PSX5Central
Playstation/Gaming Discussions => Gaming Discussion => Topic started by: pstwo on June 13, 2002, 11:15:28 PM
-
:D
http://www.nvidia.com/view.asp?IO=IO_20020612_6650
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
SANTA CLARA, CA — JUNE 13, 2002 — NVIDIA® Corporation (Nasdaq: NVDA), the worldwide leader in visual processing solutions, today introduced the NVIDIA Cg Compiler for the new industry standard Cg graphics programming language. The Cg Language (C for graphics) is a high-level graphics programming language, also announced today, that provides content developers with a complete programming environment to ease and speed the creation of special effects and real-time cinematic quality experiences. The NVIDIA Cg Compiler is a breakthrough technology that generates optimized graphics assembly programs for dramatic real-time visual effects.
“We are entering a brave new world of graphics software development,” said Peter Glaskowsky, editor-in-chief of the Microprocessor Report, In-Stat MDR. “The announcement of Cg signals a revolution in computer graphics—and for the first time in years, we can say this without exaggerating.”
The NVIDIA Cg Compiler is the heart of the NVIDIA Cg programming environment. Programs written for a standard DirectX® 8- or DirectX 9-compatible Graphics Processing Unit (GPU) can be compiled and run on any conforming hardware. The resulting program is a highly efficient vertex or pixel shader achieving performance levels equal to or better than hand-coded graphics programs. NVIDIA’s Cg Compiler was designed to take full advantage of NVIDIA’s GPU features and pipeline, ensuring optimal performance and visual quality. In addition, NVIDIA’s Cg Compiler uniquely supports OpenGL®. Cg shaders written for OpenGL platforms are compiled and optimized to take full advantage of the extended graphics feature set in NVIDIA GPUs. NVIDIA’s Cg Compiler is also cross platform, supporting programs written for Windows®, OS X, Linux, Mac and Xbox®.
The most powerful feature of NVIDIA’s Cg Compiler is its forward and backward compatibility. Borrowing from NVIDIA’s famous Unified Driver Architecture (UDA), the NVIDIA Cg Compiler employs a Unified Compiler Architecture (UCA). Once written, programs will run on future or past generations of Cg-compatible GPUs and are automatically optimized at run-time for the GPU in the system. This unique capability relieves developers from the burden of optimizing for multiple generations of GPUs.
“By taking care of the painstaking work required to optimize special effects for today’s GPUs, Cg will make the developer’s life much easier,” said Dan Vivoli, vice president of marketing at NVIDIA. “Because we do the heavy lifting with our Cg Compiler, developers can spend more time on the creative side of game development. This begins a new era of dramatically compelling story telling.”
The NVIDIA Cg Toolkit Beta 1.0 will include:
NVIDIA Cg Compiler Beta 1.0—a C-like language for programming shaders on GPUs
NVIDIA Cg Browser—a prototyping/visualization environment with a large library of Cg shaders
Cg Standard Library—a set of built-in functions dedicated to help the programmer with common computations
Cg shaders—a set of pre-written examples to use and to learn from.
-
That is very intresting, and i can\'t wait to this in a real finshed game. But until then i am going to take this with a pinch of salt, as all these graphics guys do like to claim that they will be able to get graphics just like real life, and none of them seem to deliver on there promising.
They can talk the talk, but can they walk the walk?:D
-
yeah, and PS2 supports Linux
all of this dont mean squat if the devs dont take advantage of it
remember Glide?
-
Originally posted by mm
yeah, and PS2 supports Linux
all of this dont mean squat if the devs dont take advantage of it
remember Glide?
but PS2 is **** to develop for...remember?
if you are interested...http://forums.teamxbox.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=102439
hope you learn something...it\'s so interesing:)
-
Originally posted by BizioEE
but PS2 is **** to develop for...remember?
if you are interested...http://forums.teamxbox.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=102439
hope you learn something...it\'s so interesing:)
team x box....ive only heard bad things about them but to witness it in the flesh... its so wrong
from the screen scroll bar, to their signatures...
