I think, that it is a very cool toolkit!!

I think it''s useless without support from ATI and probably Matrox.

Should be compatible with most cards.

The compilers are optimised for NVIDIA GPU''s, but the shader ''binaries'' (vertex/pixel OpenGL/DirectX, thats 4 compilers) should work on any card. It just wont be optimised is all.

D.V.

Carpe Diem

I think it''s really cool

On firingsquad they showed some assembler code, cg code and renderman.. The cg code looked really good and the results where beautiful..

When I have a geforce 4 I really want to learn this and I think CG is great for it.

quote:

---

Original post by DeltaVee
Should be compatible with most cards.

The compilers are optimised for NVIDIA GPU''s, but the shader ''binaries'' (vertex/pixel OpenGL/DirectX, thats 4 compilers) should work on any card. It just wont be optimised is all.

---

Wrongo. OpenGL shaders are output using nVidia extenstions. This will _not_ work with other cards under GL.

Even under DirectX, this won''t handle ps1.4.

You can only use directx for non-Nvidia cards which makes it pointless especially when dx9 comes out with the higher level shading language. Cg uses Nvidia specific extensions for OpenGL. I think Nvidia certainly has the right idea but they need to put there support behind OGL2.0 that way making Cg completely card independent. You could use the same shader but just choose if you want DX or OGL. Cg could definately become a standard for the higher level shading languages of DX9 and OGL2.0. I also like the way the language is set up but like I said, I think it's kind of pointless until Nvidia throws there weight behind OGL2.0 which they have only half heartedly done (imo).

edit: ap beat me to it about the extensions

[edited by - doodah2001 on June 13, 2002 1:19:20 PM]

>>Wrongo. OpenGL shaders are output using nVidia extenstions. This will _not_ work with other cards under GL<<

note i havent read the spec but

i assume there must be a software fallback in fact its logical there must be one the whole concept of ''cg'' would be worthless otherwise

http://uk.geocities.com/sloppyturds/gotterdammerung.html

quote:

---

Original post by zedzeek
i assume there must be a software fallback in fact its logical there must be one the whole concept of ''cg'' would be worthless otherwise

---

There is no software fallback.

What do I think about Cg??? I think "!!! WOW !!!", that''s what I think!!!

I think that Cg is a great idea, flawed I guess but I''m still prepared to back it! I''ve been waiting for this for some time now because the assembly interface is just too difficult for me... Well, ok, it''s not -that- difficult, but then again neither is x86 assembly coding but I still preffer to use C++

I got the full download, I am currently eyeing over the spec. and if all goes well I''ll be experimenting in it quite soon Course I''ll only be able to play with the vertex shaders for now, that''s all my card''s got :/ But then when I upgrade my card, I''ll be able to play with fragment shaders too

I think that for the first release Cg is looking promising. Maybe there''s a chance that in the future the language will improve? (Stranger things have happened...) I would go into a technical debate with you guys, but I''d probably lose, and I''m throwing myself on the bandwagon because Cg is a very small language at the moment and I''m already 1/2 way through reading the technical doc.

It''s not a big thing to learn this language, and my personal advise to everyone else is to at least give it a good look (If you haven''t already) if not just for the sake of keeping clued up on the scene.



-------- E y e .Scream Software --------
----------------------------------------
                                  /-\
    http://www.eyescream.cjb.net | * |
                                  \-/
----------------------------------------

i just want to state that actually its more or less what gl2.0 would be and microsoft wanted to do for dx9.0 in the d3dx-library (this addon that comes with each dx)

its quite cool but its nothing revolutionary. its just the nv-version. and logically with blowed up marketing till the extreme.. (NVIDIA MARSHALS IN A NEW ERA IN GRAPHICS WITH ITS ADVANCED COMPILER FOR THE Cg LANGUAGE) what a title.. with every thing in capitals..
new era.. blah.. there is nothing new just more easy.. as nvparse but more general.

i would have prefered when nvidia would have announced an implementation of the gl2.0 vertexshaderr language working on gf3/4 as it is more or less the same.. (more less, gl2 has more)

anyways. they can''t stop the war, so we have to learn all half year a fully new way to program gpu''s.. annoying.

"take a look around" - limp bizkit
www.google.com