BlueMonkMN's picture


Some Vista users are reporting problems, and I'm not sure if it's related to OpenTK or my own code. So far I know one user has version 6.0.6000.16386 of opengl32.dll, and is reporting the following error:
Error Screenshot

My own version of opengl.dll (5.1.2600.2180) on Windows XP works fine (I assume that's the significant DLL here). Is there possibly a compatibility problem working with different versions of opengl32.dll? Or just an OS problem?

The game in question was the same one linked in my previous post:
And the OpenTK code is based off of version 1166 from SubVersion.

(Edit: Also, what in the world is this "@" prefix I see on some of the parameters. I can't find any documentation on that for C#.)


Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
BlueMonkMN's picture

Now back to the question of GL_ARB_texture_rectangle. It's been a long time and I've decided to implement bitmapped fonts instead of waiting for OpenTK fonts, and the one problem I'm still aware of (as far as I can remember) seems to be that my environment reports that there is no support for GL_ARB_texture_rectangle, and yet everything works fine in my application that's using TextureTarget.TextureRectangleArb extensively. How could this be? (I have an NVIDIA GeForce FX 5200)

the Fiddler's picture

I think the FX series do support GL_ARB_texture_rectangle. What does glView report on your system?

BlueMonkMN's picture

It reports a number of GL_ARB extensions, but, like OpenTK, no GL_ARB_texture_rectangle.

Edit: So why am I able to use texture rectangle on hardware/drivers that supposedly doesn't support it?
Is it possible that out-of-date drivers would report a feature as unsupported even though the hardware supports it, and yet somehow allow the feature to work?

BlueMonkMN's picture

I downloaded updated drivers and now it reports OpenGL 2.1 instead of 1.4, and also reports support for GL_ARB_texture_rectangle. Still it's odd that even though the previous driver didn't report support for that extension, it somehow worked. I thought that even if the hardware supported a feature, it would be inaccessible without a driver that also supports it.

the Fiddler's picture

It might be that the feature was not 100% ready, so it was not marked as supported. Or it could be a genuine driver bug - it happens :) (for example, some nvidia drivers return invalid function pointers for specific unsupported methods).