-
Oh yeah.. *excited*
Not.
-
Originally posted by Samwise
Oh yeah.. *excited*
Not.
Why not?
-
Originally posted by BizioEE
but PS2 is **** to develop for...remember?
if you are interested...http://forums.teamxbox.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=102439
hope you learn something...it\'s so interesing:)
:laughing: :laughing: :laughing:
TeamXbox.. So much credit! Really, the best technical site out there..
I mean, really its so damn good! Its the best source for info on PS2!
Now, what do they call PS2 over there? POS2, right? :rolleyes:
-
why bizio? i aleady said why
glide (API)
this is another technology that has mad potential, but noone to run with it, just like glide
and please refrain from posting links to TXB, i really dont want members to accidentily click them and be subjected to that filth
and the best part? nvidia might finally make the money that m$ doesnt wanna cough up from severe lack of sales
and i dont see why al the xbox zealots are jumping backwards over this. it only reconfirms that the xbox is a stripped down PC.
another thing, is m$ gonna abandon directX now? im REALLY curious how this will be implemented
-
Originally posted by BizioEE
Why not?
Because:
1. At first glance I thought it was for \'home devs\' - nothing good ever comes out of that ;). Well, commercial then.
2. I don\'t own an Xbox. :p
-
I\'m not a big fan of this CG thing, first of all if it catches on how optimized will the code be for ATi and Matrox products? And this is basically coding made easy, no need to know assembly language so more sloppy developers start making games, thus a bigger possibilty of crap games.
The big graphics companies should stay making just hardware and drivers, not even touch the API market since it\'ll only make things more difficult for the user.
-
This is tremendous, and can really do wonders for the xbox, but as mm pointed out, devs have to use it. We\'ll have to see if they do.
-
After seeing what NVIDIA can do with Xbox, I\'m sure the next NVIDIA GC will be great. :D
-
can anyone shorten it up?
what does it mean?
-
Originally posted by ViVi
can anyone shorten it up?
what does it mean?
Developers don\'t have to unlock all the features using complicated assembly language, instead they now have a programming language that\'s easy for them to use.
-
in a nutshell
think of DMA (direct memory access)
devs can use this API to code directly to the GPU and bypass the CPU which is probably doing other more important things (like feeing insecure cause its only a celeron :P)
in theory this can lead to some VERY impressive feats, BUT as time has tested, devs have to take advantage of it, AND be willing to pay Nvidia\'s price to use it
-
nO-One:
Cg is an open source project. Any graphics firm can write own Cg to Asm compiler to it. so if Ati does support it, Cg Should do as good code as for Nvidia cards.
Cg sounds good for it is C for programming materials for surfaces and creation for complex vertex/pixel FX. Like ray-tracing, Ray-Marching, ray-casting, Global illumination, Realtime encoding and decoding of video... etc..
Cg will get full potential only after next gen GPU:s come out, becouse the limitations of current hardware. (ie. No IF/OR/ELSE... in calculations), but it is possible to write new stuff before the hardware is out and so to get games and apps to use new hardware even possibly before hardware is out to public.
I think Ati is quite pleased with it.. at least Ati and Nvidia show together some stuff at GDC. (DX9)
http://www.gdc-europe.com/conference/index.htm
and about support there is some companies that support it already.
http://www.nvidia.com/view.asp?IO=cg_testimonials
ILM and Mental images stand out from all those game devs..
-
:yawn:
From what Ive read on other forums (developers) this CG thingy isnt anything special..
It wont do much difference for Xbox cuz the shaders are so new.
You can say that CG is ahead of its time.. (we will see a difference on new:er hardware, maybe Xbox2) :)
CG wont do wonders on Xbox, it might even make things worse. (un-optimised code, slows system down)
The Shaders on Xbox are best coded in Assambler by hand.
We will see, dont hold your breath :)
EDIT: I guess you could say its a tool for lazy devs.. I dont think the bigger developers will make much use of it (on Xbox)
-
Yet another uninformed post by Fatson. If you don\'t understand the technology, as you obviously do not, how can you make this assessment?
