stuff like windows, xbox and games. Interesting definition of 'small time', since that covers the vast majority of systems out there. |
| ||
| It actually doesn't cover the vast majority of money making systems out there. |
| ||
| I would like to see the facts for those claims though :) |
| ||
| I work in the Sim industry and One Eyed Jack is correct. OGL is the core rendering system - on IRIX, and on PC there is only one choice for multi channel viewing and thats Performer which is OGL based. There isnt a DX option here. And in mil sim, and most other science level CG, OGL is the only choice due to the capabilities of the toolsets. DX doesnt offer any solutions for these developers, and so OGL will remain the science and sim CG API. Regardless of the desktop market. |
| ||
| I like your sig, Grover.. :) |
| ||
| Welcome to the forums, Dave. About time you showed up. =] |
| ||
| quote: XSI, Maya and 3DS Max all seem to be focusing on D3D these days. yet by default all these programs use OpenGL...I dont understand the comment?. Also all professional hardware that supports these modelling packages uses OpenGL. |
| ||
| I think cross-platform development is going to become more important, meaning OpenGL will be the only 3D API available for such projects. OSX for Intel is not so far away and I really believe it stands a chance of winning a lot of market share away from Microsoft. If that happens, it wil create a lot of demand for OSX games and apps. A developer's obvious choice for a 3D API will be OpenGL because they are always looking to server the widest possible audience. |
| ||
| I have a hard time believing MS is going to try to f*ck the 3D graphics industry like that. DirectX is a "toy" API. It's used in games, but not much else. The real power tools all use OpenGL, because they need something stable and lasting. Can you imagine the mess if Pixar tried to convert over to DirectX? It would cost them millions. The idea of using a Microsoft API in film production is kind of funny. There's a lot of powerful companies who would lose a lot of money if MS crippled OpenGL in their next OS, so this doesn't really add up. |
| ||
| There's a lot of powerful companies who would lose a lot of money if MS crippled OpenGL in their next OS, so this doesn't really add up. It would hardly be the first time that the next version of a microsoft operating system requires you to throw a bunch of extra hardware at it just for it to do exactly the same... The system requirements have been going up a lot faster than the productivity increases, that's for sure. |
| ||
| Yes. Look at it this way: in the 80's you had the Amiga. Now we are almost 25 years further, hardware performance x1000 (at least), network x1000, .... And what can we do more except more detailed gaming? Have I become ven 10 times more productive? And then people think that the software market is saturated. |
| ||
| hardware performance x1000 Hands up everyone here who has a 7Ghz CPU! |
| ||
| The reason for OpenGL is a different one: DX had a very crappy OO implementation till managed DirectX where OpenGL is plain procedural ... which is for scientific usage still the normal way to go (at least as long as C++ holds as standard). Vanilla: You can already have 10Ghz CPU at Apple (Quad 2,5Ghz G5), so we are really above that. Even Intel is next to it with their DualCores which only need 2 Cores to get next to the 7Ghz :-) Beside that he dsaid hardware performance not CPU. And the GPU become by far more powerfull than 1000x because on Amiga you did not have a graphic card by todays meanings at all. |
| ||
| Well, GPU is not all there is to hardware either =P. He even specifically mentioned gaming and moved the question to the 'what else has it all acheived' box. So that's why I didn't take that into consideration. I'm also fully aware that >7Ghz processors are out there, but that's hardly accessible to 'we', as rebellic referenced us, ie the vast majority. And I'm also under the impression that a dual core 3Ghz chip actually runs at 2x1.5Ghz, not 2x3Ghz... so sorry. I have to disagree =] |
| ||
| But you are wrong. A dualcore 3,2ghz runs at 2x 3,2ghz as any core is running at this speed. At least on the X86 side with Intel and AMD which have cores running on full speed. |
| ||
| Can you imagine the mess if Pixar tried to convert over to DirectX? It would cost them millions. The idea of using a Microsoft API in film production is kind of funny. There's a lot of powerful companies who would lose a lot of money if MS crippled OpenGL in their next OS, so this doesn't really add up. I'd also think that pixar wouldn't be running windows boxes at all as the CEO is Steve Jobs - also the CEO of macintosh.They probably wouldn't use macs for rendering though - probably for design. I imagine they have a large cluster of linux computers for a render farm. They could frankly care less about vista. As for vista, while ogl is nice, if managed directx goes cross platform its the way to go. The problem is having it go cross platform ^_^ - although System.Windows.Forms in .net is getting converted over to mac and linux, its very slow. And probably violates tons of patents. They probably wouldn't allow a port of managed dx. |
| ||
| Hmm. I must be thinking of Hyperthreading, then. |
| ||
| My Intel Pentium 4 3.0Ghz processor with HyperThreading seems in every way to me as fast as a 3.0Ghz processor would be expected to be, even when my task manager shows 50% CPU being used. Because the maximum of the "total" CPU a single-thread app can use is 50%, I would think that if my computer has the equivelant of two 1.5Ghz processors, I would notice my computer being slower than my old 1.7 GHz PC which ran video processing and other intensive tasks VERY SLOW. But that is not the case. A single thread app (which therefore only shows up as using 50% CPU) runs extremely fast on my computer, and I am quite happy with the speeds I am getting. Now this isn't proof that a HT processor does not have 2x times 1/2 the CPU rating, but as far as I'm concerned, it runs just as well as two 3.0 GHz processors. Even then, I'm not sure Intel would be allowed to quote their processors at 3.0 Ghz when the core clock is really running at 1.5 Ghz. |
| ||
| Hyperthreading just means your seemingly normal 3.2GHz CPU has the ability to process more threads per pass. Its effectivly increases your performance by around 50% *theoretically* compared to the same CPU without hyperthreading. AMD doesn't have hyperthreading but they use other methods to keep their CPU's within a few FLOP's of Intel. |
| ||
| Dual core is theoretically about twice as good as hyperthreading. =] Or is that 4 times... |
| ||
| Hands up everyone here who has a 7Ghz CPU! Performance should never be measured in clock speed, as clock speed is pretty much the worst way to compare chips of a completely different architecture. At the most basic level, Amigas were 16 bit, so compared to a 64 bit cpu, you can already knock your 7ghz down to 1.75 ;) |
| ||
| Who knows? Maybe Microsoft will make DX open-source some day so that it can be available on every platform... ROFL LMAO Ok, maybe not. Russell |
| ||
| Hyperthreading is nowhere near as good as dual core, and AMD cpu's are now faster than intels. |
| ||
| Vanilla: You can already have 10Ghz CPU at Apple (Quad 2,5Ghz G5), so we are really above that. Even Intel is next to it with their DualCores which only need 2 Cores to get next to the 7Ghz :-) If you're talking about the figure, the MHZ: Four 2.5ghz processors right? they're running on.... 2.5ghz clocks. Four 2.5ghz processors still run at 2.5ghz. adding a new processor doesnt add more clock speed. It also doesnt add an async clock running with the original. You remain with one clock. 2.5ghz. So what you acually have is a 2.5ghz computer still, not 10ghz. :P As Gabriel said: Performance should never be measured in clock speed, [edit] Whoops, Old thread! Sorry- seeing people refer to dual processors as double the speed in MHZ is a pet peeve of mine! :P |
| ||
| Well, so long as you run more than one process at a time (ie any OS anywhere) the benefits are comparable. |
   |