PDA

View Full Version : Troubling Question for OLEG about OpenGL and BOB



WC_Gumby
06-17-2006, 09:41 AM
~S~ everyone! I was reading in the Tom's Hardware website and came across an article about OpenGL worksatation graphics. Was a good article but the last paragraph worried me. Because PF and from what ive read the new BOB will be using OpenGL. It seems if we move to the new VISTA there may be some problems and performance HITS!

Here is a quote and a link.
"We are still very concerned about the future security of OpenGL products, in conjunction with the upcoming operating system Windows Vista. Microsoft made the political decision to no longer directly support the OpenGL interface - Vista only maps the OpenGL functions using a DirectX emulator, which could mean a considerable loss in performance. Moreover, the range of functions is restricted to OpenGL 1.4, while today's standard is already 2.0, and manufacturer-specific extensions will no longer be taken into account. Even if ATi and Nvidia were to kowtow to the pressure from Microsoft, it is not exactly useful to them unless the developers of professional applications play along."


Here is the link: http://www.tomshardware.com/2006/06/16/opengl_workstation_graphics/page13.html

Thoughts on this ?

WC_Gumby
06-17-2006, 09:41 AM
~S~ everyone! I was reading in the Tom's Hardware website and came across an article about OpenGL worksatation graphics. Was a good article but the last paragraph worried me. Because PF and from what ive read the new BOB will be using OpenGL. It seems if we move to the new VISTA there may be some problems and performance HITS!

Here is a quote and a link.
"We are still very concerned about the future security of OpenGL products, in conjunction with the upcoming operating system Windows Vista. Microsoft made the political decision to no longer directly support the OpenGL interface - Vista only maps the OpenGL functions using a DirectX emulator, which could mean a considerable loss in performance. Moreover, the range of functions is restricted to OpenGL 1.4, while today's standard is already 2.0, and manufacturer-specific extensions will no longer be taken into account. Even if ATi and Nvidia were to kowtow to the pressure from Microsoft, it is not exactly useful to them unless the developers of professional applications play along."


Here is the link: http://www.tomshardware.com/2006/06/16/opengl_workstation_graphics/page13.html

Thoughts on this ?

Capt.LoneRanger
06-17-2006, 09:50 AM
I really hope BoB will be built for D3D anyway, cause the range of effects and possibilities is a lot better than with OpenGL. Many of the DX9 elements we see in M$ FS9 (and X) are BASED on native DX effects that will cause a lot of work-arounds in OpenGL.

IvanoBulo
06-17-2006, 12:25 PM
Oleg, please stay with OpenGL and port BoB to Linux! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif Then those who will need better game performance will have to throw their resource-hungry Vista away. Beware - M$ has you! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif

lbhskier37
06-17-2006, 12:42 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Capt.LoneRanger:
I really hope BoB will be built for D3D anyway, cause the range of effects and possibilities is a lot better than with OpenGL. Many of the DX9 elements we see in M$ FS9 (and X) are BASED on native DX effects that will cause a lot of work-arounds in OpenGL. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Don't answer peoples question if you don't know what you are talking about. DX has no more effect possibilities than OpenGL, and in the famous words of Oleg, whatever book you read that in close it forever. Also Tom's hardware is about as reliable source of information at the national inquirer. OpenGL will work fine in Vista. The only time OpenGL will be limited is when you are running in windowed mode, in full screen mode OpenGL will run just as it does in XP. Don't spread rumors and bull that you don't know is true, this is how panic starts. How do you think Microsoft plans to sell Vista to workstation customers if OpenGL doesnt work? You think Pro/E, Maya, or any of those real programs uses DX garbage?

Capt.LoneRanger
06-17-2006, 01:13 PM
lbhskier37, you pro, Maya, Lightwave, 3D-StudioMAX, Poffray, Softimage, they all support DirectX. I agree, that most of them support OpenGL primarily, though, but because they support windowed progam usage, something that is not a natural environment for DirectX applications.

Besides that, I don't know, where you got your illusions from. Those professional programs are made for render-scenes, but not for ingame graphics. That are 2 completely different things.

A close friend of mine works in the gaming industry buisiness for 15 years, now, (DarkStar One has any meaning for you?) and he know's what he's talking about. The only real advantage OpenGL has, is that it is (was) supported by the old-fashioned 2D-graphics cards and those primarily built for professional usage. CAD-systems are still largely based on OpenGL, because it is a lot more basic to programm and those applications need no fency effects.

I suggest you do some research, before you post something like this. Thanks.

VW-IceFire
06-18-2006, 12:04 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WC_Gumby:
~S~ everyone! I was reading in the Tom's Hardware website and came across an article about OpenGL worksatation graphics. Was a good article but the last paragraph worried me. Because PF and from what ive read the new BOB will be using OpenGL. It seems if we move to the new VISTA there may be some problems and performance HITS!