If devs use it, it will show. Now that\'s a big if, but it\'s also the truth.
____
CG wont do wonders on Xbox, it might even make things worse. (un-optimised code, slows system down)
____
This line kills me.
-
Originally posted by Watchdog
Yet another uninformed post by Fatson. If you don\'t understand the technology, as you obviously do not, how can you make this assessment?
If devs use it, it will show. Now that\'s a big if, but it\'s also the truth.
____
CG wont do wonders on Xbox, it might even make things worse. (un-optimised code, slows system down)
____
This line kills me.
CG wont do wonders on Xbox, it might even make things worse. (un-optimised code, slows system down)
:eek: :eek: ...I\'m wondering if the dev fasty can show us prof about it:laughing: ...
award for the funniest post of the day?
-
And I guess you two braniacs can proove him wrong?
All I\'m saying is that none of us are developers so perhaps we should just shaddap.
-
I\'m developing a nice pair of tits..
-
Yet another uninformed post by Fatson. If you don\'t understand the technology, as you obviously do not, how can you make this assessment?
Prove me wrong then..
What? Whats that I hear? Ooh.. You cant?
-
Originally posted by fastson
Prove me wrong then..
What? Whats that I hear? Ooh.. You cant?
fasty nobody can prove the other is wrong because WE ARE NOT DEVELOPERS!:) ...but it\'s funny when you say something like that:p
-
Originally posted by BizioEE
fasty nobody can prove the other is wrong because WE ARE NOT DEVELOPERS!:) ...but it\'s funny when you say something like that:p
Im not a developer..
Ive read what other developers has said about CG though..
Do you know what it does?
It works like VectorC on PS2.. Do you know what VectorC is?
Cg lets you make vertex and pixel shaders more easily. Its good for small developers (just like how VectorC on PS2 is good for small developers) who don’t have the knowledge or understanding of assembler (V/P-shaders are made in assembler).
The downside though is that the V/P-shaders on Xbox are new, not very advanced.. Xbox does not have the power to waste on un-optimised code..
When doing the effects in Cg you don’t get a very optimized code, therefore the system can and will slow down when the effects are run.
The best way right now to make V/P-Shaders is to do it in assembler because you have FULL control of what’s going on... You can optimize to code very easily.
As I said, its a good program for the smaller developers who wants to make easily effects fast..
It wont revolutionise how Xbox games look, it will just make things easier for small new started developers.
-
im with fastson on this one
especially cause Che got his back
:)
-
See, fatson, that\'s where you\'re wrong, although I applaud you for your effort--when ignorants speak, it\'s always a good time.
The CG compiler is not a simple program that will write shaders with the push of the button. It\'s not going to spit out a bunch of crap and make everything slower--not even close. The compiler will free programmers and artists from low level assembly coding and let them focus instead on their algorithms in an environment they are more comfortable and practised in (C like). Assmebly, even for the most talented, is arduous and complicated and time consuming, all the CG compiler will do is allow them to express themselves in a more familiar language. Not only that, it will allow almost anyone in the industry to write and share ideas.
Despite what your PS2 whispered to you, programmers who were able to get great effects out of the GPU previously, will now be able to do it more easily, much faster, and since it\'s a common language, code can be shared between games and studios and improved upon even further. Optimization will be easier, and the effects will be better on average. Assembly (how shaders are written now) is only known and used by a handful of people in any given studio, now it is shared amongst the entire development community; and more minds equal more ideas and better graphics.
Sure, if an entire game was written in assembly it would theoretically be more effecient, but that would take a hundred years (literally). Optimization is often trial and error and ends up doing more harm then good. Now a 3Dmax artist can more accurately express him/herself, send that down to the real expert and let him/her go at it.
Also, getting the shader optimization out of the way more quickly will allow more time spent on more important things like AI, gameplay, etc..
This isn\'t going to give the xbox photo realistic graphics, but it\'ll make graphical effects (bump mapping, lighting, etc) more accessible and easier to manage.
