Open GL Support at what level?

[marcus staffel]

Is Open GL only supported in layout or also in raytracing?

What graphic-cards are supported? ATI, NVIDIA ?
ATI Radeon X1300, X1600, X1800, X1900 ?
NVIDIA Geforce 7200, 7300, 7600, 7800, 7900, 7950 ?

What will speed up raytracing most (Shaders, Pixelpipelines, ...) ?

Do for example 2x SLI 7600 speedup more than 1x 7800 ?

What is faster NVIDIA SLI support or ATI Crossfire support?

[Lightwolf]

Is Open GL only supported in layout or also in raytracing?
OpenGL is only used for your interactive displays in Layout or Modeler.
The final renders are completely handled by the CPU.

Cheers,
Mike

[marcus staffel]

Thanks for the answer.
Does it relate to Lightwave 8.5 or 9.0 or both?

Could it be a feature in future?

[Lightwolf]

Thanks for the answer.
Does it relate to Lightwave 8.5 or 9.0 or both?

Both, and just about any other production quality renderer out there.

Could it be a feature in future?
I'm sure... but I think it will still take a couple of years before it really makes sense. LW 11 maybe :)

Cheers,
Mike

[Penforhire]

It also seems the OpenGL regular drivers from Nvidia and ATI are somewhat crippled relative to their "workstation" drivers (e.g. for Quadro & FireGL cards). What I've read around the net suggests their lower-priced "consumer" or gamer cards are almost equally capable but both these companies hold back some 3d performance in the drivers for gamer cards.

[marcus staffel]

LW11, that's good.

If I compare Adobe Premiere Pro2.0 or AfterEffects 7.0 this software shall take advantage of OpenGL-rendering for rendering video.

It's no raytracer, but it shows the possibilities.

[Lightwolf]

LW11, that's good.

Well, I was joking... and LW11 I assume is maybe three to four years away?

If I compare Adobe Premiere Pro2.0 or AfterEffects 7.0 this software shall take advantage of OpenGL-rendering for rendering video.

That's what they say... with severe limitations and we're just talking about compositing... addind a couple of images on top of each other.
It's no raytracer, but it shows the possibilities.
Not really. A raytracer is a **** of a lot more complex. Even nVidias Gelato only runs some parts on the GPU, and it is no speed deamon either. Maya has a hardware renderer, mainly for particles and very simple surfaces (no raytracing)... mental ray has an openGL accelerated Z-Buffer (which is a miniscule part of the renderer).
There are a couple of demos out there... but nothing that has the flexibility and quality of a CPU based renderer. Programming a GPU is a very different beast and comes with _tons_ of limitations.

Cheers,
Mike

[mattclary]

I'm sure... but I think it will still take a couple of years before it really makes sense. LW 11 maybe :)


Assuming Microsoft hasn't succeeded in killing OpenGL off by then.

[mattclary]

It also seems the OpenGL regular drivers from Nvidia and ATI are somewhat crippled relative to their "workstation" drivers (e.g. for Quadro & FireGL cards). What I've read around the net suggests their lower-priced "consumer" or gamer cards are almost equally capable but both these companies hold back some 3d performance in the drivers for gamer cards.

Not "really". Try running an OpenGL game on a Quadro, odds are it will not perform as well as a consumer card. The drivers are different for the pro cards, they are designed for different things.

Pro cards go for image quality and support some high level OpenGL APIs that are only utilized by some 3D packages. LightWave does not make use of the extra APIs (h3ll, it barely uses OpenGL) so no gain is seen in LW with a pro card. Consumer cards concentrate on fill rates and are better for games (and are no worse than pro cards when used with LightWave).

[jm.khayat]

Do for example 2x SLI 7600 speedup more than 1x 7800 ?

What is faster NVIDIA SLI support or ATI Crossfire support?

I too would like to have an answer to these:help:

thanks a lot

jm

[Elmar Moelzer]

We have done both software and hardware volume- rendering for VoluMedic (the hardware is only in the OpenGL viewports right now though) and even though there are a lot of cool things that we can do with it, the hardware rendering is still much inferior to the software rendering in about everything but speed.
I think that as graphics cards advance, we will be able to use it better, but right now nothing can beat a good software renderer in terms of quality IMHO.
CU
Elmar

[Penforhire]

It may not help in LW's OpenGL but there are instructions around the web on forcing newer "gamer" Nvidia cards to use Quadro drivers and the resulting benefits.