Here is a quote and a link.
"We are still very concerned about the future security of OpenGL products, in conjunction with the upcoming operating system Windows Vista. Microsoft made the political decision to no longer directly support the OpenGL interface - Vista only maps the OpenGL functions using a DirectX emulator, which could mean a considerable loss in performance. Moreover, the range of functions is restricted to OpenGL 1.4, while today's standard is already 2.0, and manufacturer-specific extensions will no longer be taken into account. Even if ATi and Nvidia were to kowtow to the pressure from Microsoft, it is not exactly useful to them unless the developers of professional applications play along."


Here is the link: http://www.tomshardware.com/2006/06/16/opengl_workstation_graphics/page13.html

Thoughts on this ? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Discussed before in another thread on this forum and around the internet anywhere that you find OpenGL games. Not going to be a huge issue when Vista is finished. As long as the driver vendor (i.e. ATI or nVidia) provide the drivers there will be no issues specifically regarding this point.

WWMaxGunz
06-19-2006, 04:43 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WC_Gumby:
-snip-

Microsoft made the political decision to no longer directly support the OpenGL interface - Vista only maps the OpenGL functions using a DirectX emulator, which could mean a considerable loss in performance.

-snip-

Thoughts on this ? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

So the gap between M$ computers and the others widens. Some people don't want all computers to
be compatible, code to transport well or any of that 'we don't own you' zttitude towards customers.

HellToupee
06-19-2006, 11:42 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Capt.LoneRanger:
lbhskier37, you pro, Maya, Lightwave, 3D-StudioMAX, Poffray, Softimage, they all support DirectX. I agree, that most of them support OpenGL primarily, though, but because they support windowed progam usage, something that is not a natural environment for DirectX applications.

Besides that, I don't know, where you got your illusions from. Those professional programs are made for render-scenes, but not for ingame graphics. That are 2 completely different things.

A close friend of mine works in the gaming industry buisiness for 15 years, now, (DarkStar One has any meaning for you?) and he know's what he's talking about. The only real advantage OpenGL has, is that it is (was) supported by the old-fashioned 2D-graphics cards and those primarily built for professional usage. CAD-systems are still largely based on OpenGL, because it is a lot more basic to programm and those applications need no fency effects.

I suggest you do some research, before you post something like this. Thanks. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Open gl is every bit as capable as D3D hell often it is ahead because vendors can add their own open gl extensions where as d3d must wait for m$ to update it.

What do you think all non microsoft platforms use eg consoles like playstatation use they dont use direct x they use open gl. Upcomming games eg unreal tournament 2007 will support open gl as well, and for some reason ID makers behind the doom 3 engine used in upcomming games as prey and quake wars is also Open gl and not direct x.

If a game looks better its because of the art work, not the api used for graphics.

Capt.LoneRanger
06-20-2006, 02:23 AM
The reason for these arguments is easy, Helltoupee:

1. OpenGL-Games
OpenGL is the native graphics-system for Macs, professional hardware and Linux/Unix-based systems (in other words: It's OS independent). That means, if you want to programm a game for as many as possible systems, but won't afford the extra programming needed to port them from D3D to other systems, you'll simply program it in OpenGL, which all systems can use.
This comes at the cost of graphics and effect quality. The games you named are perfect examples for my point: If you ever compared UT2004 pictures from OpenGL and D3D, you'd never say the rendering methods are close to equal. Same is for the Quake-Series. Surely the rendering of light and shadow are really good, but if you take a look at the weak points, for example texturing, multitexturing, bumpmapping, etc. you'll see where the downside of the OpenGL-structure lies.

2. PS1/2/3
The reason why PS uses OpenGL is not because of the high quality of OpenGL, but because of the fact that XBox is a direct competition to the PS and M$. As a cofounder of the OpenGL-System, M$ only allowed OpenGL to be used for the PS, with the cost of the usuall features. Upgradeable OpenGL-structure is nice, but cannot extend the usuall features by much - it simply gives the chance for work-arounds. The system is still limited and staying with your example, the biggest down for the PS against the XBox is the lack of graphical features, especially multi-texturing, glossy surfaces, environment mapping (used for reflection and water surfaces) and mirrors, which are only possibly by complex work-arounds in OpenGL.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif

Codex1971
06-20-2006, 06:05 AM
OpenGL may not run as fast as DX10 will as OpenGL will not be supported natively by M$ after v1.4

OpenGL v2.0 will only work if you have installed a vendor ICD (Driver).

When an OpenGL app runs the app will first need to query DX10, and will select the fastest method of execution in the following manner:

1. ICD's (Fastest)
2. DX wrapped (Fast)
3. Software (Slowest)

If the app needs OpenGL v2.0, and you don't have an ICD installed, then Vista will only impliment the OpenGL calls via software. To get OpenGL 2.0 to have full access to your PC's hardware you'll need that ICD.