This is going to put the power in the hands of the devs, if they use it, it\'s their decision. At worst, it one more thing that makes the xbox easier to use.
-
Cp = Glide
thats my story and im sticking to it
-
QUOTE]Originally posted by Watchdog
The CG compiler is not a simple program that will write shaders with the push of the button. It\'s not going to spit out a bunch of crap and make everything slower--not even close. The compiler will free programmers and artists from low level assembly coding and let them focus instead on their algorithms in an environment they are more comfortable and practised in (C like). Assmebly, even for the most talented, is arduous and complicated and time consuming, all the CG compiler will do is allow them to express themselves in a more familiar language. Not only that, it will allow almost anyone in the industry to write and share ideas.[/quote]
Like I said, it works like VectorC on the PS2.
VectorC lets developers write C-code in VectorC, and VectorC later transform the C-code into Assembly code.
The problem is that the code is not 100% optimised, C-code is not low level enough for you to optimise the code enough (on PSX developers first used compliers made by SCEI, later in PSX\'s life when they had pushed it to its limits they wanted to code on the metal to squeeze out all the extra power that was left)
Vertex and Pixel Shaders are BEST written in assembly, where you have 100% control over what the unit is doing.. You don’t have this much control if you code it in Cg, therefore you can waste power..
Like I said this program will be very handy for smaller developers, and it will save them alot of time. But the system will not run as well as if the effects were written in Assembly.
Its possible that vertex-pixel shaders will become more common now with Cg, thats good an all but the fact remians it is not optimised for the system.
Despite what your PS2 whispered to you, programmers who were able to get great effects out of the GPU previously, will now be able to do it more easily, much faster, and since it\'s a common language, code can be shared between games and studios and improved upon even further.
Optimization will be easier, and the effects will be better on average. Assembly (how shaders are written now) is only known and used by a handful of people in any given studio, now it is shared amongst the entire development community; and more minds equal more ideas and better graphics.
It wont revolutionise the Xbox graphics, it wont make effects look better, but they will be easier and faster to make.. But the end result will not be the same as if they were made in Assembly.
Smaller developers will use Cg while bigger who want to make better effects will still do them in Assembly.. the basic code.
Also, getting the shader optimization out of the way more quickly will allow more time spent on more important things like AI, gameplay, etc..
You make the effect with Cg, if you want to optimize the code you must still use Assembly.
This isn\'t going to give the xbox photo realistic graphics, but it\'ll make graphical effects (bump mapping, lighting, etc) more accessible and easier to manage.
Exacly
-
And there he goes again spouting off at the mouth on a subject he knows nothing about, making a comparison that has no relevance.
Well done.
-
Originally posted by Watchdog
And there he goes again spouting off at the mouth on a subject he knows nothing about, making a comparison that has no relevance.
Well done.
Try and prove me wrong instead.. Or cant you?
Ive read what other developers say about this program..
I can give ya a link if you want.. (and a translation program, I think you\'ll need it)
One of the devs is from Dice.. Know them? *hint* RalliSport *hint*
(<--- Notice the hint)
-
looks around
Where\'s seven? He usually eats this stuff up...I\'d like to see his view point on this...not that any of this really matters.
The proof will be in the games...
-
Btw Watchy, you told me to be critical towards Appeal and not to swallow every word they say..
Then why aren’t you being critical towards this article? Instead your swallowing every word from the article.. :eek:
Are you a hypocrite? Sounds like it.
Ill say what you said:
...it will not be what the devs say, and you are one biased son of a *****.
Peace! :cool:
-
No the difference is we have about 25-30 of the top devs speaking about the compiler:
http://www.3dgpu.com/previews/devquotes.php
And I myself have a degree, and have worked with assembly--sure, I haven\'t done any of the crazy shaders or anything like that, but I atleast have a clue of what\'s going on.
You...you hugged your PS2 and made a wish.
