OpenGL 2.0?

Discussion in 'Games' started by Demon Hunter, May 2, 2005.

  1. Demon Hunter macrumors 68020

    Mar 30, 2004
    Anyone have any ideas/speculation on when we'll have this in Tiger? Maybe 10.4.5 or something?

    OpenGL 2.0 has been out since September 7th, 2004... so I'd imagine we'll be seeing it fairly soon. Hopefully very soon, since Apple is hiring more graphics engineers for games! :D
  2. isgoed macrumors 6502

    Jun 5, 2003
    When the mac port of Unreal tournament 3 is out?
  3. Soulstorm macrumors 68000


    Feb 1, 2005
    OpenGL 2.0 IS supported by panther 10.3.9. So, it must be supported in Tiger also.

    If you are unsure about that, you can check this application:

    EDIT: I must be stupid. The entire post is wrong. Some openGL 2.0 functions are supported, but the current OpenGL version in OS X 10.3.9 is 1.5. Also, some extensions apple uses are written against OpenGL specifications, according to the program I showed you.
  4. vouder17 macrumors 6502a


    Apr 30, 2003
    Ok i know very little to nothing about OpenGL, just maybe that it makes all the special effects on Mac OS X. So my question is, will OpenGL 2.0 bring apple closer to DirectX 9.0. Or will games still suck on a mac?
  5. GFLPraxis macrumors 604


    Mar 17, 2004
    Games are fine on a Mac, the only problem is that developers are sloppy when they port.

    OpenGL 2.0 would bring Macs closer to DirectX 9 in terms of special effects and shaders and all that stuff though.

    Does the current OpenGL support PS 3.0? How about OpenGL 2.0?
  6. snkTab macrumors 6502a


    Nov 13, 2004
    Cincinnati, OH
    Is it crazy to think that OpenGL looks nicer than DirectX. Even long before I cared, I always thought OpenGL brought a more richer experience.

    And why the hell is Dell a voting member of OpenGL Architecture???
  7. Converted2Truth macrumors 6502a


    Feb 6, 2004
    WTF are you saying? that developers should spend years of their time re-designing the game for the Mac, only to go out of business leaving us to play apple chess every bloody night? screw that...

    Developers do the best they can with the time they are given. I'd say that Mac devs (especially those that port openGL games) are the best programmers/software tweakers/code optimizers in the world.
  8. Soulstorm macrumors 68000


    Feb 1, 2005
    No they aren't. Sorry, but the only good ports I have seen so far are Doom 3 (aspyr did a rock solid port and gave their best. The bad performance issue is due to mac architexture and drivers) UT2004 (Ryan Gordon seriously kicks ass!), and quake 3 (which was the best port ever. It even supports dual processors!). Have YOU seen a good port from pc's to macs the last few months-years?

    Especially when the port is done from a DirectX version of the code the problem is big becuase in addition to a code redesign for mac, the engine must be redesigned for OpenGL!

    The fault is: Some companies do not care so much and simply do not know how to do it. For example, they use Codewarrior to code on the mac instead of xCode. I have heard that Codewarrior does not support well routines and functions that are mac-specific, for instance, dual processing, openGL mac-specific graphics, g5 optimizations etc.

    One thing you are right though: A good port from macs to pc's involves much tweaking and much time. Some companies can not afford that much.

    Oh, and one last thing (I sound like jobs speaking :) ) :Apple Should REALLY implement OpenGL 2.0 into their OS. Games like Doom 3 will see drastic improvements if they work with the shaders in OpenGL 2.0 instead of taking advantage of workarounds just to work for OpenGL 1.5. That may also be the reason why we can't see good shadows into UT2004.
  9. fistful macrumors 6502a


    Mar 29, 2004
    Maybe if game dev studios created games with an open standard to begin with they wouldn't have to put much effort in game ports at all. Of course that's not all there is to it but that would be a start.

