pouët.net

chaos, I have to disagree with you on the first point. Although there are differences between the 2 vendors' shader compilers it's not hard to get something working on all cards if you actually have access to both to debug on (or more specifically, an ATI machine to debug on since the Nvidia compiler is much more forgiving). The mess of vendor specific extensions is virtually non-existant nowadays too. I guess you know all this though and just meant that it's less practical to get everything working everywhere with OpenGL...

Of course I meant without, and not with.

parapete: Are you kidding? Ever tried to write code that e.g uses depth-textures that are portable in GL between ATI and nVidia? Or just about any FBO-code with depth-attachments? Also, at work we once (not that long ago either) had a GLSL-shader that crashed all nVidia, ati and intel shader-compilers... in different ways. The shader-code was perfecly standards compliant. While I've seen the DX shader compiler crash, at least it's been consistent across different GPU-vendors ;)

"all nVidia, ati and intel shader-compilers", as in compilers from all vendors. I won't guarantee that it crashes on all compiler-releases from all of them :P

kusma, how recently are you talking about? I admit I haven't explored particularly far but I was under the impression that the depth-texture stuff is fairly reliable now?

Within the last 6 months.

Ach okay, perhaps I'm not so well informed :) Is that depth-texture stuff not still problematic with D3D though?

Oh, uh. Sorry, I was a bit quick there. I was talking about that crashing shader... I haven't tried depth attachments myself in GL lately, but I did hear reports from other developers about it still being an issue around a year ago.

And no, depth texture/attachments aren't a problem in D3D. It never was. You see, this all mess is caused by the OpenGL ARB, because they are more or less unable to agree on things. Microsoft however mandates enough functionality to make it useful.

this all = all this

Is that likely to change in OGL3.0?

3.0 is not all that different from what I can tell although I've only glanced at the spec. The nicest incarnation is probably ES 2.0 (which I now code for a day job, hooray!).

parapete: I make an OpenGL ES 2.0 implementation at work. ES 2.0 is far from perfect, but getting rid of a lot of the legacy sure helps.

MSDOS, runs on virtually anything thanks to DOSBox :)

kusma, are you at ARM? I work for Imagination.

parapete: Aha, so you are the enemy!

Yup, with superior fire power! /me ducks

:)

always the BEST Portable platform!