www.digitalmars.com         C & C++   DMDScript  

digitalmars.D.announce - Nonagon Release 4! MAJOR UPDATE!

reply "Jarrett Billingsley" <kb3ctd2 yahoo.com> writes:
Whoo!  Almost two months in the making, nonagon Release 4 is a huge update.

What is nonagon?
------------------

Nonagon is a free (but not yet open-source) DirectX9-based general-purpose 
game engine written in D.  Right now, it has a fairly robust set of 
graphical and input commands.  There is no support for animated objects or 
collision / physics, but it has some fairly respectable features.

What's new?
-------------

FAR too much to list here on the newsgroup.  It's about 3 or 4 pages of 
additions and fixes in the help file.  The biggest addition is the new 
Programmable Pipeline, which allows you to use shaders and HLSL effects in 
place of the old, fixed-function pipeline.  Both pipelines are completely 
independent of one another, and it's easy to switch between them - just 
define a version and choose the right lib.

Other than that, there are some nice improvements to the input system, 
correct-looking cubemapping in the fixed-function pipeline, a new, more 
centralized rendering system, and a whole slew of bugfixes.

Nonagon also no longer depends upon d3dx9.dll, since D3DX has been made its 
own standardized part of DirectX.

Where can I get it?
--------------------

The main download for nonagon is here: 
http://jamesdunne.no-ip.org/~jarrett/nonagonr4.zip
It includes the documentation, include files, and libs necessary to build 
and run nonagon-based programs.

There is a small template file to get you started here: 
http://jamesdunne.no-ip.org/~jarrett/nonagon_template.zip
This basically sets up nonagon in fixed-function mode and draws some text to 
the screen.  There is also a compiled version of the program included.

Help!  I'm getting an error about "d3dx9_26.dll."
-------------------------------------------------

This is the new D3DX library that is part of DirectX.  It just came out in 
June, so you might not have it.  To install this DLL, you can download the 
setup here: http://jamesdunne.no-ip.org/~jarrett/dx9jun2005.zip

I _really_ hope to make some samples showing how to use the Programmable 
Pipeline, maybe I'll have some tomorrow.

Thanks! 
Aug 10 2005
next sibling parent "Jarrett Billingsley" <kb3ctd2 yahoo.com> writes:
"Jarrett Billingsley" <kb3ctd2 yahoo.com> wrote in message 
news:dddso3$14ik$1 digitaldaemon.com...

I almost forgot - I have set up a Google Group for nonagon.  You can visit 
it here: http://groups.google.com/group/nonagon 
Aug 10 2005
prev sibling parent reply "Jarrett Billingsley" <kb3ctd2 yahoo.com> writes:
"Jarrett Billingsley" <kb3ctd2 yahoo.com> wrote in message 
news:dddso3$14ik$1 digitaldaemon.com...

Not that anyone cares, but I've put up a shader demo for download: 
http://jamesdunne.no-ip.org/~jarrett/nonagon_shader_demo_1.zip

You'll need a video card capable of Shader Model 2 to run it (none of the 
stuff I made as samples will compile to Pixel Shader 1, sorry).  The ZIP 
contains the source for the program as well as the 3 effect source files and 
a texture that accompanies one.  There is also a compiled binary of the 
sample and the required DXErr9.dll.  To build the source, you'll need to 
have the nonagon headers and libs installed.

The demo shows off three effects - cartoon shading, volumetric fog, and 
cubemapping - and shows how to make nonagon-compatible effects.  It shows 
the basic process of creating effects and instances, setting parameters, 
static parameters, shared parameters, using multiple techniques, and the 
texture autoloading feature to load an effect directly into an effect 
parameter.  And it has bouncing teapots.  What more could you want? 
Aug 14 2005
parent reply John Reimer <terminal.node gmail.com> writes:
Jarrett Billingsley wrote:
 "Jarrett Billingsley" <kb3ctd2 yahoo.com> wrote in message 
 news:dddso3$14ik$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 
 Not that anyone cares, but I've put up a shader demo for download: 
 http://jamesdunne.no-ip.org/~jarrett/nonagon_shader_demo_1.zip
 
 You'll need a video card capable of Shader Model 2 to run it (none of the 
 stuff I made as samples will compile to Pixel Shader 1, sorry).  The ZIP 
 contains the source for the program as well as the 3 effect source files and 
 a texture that accompanies one.  There is also a compiled binary of the 
 sample and the required DXErr9.dll.  To build the source, you'll need to 
 have the nonagon headers and libs installed.
 
