On Thu, Apr 9, 2009 at 3:49 PM, Callum Lerwick <seg@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Thu, 2009-04-09 at 15:17 -0500, King InuYasha wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 9, 2009 at 1:07 PM, Callum Lerwick <seg@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Crystal Space uses Cg. WHY? They don't even use Direct3D. The
> only
> justification for Cg instead of GLSL is if you're wanting to
> share
> shaders across OpenGL and Direct3D, in which case writing in
> HLSL and
> using ATI's tool is a non-proprietary solution. (Now how about
> a
> GLSL2HLSL compiler...)
>
> Maybe because it makes it easy to make shaders to both GLSL and HLSL?Does anyone read before replying? Code in HLSL (99% similar to Cg
> For open source projects like PCSX2 which need shaders a lot, it is
> absolutely necessary that the SL output is equivalent on OGL and D3D.
anyway) and use ATI's HLSL2GLSL.
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
The problem with HLSL2GLSL is that it isn't dynamic like Cg is. They would be stuck refreshing the GLSL every time. Now, if HLSL2GLSL could be adapted to work like a dynamic code generator similar to Cg, then that's great! But until then, I severely doubt Cg will be displaced anytime soon.
-- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