BUT here's the wammy...any OpenGL app that runs under VISTA will NOT have all the new VDDM optimizations that DX10 will have, i.e. virtualized memory, the new geometry shader (aka GS) and the shutting down of unnecessary background processes. This may put OpenGL under Vista at a disadvantage. (Yes, I know, OpenGL 2.0 has GS too but DX10 will do it quicker because of the VDDM optimizations.)

The one thing people forget is that M$ has always wanted to get rid of OpenGL...it's hates anything open source...and legally M$ does not have to support OpenGL if it didn't want to.

VISTA is the first M$ OS to limit support for OpenGL.

lbhskier37
06-20-2006, 08:14 AM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Codex1971:


OpenGL v2.0 will only work if you have installed a vendor ICD (Driver).



1. ICD's (Fastest)
2. DX wrapped (Fast)
3. Software (Slowest)

QUOTE]


So what exactly is the difference between OpenGL on Vista and OpenGL on XP? To get the best performance you need to use a vendor driver for your video card? How is that different from today? Is the sky falling? I'm sure Microsoft would love to kill OpenGL, but they aren't stupid and they know killing it in Vista would kill the sales of Vista. They haven't had a new OS to sell for like 4 years and I am sure they want everyone to buy Vista. How is this unlike Java? XP doesn't natively support JVM, does Java still work on XP?

triad773
06-20-2006, 09:15 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by IvanoBulo:
Oleg, please stay with OpenGL and port BoB to Linux! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif Then those who will need better game performance will have to throw their resource-hungry Vista away. Beware - M$ has you! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

WOW- Linux: now that would be opening it up to a more international crowd; especially when WinDohs Vista will have to go thru its teething pains http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

~S~

triad773
06-20-2006, 09:36 AM
And Linux is ALREADY 64 bit so anyone running an AMD 64 is already there.

Codex1971
06-21-2006, 06:51 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">So what exactly is the difference between OpenGL on Vista and OpenGL on XP? To get the best performance you need to use a vendor driver for your video card? How is that different from today? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No different...

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Is the sky falling? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I hope not...

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I'm sure Microsoft would love to kill OpenGL, but they aren't stupid and they know killing it in Vista would kill the sales of Vista. They haven't had a new OS to sell for like 4 years and I am sure they want everyone to buy Vista. How is this unlike Java? XP doesn't natively support JVM, does Java still work on XP? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes M$ isn't stupid, they didn't become most widely used OS in the world today by accident... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

...the whole point I'm trying to make is that OpenGL will now take 2nd place in terms of hardware access, DX10 will enjoy more of the hardware than GL will. There are particular hardware optimizations that are going to take place when a DX10 app runs, an GL app will get very little, direct access to your graphics card at best.

Basically when you run a DX10 app, VISTA is going to turn your machine into a Xbox360..."pffft xbox360" I hear you s******...yes you may laugh, but a the Xbox360 can keep up with a current mid to high end PC system and does it with less powerful components (other than the CPU which beats anything a PC has atm). A lot of the xbox360's optimizations will be implimented in VISTA and only DX10 apps will get to play with them.

BTW the XBox360 specs here (http://news.com.com/Xbox+specs+revealed/2100-1043_3-5705372.html) . Take note of the 360's CPU

HellToupee
06-21-2006, 12:31 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Capt.LoneRanger:
The reason for these arguments is easy, Helltoupee:

1. OpenGL-Games
OpenGL is the native graphics-system for Macs, professional hardware and Linux/Unix-based systems (in other words: It's OS independent). That means, if you want to programm a game for as many as possible systems, but won't afford the extra programming needed to port them from D3D to other systems, you'll simply program it in OpenGL, which all systems can use.
This comes at the cost of graphics and effect quality. The games you named are perfect examples for my point: If you ever compared UT2004 pictures from OpenGL and D3D, you'd never say the rendering methods are close to equal. Same is for the Quake-Series. Surely the rendering of light and shadow are really good, but if you take a look at the weak points, for example texturing, multitexturing, bumpmapping, etc. you'll see where the downside of the OpenGL-structure lies.

2. PS1/2/3
The reason why PS uses OpenGL is not because of the high quality of OpenGL, but because of the fact that XBox is a direct competition to the PS and M$. As a cofounder of the OpenGL-System, M$ only allowed OpenGL to be used for the PS, with the cost of the usuall features. Upgradeable OpenGL-structure is nice, but cannot extend the usuall features by much - it simply gives the chance for work-arounds. The system is still limited and staying with your example, the biggest down for the PS against the XBox is the lack of graphical features, especially multi-texturing, glossy surfaces, environment mapping (used for reflection and water surfaces) and mirrors, which are only possibly by complex work-arounds in OpenGL.


http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Complex work arounds in open gl? perhaps you have never heard of GLSL. The differnce in graphics between xbox and ps2 is down to hardware not api.

What the hell is a work around anyway? do you even know? The weak points you mention do you even know what is weak of even why?