 The demo shows off three effects - cartoon shading, volumetric fog, and 
 cubemapping - and shows how to make nonagon-compatible effects.  It shows 
 the basic process of creating effects and instances, setting parameters, 
 static parameters, shared parameters, using multiple techniques, and the 
 texture autoloading feature to load an effect directly into an effect 
 parameter.  And it has bouncing teapots.  What more could you want? 
 
 

Excellent examples, Jarrett. The sample ran well on my ATI X800XL card! :-) It looks like an amazingly small amount code to produce such great results. As you mentioned, I had to download the directX update to get things working, though. -JJR
Aug 15 2005
parent reply "Jarrett Billingsley" <kb3ctd2 yahoo.com> writes:
"John Reimer" <terminal.node gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:ddovq5$2v0c$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 Excellent examples, Jarrett.  The sample ran well on my ATI X800XL card! 
 :-)  It looks like an amazingly small amount code to produce such great 
 results.

 As you mentioned, I had to download the directX update to get things 
 working, though.

 -JJR

Yaaay, a response! :) What I'm particularly pleased with are the effects - since I've implemented the programmable pipeline in nonagon, I've come to realize how wonderfully flexible yet simple they are. I'm also very happy with how I've managed to work them into the engine, and have them retain most of their flexibility, while making them almost "plug and play" with little to no extra setup needed. Thanks for the reply; I've posted my announcements on several forums and this newsgroup and this is really the first real reply I've gotten about nonagon. It's encouraging to know that _someone_ is interested!
Aug 15 2005
next sibling parent "ElfQT" <dethjunk yahoo.com> writes:
Well I'm also interested in D and DirexctX, as you probably know.
About nonagon I'm curious, but a closed source engine in the making without
proper documentation is less interesting for me than to learn the the full
3d and DX stuff myself.
What I accomplished by now, I've ported the first five C++ D3D tutorials to
D... I guess I'm behind you a few years ;)
Also, I don't wan't to use D3DX, so I had to write a texture loader.
Right now I'm stuck with loading X. files. Seems a hard one for me.

ElfQT

"Jarrett Billingsley" <kb3ctd2 yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ddqe0u$164l$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 "John Reimer" <terminal.node gmail.com> wrote in message
 news:ddovq5$2v0c$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 Excellent examples, Jarrett.  The sample ran well on my ATI X800XL card!
 :-)  It looks like an amazingly small amount code to produce such great
 results.

 As you mentioned, I had to download the directX update to get things
 working, though.

 -JJR

Yaaay, a response! :) What I'm particularly pleased with are the effects - since I've

 the programmable pipeline in nonagon, I've come to realize how wonderfully
 flexible yet simple they are.  I'm also very happy with how I've managed

 work them into the engine, and have them retain most of their flexibility,
 while making them almost "plug and play" with little to no extra setup
 needed.

 Thanks for the reply; I've posted my announcements on several forums and
 this newsgroup and this is really the first real reply I've gotten about
 nonagon.  It's encouraging to know that _someone_ is interested!

Aug 17 2005
prev sibling parent reply Mike Parker <aldacron71 yahoo.com> writes:
Jarrett Billingsley wrote:

 Thanks for the reply; I've posted my announcements on several forums and 
 this newsgroup and this is really the first real reply I've gotten about 
 nonagon.  It's encouraging to know that _someone_ is interested! 
 

I would be extremely interested if it were API agnostic. Such a strong dependency on D3D is not something I'm a big fan of. Not knocking D3D, as it's usually a better choice on Windows than OpenGL, but such a dependency pretty much negates the possibility of cross-platform functionality. And even if that weren't an issue for me, the dependency on a specific version of D3D and D3DX is icky. In the context of games, the D3D9 market is a small segment of the overall market. For AAA developers releasing boxed titles, that's no big deal. But for indies distributing online, it's huge. While some have moved to D3D8, others are still using D3D7. It's a great effort you've got going, and I wish you success with it. But you are really limiting your user base by locking in to D3D9.
Aug 17 2005
parent reply "ElfQT" <dethjunk yahoo.com> writes:
Well, the question is then, what is the purpose and the target of such an
engine.

I myself don't see why - speaking of DirectX and not the 3d API independent
way now - any new engine should care anything before d3d9. It's easier, it's
faster, it's supports more 3d stuff, it's free to downloadad, and moreover
when anything serious will be accomplished inside and with a given new
engine d3d9 or later will be the standard. (Who wants a game or 3d app
without the newest fancy stuff - like shaders, usable with d3d9?) (Consider
I didn't wrote this to argue, it's just my humble opinion .)

