The nVIDIA Cg Compiler works on Xbox:

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..

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