the Fiddler's picture

Are you planning to use GL3 in your current projects?

Yes, I will switch to GL3 (dropping GL2 completely)
48% (11 votes)
Yes, I will take advantage of GL3 (but keep compatibility with GL2)
35% (8 votes)
No, I have no plans to switch to GL3 at this time
17% (4 votes)
Total votes: 23


Comment viewing options

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

Continuing the discussion from

3. How many users are interested in programming against "normal" vs. "forward" contexts? How many would like to support hardware that cannot run OpenGL 2.1 or higher (i.e. where shaders-only won't work)?

I'd really like to hear more opinions (at least) to this point of the list, it would help alot if there would show a trend what you people really do need for your projects.

My current project is developed with GL3 in mind. It does use a few deprecated features right now (e.g. built-in uniforms), but I'm gradually stripping these out. Driver bugs notwithstanding, I hope to switch to forward compatible GL3 by December.

puklaus's picture

Make stable 1.0, then 2.0 becomes GL3 and both of them will be downloadable, so programmer can decide which one to use.
No need to integrate both of them to one packet. Maybe someone can keep developing GL1-2 branch if Fiddler develop GL3 branch.

objarni's picture

I'm using OpenTK right now proffessionally at work. Our customers are in the manufacturing industry. Being dependent on the latest GFX H/W would be really bad for my company. OpenGL <2.0 is therefore my aim, as I'm guessing that is widespread enough. (if anyone has good links on statistics for different OpenGL versions, I'd be happy if you share them..)

So I like puklaus idea.

Inertia's picture

No matter what you vote, GL.Vertex&Co. will always be available in OpenTK. The vote is merely to help make a decision whether a namespace partition between "normal" and "forward" context is desired at all, and in whos favor it should be.