-
Originally posted by Watchdog
No the difference is we have about 25-30 of the top devs speaking about the compiler:
http://www.3dgpu.com/previews/devquotes.php
And I myself have a degree, and have worked with assembly--sure, I haven\'t done any of the crazy shaders or anything like that, but I atleast have a clue of what\'s going on.
You...you hugged your PS2 and made a wish.
:laughing:
You dont know half the story so dont go there..
Like Ive said (3 times now? damn you must be thick) Ive read what OTHER developers and programers think.
Dont forget that the article is a PR article from nVidia, do you think they\'re going to say something negative about it?
I stand by my words (facts).
How about you honeypuff?
-
I thought so. You believe the Outcast devs, but not these. No surprise there.
No, I don\'t know how everything works but I have a MUCH better idea than you do. Can\'t say I\'m surprised at all.
-
Originally posted by Watchdog
I thought so. You believe the Outcast devs, but not these. No surprise there.
No, I don\'t know how everything works but I have a MUCH better idea than you do. Can\'t say I\'m surprised at all.
:laughing:
You haven’t proven ANYTHING!
Debate me instead of sitting there and saying "Oooh Im so right! I scream my own name when I have sex!"
Common..
:cool:
-
good to see someone else fighting with watch for once
:P
-
IMO, the CG Compiler is a great thing for developers. It will not only help small developers get some more stuff out of the hardware, but thanks to that also reduce development costs - which can only be a good thing in the end. Will it be revolutionary? Hardly, unless all the developers that have worked on Xbox are complete amateurs. The thing is, this CG will never be as efficiant as hardworked hand-coded assembly, so this will only be a good way to reduce cost, time for the big companies instead of "much better graphics". For the small, lazy or untalented developers this will be nothing but good though.
---
LMAO - you kill me Watchdog. Judging by your long post in reply to Fast, one could hardly believe you\'ve ever programmed ANYTHING in assembly. This line...
Sure, if an entire game was written in assembly it would theoretically be more effecient, but that would take a hundred years (literally).
...is laughable. Too bad, only people who actually have experience in Assembly and other low level programming languages will find this as funny. LOL - are you sure you\'ve programmed assembler?
-
Anyone who has taken any programming in university has had to take a course in assembly. Like I said, I haven\'t done anything really ground breaking, only the introductory class (x86 basic crap, sorting algorithms, that kind of stuff), but I know enough, certainly more than most ever will. But this isn\'t a pissing match to see who is the bigger aficiano, it\'s about the compiler and like you said, it\'ll be a huge help.
You telling me a fully optimized 3D game from engine to menu, coded from scratch in assembly would take less time? Anyone, who\'s worth anything in assembly can code a data app. using only assmebly in fairly short order, but to write an entire modern game would take years upon years. If you say any differently, then I really question the education you claim to have recieved.
I do think we\'ll see better effects and graphics because of the cg compiler. Devs are under time restrictions (how many times have we heard that things had to be cut, or they want to do this?), with this tool, it\'ll only help that out. They\'ll be able to spend more time and see things much more clearly than if they were on a wild goose chase, hunting for algorithms that may or may not need optimization.
What\'s there to proove Fatson? I\'ve proved you\'re a a fanboy through and through. I merely pointed out a contradiction. You say you believe what the devs say about Outcast and have optimism for the game, then you say you don\'t care what the devs say about the cg compiler (something you know NOTHING about), that of course they are going to come off sounding positive. Obviously arguing with you is pointless, I\'d rather not bother.
-
That\'s okay, I was just refering to the first bit of your quote (I should have deleted the second bit). Assembler is a ***** to program and it takes its time, but hand-coded code is always better (more efficiant) in the end. Still though, CG is a good option for devs to reduce cost and effort for their games and making it thus more accessible even for the lazy/untalented devs outthere.
I read up on the arguement you had with Fast and I must say that he did bring up some very valid points - if you would overlook peoples biasness in here, you would find that they (we) often post quite relevant stuff most of the time. Calling names and criticizing members for their bias is pretty premature afterall. ;)
-
Watchdog seems the only one who knows what he\'s talking about...