Do you know Ogre3d? It's open source and it's renderer (dx versions, opengl,
whatever) independent.
There was a project to convert it to D (which is stopped on the first step
as I see).
Also I'd be curious of the price of the independence in terms of
performance. (Ogre has it's inner abstractions for everything, so has to
convert everything for the used renderer at every load/step.)

Also afaik d3dx is well written/optimized.

I'm sure there's a need of a good 3d engine in D, either with or without API
independence.
It must be less in time to develop and upgrade and maintain than c++
version - if not, D fails it's goals.

But as I see, ppl who try to write these amateur/home/experiantal engines
simply fail to judge how gigantically big task is that (or else they have
1,2, 5 etc years to develop, or they are rare geniuses or both).

ElfQT


"Mike Parker" <aldacron71 yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ddv1la$2clj$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 Jarrett Billingsley wrote:

 Thanks for the reply; I've posted my announcements on several forums and
 this newsgroup and this is really the first real reply I've gotten about
 nonagon.  It's encouraging to know that _someone_ is interested!

I would be extremely interested if it were API agnostic. Such a strong dependency on D3D is not something I'm a big fan of. Not knocking D3D, as it's usually a better choice on Windows than OpenGL, but such a dependency pretty much negates the possibility of cross-platform functionality. And even if that weren't an issue for me, the dependency on a specific version of D3D and D3DX is icky. In the context of games, the D3D9 market is a small segment of the overall market. For AAA developers releasing boxed titles, that's no big deal. But for indies distributing online, it's huge. While some have moved to D3D8, others are still using D3D7. It's a great effort you've got going, and I wish you success with it. But you are really limiting your user base by locking in to D3D9.

Aug 17 2005
parent reply Mike Parker <aldacron71 yahoo.com> writes:
ElfQT wrote:
 Well, the question is then, what is the purpose and the target of such an
 engine.
 
 I myself don't see why - speaking of DirectX and not the 3d API independent
 way now - any new engine should care anything before d3d9. It's easier, it's
 faster, it's supports more 3d stuff, it's free to downloadad, and moreover
 when anything serious will be accomplished inside and with a given new
 engine d3d9 or later will be the standard. (Who wants a game or 3d app
 without the newest fancy stuff - like shaders, usable with d3d9?) (Consider
 I didn't wrote this to argue, it's just my humble opinion .)

Yeah, if Nonagon is targeted at high-end games, then sure. But what you have to realize is that Joe user rarely updates his graphics drivers, probably doesn't even know what that phrase means, and can't be expected to have the latest DirectX runtime. People who buy HalfLife 2, Doom 3, and other AAA titles are a bit more knowledgeable than Joe user on this stuff. They understand about graphics drivers and DX updates. Take a look at Real Arcade or any of the other online distributers of Independently developed games. You might find one or two that require DX9, but the vast majority (even recent releases) will require DX7 or 8 as a minimum.
 
 Do you know Ogre3d? It's open source and it's renderer (dx versions, opengl,
 whatever) independent.
 There was a project to convert it to D (which is stopped on the first step
 as I see).
 Also I'd be curious of the price of the independence in terms of
 performance. (Ogre has it's inner abstractions for everything, so has to
 convert everything for the used renderer at every load/step.)

There's always going to be a price to pay for abstraction, from performance penalties to memory costs. But look at some of the professional engines used in games out there - every version of the Unreal Engine, Gamebryo (formerly NetImmerse) and Renderware, for example, have been used in mutliple titles and are all API agnostic. The penalty for abstraction exists, but is negligible. I recommend you read the book 3D Game Engine Architecture by Davd Eberly. It explains the design philosopy behind his WildMagic engine, which is based on his work with NetImmerse (he was one of the original architects of that engine). The benefits of API independence far outweigh the detriments and is a driving reason behind third party engine market. Anyway, I'm not criticizing Nonagon at all. I think it's a great effort. But it's not for me because the dependence on Direct3D 9 puts it squarely in a high end (hardcore) gamer market segment and restricts the ability to port it to other platforms D might make it to. Maybe that's what Jarret's goal is, and if so, more power to him ;)
Aug 17 2005
next sibling parent "ElfQT" <dethjunk yahoo.com> writes:
I just don't get the D3D7 D3D8 part.
You can redistrubute Dx runtime with your software.
Installer should check and update on Joe's system.