    This is based on the assumption OpenGL unlike DirectX is an open standard, it is, isn't it?
  10. Rincewind42 macrumors 6502a


    Mar 3, 2003
    Orlando, FL
    The Mac Architecture is different. A lot of PC games are built with PC performance assumptions in mind and translate badly when brought to the Mac. Then the Mac porters have to decide where their time is best spent to improve performance. A game built with performance on the Mac from the bottom up can easily compete with/beat a similarly designed PC game.

    The redesign depends a lot on what features of DirectX (specifically Direct3D) the original design used. Some games translate fairly easily, others take a lot of work. Hell, some games designed for OpenGL would have a hard time running on Direct3D for many of the same reasons.

    It is true that Codewarrior doesn't have G5 specific optimizations, but the rest is not relevant to the program. Truthfully, the lack of G5 specific optimizations in the compiler is the only reason to dislike it from this standpoint.

    Likely the arguments that you have heard that brought up the other facets have to do with how the IDE/Compiler itself works. And while they are all valid arguments (as MW plans to address them in the future) the program still beats the crap out of Xcode/gcc for compile times so I see little reason to complain.

    I'm sure Apple is working diligently on an OpenGL 2.0 implementation. But it won't happen overnight. And as for workaround in shaders, those are more due to the video cards than the OpenGL spec. There aren't any consumer cards out there that fully support GLSL, and as such ARB vertex/fragment programs written in GLSL still may not run everywhere (or anywhere). A spec that can't run anywhere is kinda useless for a game...
  11. daveL macrumors 68020


    Jun 18, 2003
    Yes "Open"GL is an open standard; it's predecessor was developed by SGI, who later released it to the public.
  12. GFLPraxis macrumors 604


    Mar 17, 2004
    compare Halo benchmarks for an example :D
  13. savar macrumors 68000


    Jun 6, 2003
    District of Columbia
    I'm sorry, but I just choked on that. How on earth do you know that the port is rock solid and that Aspyr did the best they could? What mac architecture problems are you referring to? Without auditing the source code I can't see how you could possibly make such a claim.
  14. Fukui macrumors 68000


    Jul 19, 2002
    It wouldn't be a problem if it were open source. Then people who were very dedicated could take as long as they want without worrying about money...
  15. Soulstorm macrumors 68000


    Feb 1, 2005
    The claim isn't mine. It's Glenda Adams'. And I believe it because she is not the first programmer who says so. And she gives more specific details in other forums. Just do a search and find some forums she writes in. Then see what I mean.

    The fact that the port is solid you can easily understand by:
    1)It NEVER crashes (at least in me-and i have finished the game twice)
    2)Maybe it isn't as good in the PC but it can run in GeForce4MX and a 1GHz g4. I know that because I have tested it in my iMac G4 (see sig). What bad port runs in this hardware?
    3)You don't have to see the source code to see the resource management and OS X usage Doom 3 does to the machine.
    4)You really need to do a search in the forums about Doom 3. Many people say that some poor performance problems come from the engine itself, and not the port.

    I am not the only one that says the port is good. Just do a search in these forums. I could provide you with a link, but I am just too lazy :)
  16. applekid macrumors 68020

    Jul 3, 2003
    At the moment there isn't too much priority in getting all of the OpenGL 2.0 extensions enabled on the Mac (or even for the PC for that matter). It's for more dazzling effects for gaming and probably some special functions for researchers and non-entertainment-related software. I'm no expert on OpenGL, but I suggest going to a real developer if you want some better facts.

    If you want more information about the porting process, I suggest reading this recent interview with Glenda Adams of Aspyr: Some of you need some serious enlightening.

    Let me also add that the porters aren't really the culprit for bad Mac game performance. Give time constraints and constraints given from the original publisher and developers, they're doing a pretty damned good job. Porting houses aren't getting all of the original resources the original developer had. They are given just enough to do the port. Not to mention, the original developers and publishers have to approve every step taken. So there's a lot of red tape involved just to port one game.

Share This Page