...what about fastson and seven...well...their fanboysm speak for themselves...and it\'s ****ting ridiculous when they try to appear unbiased:laughing: ...
...however...I\'m cooking something special for these "informed":rolleyes: guys...wait and see...:D
-
About the theoretically bit--if it was all masterfully coded and optimized, then yes, absolutely it would be better, faster, prettier. No question. But we\'re talking about humans here. Any given studio has maybe a handful of assembly experts, maybe even one if it\'s a small house.
Now how skilled is this person? We both know assembly is a complete *****--it takes a genius, it really does. It also takes an incredible amount of time to optimize, let alone the knowledge required. If a studio only has one or two people that can really get dirty coding low level stuff, where\'s that leave the project?
The cg compiler will allow almost anyone with C knowledge the ability to write, share ideas and optimize.
This is not something to so easily dismiss. That\'s why I went after Fatson, because obviously he didn\'t have a clue.
I cannot accept a biased opinion, I\'m sorry. I think black people are smarter. I think Canadians are the best hockey players. I think Brazilians are evil. These too are a biased opinions, and they have no merit.
Even if Canadians are the best hockey players overall, that does not dismiss every single Sweedish born person from having skill. People around here piss on anything that is xbox related. I call them on it. It\'s true that occassionally they\'ll say something that has merit, that I may even agree with, but that doesn\'t mean I agree with their ideology.
Even a bigot is right sometimes, but that doesn\'t mean I have to agree with him.
-
This is not something to so easily dismiss. That\'s why I went after Fatson, because obviously he didn\'t have a clue.
Bah, do you read what I write?
Ive said that Cg will be usefull for smaller developers.. But Cg WILL not give the same result as if you coded the effects in Assembler.
Get it?
-
Yeah, I get it, but I disagree with it.
Get it?
-
Edit: Oh.. I see *forget this post*
-
ha, even with all that info from watch, it all gets cut to shreds with one copy and paste, requiring no additional thought
However, not all GPUs are created equal, and differences will become ever greater. With the PlayStation®2, SCEI demonstrated a programmable graphics pipeline from higher up in the rendering process, which has different demands of a graphics programming language.
In the future, graphics hardware will incorporate both low level pixel and vertex shaders as demonstrated by NVIDIA® and higher-level general programmability as demonstrated in the PlayStation®2. The Cg language is not sufficiently well specified for such hardware, particularly with reference to:
*No break, continue, goto, switch, case, default. These are useful features that can be used without penalty on other vector processors.
*No pointers. This is Cg\'s most serious omission. Pointers are necessary for storing scene graphs, so this will quickly become a serious omission for vector processors that can store and process the entire scene or even sections of it.
*No integers. This may be appropriate to NVIDIA®, but is not a universal design decision.
*Arrays use float indices. This is an odd design decision, relevant to DirectX 8 and NVIDIA® only.
read the rest to see why Cg = Glide
i think biz burned whatever he was "cooking"
http://www.codeplay.com/press/cg_rel.html
-
Yeah, I\'ve read that. It\'s not perfect, but what is?
It\'s still great for xbox gpu, it\'s just not as flexible with future inerations. I\'m sure they\'ll release a future version.
-
yeah, whenever they need more licensing money
-
Like I said.. :p
Im not going to rub it in your face Watchy.. Or am I? :fro:
-
I cannot accept a biased opinion, I\'m sorry. I think black people are smarter. I think Canadians are the best hockey players. I think Brazilians are evil. These too are a biased opinions, and they have no merit.
But no one posted their biased opinion. Fast merely pointed out what I stated up further up again - he even went through the effort to put CG on the same level as Vector-C (on PS2) and criticize them both for the obvious reasons.
And yes, developers are humans, but if you\'re trying to say that using CG (or any other tool) will result in better results as hand-coded/hardworked assembly code - then you\'re doing nothing more than speculating about the talent of a developer and not giving much credit to those out there who do this for a living.
The article that mm posted is a interesting read. It also reflects quite nicely what my initial thoughts of CG (or any other tool) were.