 The benefits of API independence ...

Well I think the most important benefit of API independence is HW independence means different platforms (different consoles and PC) which means bigger market which means more money. If you want to make an exclusive XBOX game, you will lose resources on being api independent. And if you want to squeeze out the best performance from a console, you have to be close to its hw and low level api. I don't think nonagon targets "high end market". It's just simplier to learn and develop for one single api, or at least directx with d3dx, because it's well built and documented (at least in comparsion). I also stick with DirectX for now - withoud D3DX, but that's because I'd like to learn the inner workings. If I had to make a product I'd use D3DX - I don't have the resource to remake the functions, in terms of optimization and testing etc. Why are you interested in a 3D engine written in D, I mean why don't you use, say, Ogre? Or what about porting Ogre to D? ElfQT
Aug 17 2005
prev sibling parent reply "Jarrett Billingsley" <kb3ctd2 yahoo.com> writes:
I'll use this reply to reply to all the replies.

"ElfQT" <dethjunk yahoo.com> wrote in message 
news:ddv0k9$2bni$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 Well I'm also interested in D and DirexctX, as you probably know.
 About nonagon I'm curious, but a closed source engine in the making 
 without
 proper documentation is less interesting for me than to learn the the full
 3d and DX stuff myself.
 What I accomplished by now, I've ported the first five C++ D3D tutorials 
 to
 D... I guess I'm behind you a few years ;)
 Also, I don't wan't to use D3DX, so I had to write a texture loader.
 Right now I'm stuck with loading X. files. Seems a hard one for me.

Without proper documentation? Well, I guess that invalidates the days I spent writing what I thought were thorough docs for every single function and member of every class in nonagon! ;) What do you think is missing from the docs? Good luck on that X loader. Oh man, you'll have a hell of a time, since you're not using D3DX; you won't even be able to use the ID3DXFile interface! "Mike Parker" <aldacron71 yahoo.com> wrote in message news:ddv1la$2clj$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 I would be extremely interested if it were API agnostic. Such a strong 
 dependency on D3D is not something I'm a big fan of. Not knocking D3D, as 
 it's usually a better choice on Windows than OpenGL, but such a dependency 
 pretty much negates the possibility of cross-platform functionality. And 
 even if that weren't an issue for me, the dependency on a specific version 
 of D3D and D3DX is icky. In the context of games, the D3D9 market is a 
 small segment of the overall market. For AAA developers releasing boxed 
 titles, that's no big deal. But for indies distributing online, it's huge. 
 While some have moved to D3D8, others are still using D3D7.

 It's a great effort you've got going, and I wish you success with it. But 
 you are really limiting your user base by locking in to D3D9.

The difference between D3D7 and D3D8 is literally like night and day. If I were to make a version of nonagon that was DX7-based, so much would change internally that it would be almost a completely different engine. I'm planning on rolling back the fixed-function pipeline to D3D8, meaning that the fixed-function nonagon lib would be entirely DX8-compatible (as long as I found the d3dx8 lib and dll). But that's going to be a huge undertaking in and of itself, and not something that I'm really worried about right now. "Mike Parker" <aldacron71 yahoo.com> wrote in message news:ddvcq9$2o40$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 There's always going to be a price to pay for abstraction, from 
 performance penalties to memory costs. But look at some of the 
 professional engines used in games out there - every version of the Unreal 
 Engine, Gamebryo (formerly NetImmerse) and Renderware, for example, have 
 been used in mutliple titles and are all API agnostic. The penalty for 
 abstraction exists, but is negligible. I recommend you read the book 3D 
 Game Engine Architecture by Davd Eberly. It explains the design philosopy 
 behind his WildMagic engine, which is based on his work with NetImmerse 
 (he was one of the original architects of that engine). The benefits of 
 API independence far outweigh the detriments and is a driving reason 
 behind third party engine market.

