1 / 7

Super Buffers Workgroup

Super Buffers Workgroup. Status update, June 2004. March 2004 – Workgroup reset. Too large of a scope Render-to-texture, render-to-vertex-array, buffer swaps, memory objects, sub mems, validation Could not get agreement in workgroup Competing proposal by NVIDIA / APPLE / 3Dlabs submitted

kermit-slater
Download Presentation

Super Buffers Workgroup

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Super Buffers Workgroup Status update, June 2004

  2. March 2004 – Workgroup reset • Too large of a scope • Render-to-texture, render-to-vertex-array, buffer swaps, memory objects, sub mems, validation • Could not get agreement in workgroup • Competing proposal by NVIDIA / APPLE / 3Dlabs submitted • EXT_render_target with focus on render-to-texture functionality

  3. March 2004 - Results • Narrower focus for workgroup • Render-to-texture first, render-to-vertex array second • Uber Buffers Lite spec from ATI and Render Target new basis for WG • Workgroup chair and spec editor not from the same company • Jon Leech interim chair • Should be policy for all workgroups

  4. April 2004 • Both Uber Buffers Lite and Render Target specifications refined • Vote called to pick one to move forward • Vote resulted in a DRAW • UBL: SGI, ATI, Intel • RT: IBM, NVIDIA, APPLE • Abstain: 3Dlabs Other (7)

  5. May 2004 • Lots of discussion on how to move forward • Third spec proposed: EXT_Compromise_Buffers • Addressing key criticim against both UBL and RT • One Contentious key issue identified that set RT and UBL / CB apart • RT: indirect handles • UBL and CB: Direct handles • Vote called on direct vs indirect handles • Vote resulted in favor of direct handles (5 against 2) • Direct handles: 3Dlabs, ATI, IBM, Intel, SGI • Indirect handles: NVIDIA, APPLE

  6. May / June 2004 • Workgroup decided to use the EXT_Compromise_buffers spec • In favor: SGI, 3Dlabs, ATI, Intel. Abstain: NVIDIA, IBM (5 / 2) • Key decision! • ATI spec editor • 3Dlabs workgroup chair • In process of identifying and closing CB spec issues • Proposed timeline (open for discussion) • Sept 2004 – Draft CB based spec with render-to-texture support • Dec 2004 – Final render-to-texture spec. Promoted to ARB • Dec 2004 – 1st Draft render-to-vertex array spec • March 2005 –2nd Draft render-to-vertex array spec • June 2005 – Final render-to-vertex array spec. Promoted to ARB status • June 2005 – Render-to-texture support added to core Need 16-bit and/or 32-bit fp No benefit Need 32-bit fp Need 16-bit fp

  7. Conclusion • It has been a rocky 3 months • Progress is now being made! • Thanks to all workgroup participants, especially NVIDIA and ATI for the compromises made and their efforts to keep the workgroup going! • Questions ?

More Related