Anyway, I think there\'s no point to continue this debate (if it ever turned into one). It\'s pretty obvious where it stands and it\'s only good for developers in the end. If they use it, good - if not, well good for them too. Just bring on the results!
-
so we should all be in agreement that Cg is a tool to help developers (and fill nvidia\'s coffers) and it must be taken advantage to be of any use whether its on Pc, xbox, or even 8088\'s
-
It is so agreed.
-
more anti-Cg discussions
http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,3973,183940,00.asp
The following letter was provided to ExtremeTech from 3Dlabs in rebuttal to information we provided in our recent story about Cg, the new graphics programming language developed by Nvidia with assistance from Microsoft.
In our main story, we presented information about OpenGL 2.0 based on our interviews with Nvidia marketing personnel and with Kurt Akeley, co-inventor of OpenGL and part-time graphics architect at Nvidia. 3Dlabs has taken issue with many of Nvidia\'s claims. If we were somehow mistaken in our interpretation, we\'d like to hear Nvidia\'s inputs as well. Similarly, if Nvidia has any additional commentary they would like to provide regarding the 3Dlabs letter below, we\'re interested.
Our Story Text in question
"We were also curious about the programmable aspects of upcoming releases of OpenGL, particularly OpenGL 2.0, where 3DLabs is taking a leadership role in its development. Nvidia claims that the OpenGL effort is not close to spec-level yet, and that OpenGL does need to move to the next level. Nvidia says the OpenGL 2.0 architecture will not be fully backwards compatible with existing OpenGL levels, which could pose many problems, and that developers would not have access to low-level hardware features from the assembly level if they so desired. Nvidia proposed their high-level language to the OpenGL community, and the OpenGL ARB (Architecture Review Board) needs to figure out if they want to use the technology."
3Dlabs Letter to the Editor
Contrary to Nvidia\'s claim, the specification work for OpenGL 2.0 is well along. This week, 3Dlabs has provided the OpenGL Architecture Review Board with specifications for the OpenGL Shading Language and three extension specifications that implement support for vertex shaders and fragment shaders that use this high level shading language. The original OpenGL 2.0 white papers were published nine months ago, and 3Dlabs has been refining those white papers, taking input from public reviewers - including other ARB members, and are now turning them into specification documents.
Contrary to Nvidia\'s claim, OpenGL 2.0 WILL be 100% backward compatible with existing OpenGL levels. This has been stated in every presentation on OpenGL 2.0 since the beginning.
Contrary to Nvidia\'s claim, developers WILL have access to low-level hardware features from the assembly level if they so desire. Each hardware vendor will have the choice of supporting their own hardware-specific assembly language or the more common ARB_vertex_program assembly language extension, as they desire. These assembly level interfaces will work seamlessly with the OpenGL 2.0 high level shading language.
Contrary to their implied positioning, Nvidia\'s is not planning to offer Cg to the OpenGL Architecture Review Board for consideration as a standard of any type. Rather, they have stated that they fully intend to control the specification and implementation. Other graphics hardware vendors would be offered the ability to implement this Nvidia-specified language, under Nvidia licensing terms, for their own hardware.
In contrast, 3Dlabs has diligently worked to move the OpenGL 2.0 effort forward in an open forum, and we have made source code for the high-level shading language available on our web site since April.
In short, 3Dlabs is intent on creating a standard, hardware-independent, high level shading language that will promote widespread application availability and encourage competition among hardware vendors. We have been presenting our ideas to the OpenGL Architecture Review Board and to the OpenGL community for almost a year. Feedback has been overwhelmingly positive.
-John Schimpf, Director of Developer Relations for 3Dlabs
-
*shrugs* It\'s basically what was said in the previous article, no?
-
I wonder if this is another one of those threads where Watchdog and mm go on about whose right and wrong for about a week, Watchy flips out, mm does a little doggy trick, and we end up where we started.
Point is, i\'m tired of Watchdog vs. mm, gimme something new to read.
-
And I\'m just tired of you.
-
yeah, how about i pull down my jockies and you read the crack in my butt
:P