 Anyway, I'm not criticizing Nonagon at all. I think it's a great effort. 
 But it's not for me because the dependence on Direct3D 9 puts it squarely 
 in a high end (hardcore) gamer market segment and restricts the ability to 
 port it to other platforms D might make it to. Maybe that's what Jarret's 
 goal is, and if so, more power to him ;)

I'd like to make nonagon API-independent, but at the moment, I'm still learning DirectX for the most part. When I'm done (?!) with nonagon, I'd most likely make a new, more advanced engine using the experience that I will have gained from making nonagon, but for now, I'm keeping it simple. Another problem that will arise next year is Windows Vista. Vista will come out with DirectX 10, which is basically an entirely new API, rewritten from the ground up, and with it will come new hardware that supports the new, simpler, but more strict spec. The fixed-function pipeline will go away, and with it, so will native hardware support for OpenGL in Vista. It will just be too hard to support OpenGL in its current form on the new hardware. So making an API-agnostic engine now might be kind of a dumb idea in a year, when Direct3D and OpenGL will be so wildly different that it would be far too prohibitive to try to make it work on both APIs. Personally, I think it'd be a good idea to wait a few years, and see if OpenGL 2 will finally come out ;) And it will have to, if it wants to survive.
Aug 17 2005
next sibling parent reply "ElfQT" <dethjunk yahoo.com> writes:
 Without proper documentation?  Well, I guess that invalidates the days I
 spent writing what I thought were thorough docs for every single function
 and member of every class in nonagon!  ;)  What do you think is missing

 the docs?

Sorry I simply missed the .chm. ElfQT
Aug 17 2005
parent "Jarrett Billingsley" <kb3ctd2 yahoo.com> writes:
"ElfQT" <dethjunk yahoo.com> wrote in message 
news:ddvgtc$2sg9$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 Without proper documentation?  Well, I guess that invalidates the days I
 spent writing what I thought were thorough docs for every single function
 and member of every class in nonagon!  ;)  What do you think is missing

 the docs?

Sorry I simply missed the .chm. ElfQT

That's OK. :)
Aug 17 2005
prev sibling parent reply Mike Parker <aldacron71 yahoo.com> writes:
Jarrett Billingsley wrote:

 The difference between D3D7 and D3D8 is literally like night and day.  If I 
 were to make a version of nonagon that was DX7-based, so much would change 
 internally that it would be almost a completely different engine.  I'm 

Abstract interfaces! There are plenty of OpenSource engines out there that abstract different versions of DX, OGRE, Irrlicht, and I believe Crsytal Space, off the top of my head. > I'd like to make nonagon API-independent, but at the moment, I'm still
 learning DirectX for the most part.  When I'm done (?!) with nonagon, I'd 
 most likely make a new, more advanced engine using the experience that I 
 will have gained from making nonagon, but for now, I'm keeping it simple.

I can surely understand that. It takes a bit of time and experience to fully understand these APIs.
 
 Another problem that will arise next year is Windows Vista.  Vista will come 
 out with DirectX 10, which is basically an entirely new API, rewritten from 
 the ground up, and with it will come new hardware that supports the new, 
 simpler, but more strict spec.  The fixed-function pipeline will go away,

Right, but DX is always backwards compatible. You will still be able to run older DX apps, and develop for them. It's going to take some time for the market to transition to Vista and DX10 after they are released, so targeting them at release has little benefit for anyone.
 and with it, so will native hardware support for OpenGL in Vista.  It will 
 just be too hard to support OpenGL in its current form on the new hardware. 
 So making an API-agnostic engine now might be kind of a dumb idea in a year, 
 when Direct3D and OpenGL will be so wildly different that it would be far 
 too prohibitive to try to make it work on both APIs.  Personally, I think 
 it'd be a good idea to wait a few years, and see if OpenGL 2 will finally 
 come out ;)  And it will have to, if it wants to survive. 

I see you've fallen victim to the FUD surrounding Vista and OpenGL! OGL isn't going away. What's happening is that, currently in the beta, when you run a Windowed OpenGL app using the hardware OpenGL drivers, the new Aeroglass window compositing feature turns off - which means the user's desktop loses the nifty D3D accelerated special effects Vista offers and looks like XP. Fullscreen OpenGL apps won't have to worry about this. That's why MS is offering OGL 1.4 implemented on top of D3D for Windowed mode OpenGL apps. So native hardware support isn't going away (if it did, there would be a great many high end graphics software developers who would be up in arms with MS over it - many of whom MS wooed over from other platforms over the years). You'll just have angry users if you run hardware accelerated OGL drivers in Windowed mode! Hopefully NVidia, ATI, and 3DLabs will get things sorted for us before the final release.
Aug 17 2005
parent reply "Jarrett Billingsley" <kb3ctd2 yahoo.com> writes:
"Mike Parker" <aldacron71 yahoo.com> wrote in message 
news:ddvodg$1f9$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 Right, but DX is always backwards compatible. You will still be able to 
 run older DX apps, and develop for them. It's going to take some time for 
 the market to transition to Vista and DX10 after they are released, so 
 targeting them at release has little benefit for anyone.

I'm not sure how well the new programmable hardware will emulate the fixed-function pipeline, though. Hopefully the shader capabilities will be good enough to support the entire FF pipeline in shaders.
 I see you've fallen victim to the FUD surrounding Vista and OpenGL! OGL 
 isn't going away. What's happening is that, currently in the beta, when 
 you run a Windowed OpenGL app using the hardware OpenGL drivers, the new 
 Aeroglass window compositing feature turns off - which means the user's 
 desktop loses the nifty D3D accelerated special effects Vista offers and 
 looks like XP. Fullscreen OpenGL apps won't have to worry about this.
 That's why MS is offering OGL 1.4 implemented on top of D3D for Windowed 
 mode OpenGL apps.

I heard that when that happens, the performance of OpenGL will be reduced significantly. I also heard that there will be no support for extensions. Announcement from the admin at OpenGL.org: http://www.opengl.org/discussion_boards/cgi_directory/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=12;t=000001 Will these issues only exist for windowed apps or what?
Aug 17 2005
next sibling parent reply Lars Ivar Igesund <larsivar igesund.net> writes:
Jarrett Billingsley wrote:

 "Mike Parker" <aldacron71 yahoo.com> wrote in message
 news:ddvodg$1f9$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 Right, but DX is always backwards compatible. You will still be able to
 run older DX apps, and develop for them. It's going to take some time for
 the market to transition to Vista and DX10 after they are released, so
 targeting them at release has little benefit for anyone.

I'm not sure how well the new programmable hardware will emulate the fixed-function pipeline, though. Hopefully the shader capabilities will be good enough to support the entire FF pipeline in shaders.

I did this in my master thesis (only the geometrical part of it, chapter 7 in the OGL spec, if I remember correctly). Worked like a charm. Actually it was sortof an emulator, as it based on the GL state, generated vertex programs. It was a proof of concept, but internally on all newer GPUs, this is the way it is done. There are no more FF pipelines in these, just programmable ones. And since these functions are the most important ones, the GPUs are optimized for them. Lars Ivar Igesund
Aug 17 2005
parent "Jarrett Billingsley" <kb3ctd2 yahoo.com> writes:
"Lars Ivar Igesund" <larsivar igesund.net> wrote in message 
news:de00mg$88f$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 I did this in my master thesis (only the geometrical part of it, chapter 7
 in the OGL spec, if I remember correctly). Worked like a charm. Actually 
 it
 was sortof an emulator, as it based on the GL state, generated vertex
 programs. It was a proof of concept, but internally on all newer GPUs, 
 this
 is the way it is done. There are no more FF pipelines in these, just
 programmable ones. And since these functions are the most important ones,
 the GPUs are optimized for them.

Really? That's amazing! I guess there wouldn't be much trouble with emulating the FF pipeline then with the next-gen cards.
Aug 17 2005
prev sibling parent Mike Parker <aldacron71 yahoo.com> writes:
Jarrett Billingsley wrote:
 
 I heard that when that happens, the performance of OpenGL will be reduced 
 significantly.  I also heard that there will be no support for extensions. 
 Announcement from the admin at OpenGL.org: 
 http://www.opengl.org/discussion_boards/cgi_directory/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=12;t=000001
 
 Will these issues only exist for windowed apps or what? 

It's hard to separate fact from fiction in the threads I've read regarding it, but it seems pretty certain to only affect windowed apps that use the 1.4 D3D implementation. You still have the option to use hardware drivers. The issue is that it turns off Aeroglass features when you do so. opengl.org is where I first heard about it, and I can't remember if it was that thread or one at another site (maybe gamedev.net or indiegamer.com) but someone from there were posts from 3DLabs and ATI employees saying they are working to get this resolved. Obviously it's a bad thing if an app ruins the user's desktop experience, and I can see how most users will likely claim the application 'broke windows'. No one needs that sort of word-of-mouth. I've also read that MS is planning to include some extensions in the D3D implementation. I don't know which ones, or how many, or even if that info came from a reliable source. In the end, I think all of this will prove to be a non-issue. There's quite a lot of money invested in OpenGL software on the Windows platform (think CAD, high end modelling, scientific data display, etc...) and I just don't see the developers (or even the users) of such software sitting still on an issue like this. Nor do I see MS alienating them.
Aug 17 2005