Here's a link to relevant commentary -- http://www.theinquirer.net/Default.aspx?article=28107 but the "crippling" I mention is not disputed. Do you have any links claiming urban myth on that?

[mattclary]

Do you have any links claiming urban myth on that?

Do you have links proving that gaming OpenGL is faster with a Quadro?

I use my video card for gaming and Lightwave, a Quadro buys me nothing, so I don't see it as being superior or my card as being crippled.

[dballesg]

Well, I was joking... and LW11 I assume is maybe three to four years away?



Mike maybe if Jay invite you to be part of the development team, that figure can be reduced? ;)

Best regards,
David

[Lightwolf]

Mike maybe if Jay invite you to be part of the development team, that figure can be reduced? ;)

I doubt it... adding more programmers does not necessarily reduce the time it takes to get a product out of the door...

The same with animation I guess... what takes you 10 days to do can usually not be created by 10 people on 1 day ;)

Cheers,
Mike

[Penforhire]

Matt, you're right but I didn't think we were talking about using a Quadro for gaming, rather why not to use a high-end gamer board for serious OpenGL work.

I'll say it again -- the "big two" (ATI and Nvidia) cripple their OpenGL drivers for their gaming boards. Maybe it doesn't affect LW, but it should.

[Captain Obvious]

Pro cards go for image quality and support some high level OpenGL APIs that are only utilized by some 3D packages.
That's not quite right, I think. The "high level" OpenGL functions should be things like GLSL or such, and they're supported just as well on both kinds of cards. Basically, all the Quadros and FireGLs have over the Geforces and Radeons are anti-aliased line drawing, stereoscopic rendering and (sometimes) an additional double DVI output (for two 30" displays).

There are no other real features that the "games" cards lack, as far as I know.



I'll say it again -- the "big two" (ATI and Nvidia) cripple their OpenGL drivers for their gaming boards. Maybe it doesn't affect LW, but it should.

Why? Just straight-up-no-fuss OpenGL should really run at the same exact speed. It's not so much that the "gaming" drivers are crippled, as it is that they lack a select few features. They probably optimize the gaming drivers as much as they can. Why wouldn't they? Gaming cards is MUCH bigger business than workstation cards, even if the latter cost three times as much for the same hardware.

[Penforhire]

For some reason I can't find it but I recall reading somewhere (Tom's Hardware, Anandtech,...) a comparison of Quadro cards to one or two similar-vintage top-level Nvidia gamer cards. The Solidworks times (and some other program's benchmark) were stunningly different.

[Captain Obvious]

For some reason I can't find it but I recall reading somewhere (Tom's Hardware, Anandtech,...) a comparison of Quadro cards to one or two similar-vintage top-level Nvidia gamer cards. The Solidworks times (and some other program's benchmark) were stunningly different.
Was it actual recorded performance (with something like FRAPS), or SPEC results?

[mattclary]

That's not quite right, I think. The "high level" OpenGL functions should be things like GLSL or such, and they're supported just as well on both kinds of cards. Basically, all the Quadros and FireGLs have over the Geforces and Radeons are anti-aliased line drawing, stereoscopic rendering and (sometimes) an additional double DVI output (for two 30" displays).

I was refering to anti-aliased lines when I spoke of image quality. The other features I spoke of are discussed here:

http://www.leadtek.com.tw/eng/support/faq.asp?faqlineid=44

[Penforhire]

Captain, I don't recall the benchmark but I do recall whistling at the big difference in what, I think, was an actual time score. I know, without a link it doesn't exist...

Matt, thanks for the link. That covers the differences well. Honest of them to admit 95% similarity and mention the GeForce hack at the end. Some features, like anti-aliased wireframe are nifty when you don't need an aliased wireframe to compare angles (as we do need in hand-drawn LW edges).

As a pro user elsewhere I fully understand the value of "certification" (less finger-pointing when something glitches in ProE) and customer support on pro products. My company's CAD administrator works for me so anything that keeps the ship from rocking is a good thing.

It does not excuse Nvidia nor ATI, IMO, for the crippleware they release partly to keep prices up (Matrox and Hercules never crippled anything I know but they're vanishing players now). I understand it but I don't have to like it. They are resisting the amazing decline in all other hardware pricing. Good for them, bad for us.