Geek Answers Handbook

OpenGL: What is the deal with the cancellation?

OpenGL 3.0 and 3.1 have outdated many features that I consider necessary. In particular, the use of a fixed function in shaders.

Can someone explain what is really the matter with this?

Why do they find it necessary to discount such a useful feature that is obvious to everyone, and that no robust hardware company is going to remove support?

+5
source share
5 answers

As you said, no hardware company will remove support for fixed-function shaders, because there are so many existing applications that use them. However, they do not want to define the interaction between the FF shaders and each future extension they add. These interactions are very complex (in part because the FF shaders are so complex) that leads to errors and inconsistent implementations between suppliers - both of which are harmful to developers and end users.

, : FF-, . , FF. , Microsoft D3D10: , . , , , , .

+6

, , "", . , OpenGL 3.0 - . , , 3.1 3.2, , . , , , ARB . ( "" 3.2, , ​​).

, FF - . FF, GL .

+2

​​ , , ?

, Apple , MacOSX 10.7 3,2 . , ARB_compatibility, . 2.1 3.2 .

, :

  • : . ARB . , , . OpenGL 3 GL 3.0; ARB . , ? , , ? :

  • , . , ​​OpenGL, , .

  • GL GL ES . ES 2.0 , , ​​GL 2.1. OpenGL. , GL .

+2

GLSL, , .

, , OpenGL ES 2.0 FF ( OpenGL ES 1.x), , OpenGL OpenGL ES , FF , .

, , OpenGL ES OpenGL, FF , OpenGL ES, , , OpenGL

+1

OpenGL "core" "" . .

, . ( , , OpenGL, ). OpenGL ES OpenGL, OpenGL ES 2.x/3.x OpenGL 4.3 .

, PlayStations Nintendo, , OpenGL.

OpenGL, ES ( , ES 2.0 ). , , , - ( , glBegin/glEnd VBO ).

, , , . "" - , .

0
source

More articles:


All Articles