Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 45

Thread: Gallium3D Gets New Geometry Shader Support

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    14,901

    Default Gallium3D Gets New Geometry Shader Support

    Phoronix: Gallium3D Gets New Geometry Shader Support

    Zack Rusin has just shared with the Mesa development community a plethora of new code. This is not code for yet another state tracker or new hardware driver, but rather it brings new geometry shader support to the Gallium3D infrastructure...

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=Nzg0MQ

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    2,264

    Default

    Wasn't the geometry shading what made Direct3D version 10 so awesome and wasn´t it what made people so angry about the lack of it in OpenGL 3.0?

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    510

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by V!NCENT View Post
    Wasn't the geometry shading what made Direct3D version 10 so awesome and wasn´t it what made people so angry about the lack of it in OpenGL 3.0?
    I don't think so. Geometry shaders have been available as an OpenGL extension long before DirectX 10 was out. What made people angry about OpenGL 3.0 was that it didn't completely throw out the old standard and replace it with a shiny new object oriented one.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    598

    Default

    I wonder if something like this can be used for a cool Compiz effect?

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    510

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Louise View Post
    I wonder if something like this can be used for a cool Compiz effect?
    Some kickass tessellation of the desktop cube, maybe? :P

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Connecticut,USA
    Posts
    962

    Default

    Or why not add some fancy textures to the cube such as granite frames to each side

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    3,046

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by V!NCENT View Post
    Wasn't the geometry shading what made Direct3D version 10 so awesome and wasn´t it what made people so angry about the lack of it in OpenGL 3.0?
    Yes to the first question, no to the second.

    There's extensions that support that functionality that were being ratified by the ARB during the period that everyone was beta-testing those D3D10 drivers. Plans were afoot with at least one vendor to support the same ASAP under OpenGL.

    What everyone was so angry about wasn't the lack of Geometry shaders, it was the keeping of legacy (i.e. immediate mode rendering and things like it) interfaces and the omission of the new object model and API edge. 3.0 isn't the revolutionary change they'd originally promised for it- it's very weakly evolutionary in many ways.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    2,264

    Default

    Thank you, Remco and Svartalf for the insight.

    From what I understood is that OpenGl 3.0 was supposed to be completely new, that much I know, and it should also adapt to Direct3D 10ish hardware, right? From what I remember, but correct me if I am wrong, is that with the start of Direct3D 10 there is no longer a graphical pipeline, is that correct? Which should mean that one could get more performance out of this new architecture.

    I thought that geometry shaders made that possible, but apparently they don't?

  9. #9

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by V!NCENT View Post
    Wasn't the geometry shading what made Direct3D version 10 so awesome and wasn´t it what made people so angry about the lack of it in OpenGL 3.0?
    Direct3D? Awesome? I think not....

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Under the bridge
    Posts
    2,146

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by thefirstm View Post
    Direct3D? Awesome? I think not....
    Well, it is, if we want to be honest with ourselves. OpenGL 3.2 manages to close the gap somewhat, but it's still far behind D3D10 as far as API design, ease of use and stability is concerned. (Yes, it offers more functionality in general, but (a) it's still missing binary shaders and (b) 50% of the market is using Intel IGPs, which are synonymous with "bad OpenGL support" and (c) our OSS drivers don't even support GL2.1, much less 3.2).

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •