<div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Apr 9, 2009 at 3:49 PM, Callum Lerwick <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:seg@haxxed.com">seg@haxxed.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
<div class="im">On Thu, 2009-04-09 at 15:17 -0500, King InuYasha wrote:<br>
> On Thu, Apr 9, 2009 at 1:07 PM, Callum Lerwick <<a href="mailto:seg@haxxed.com">seg@haxxed.com</a>> wrote:<br>
<br>
<br>
</div><div class="im">> Crystal Space uses Cg. WHY? They don't even use Direct3D. The<br>
> only<br>
> justification for Cg instead of GLSL is if you're wanting to<br>
> share<br>
> shaders across OpenGL and Direct3D, in which case writing in<br>
> HLSL and<br>
> using ATI's tool is a non-proprietary solution. (Now how about<br>
> a<br>
> GLSL2HLSL compiler...)<br>
<br>
><br>
</div><div class="im">> Maybe because it makes it easy to make shaders to both GLSL and HLSL?<br>
> For open source projects like PCSX2 which need shaders a lot, it is<br>
> absolutely necessary that the SL output is equivalent on OGL and D3D.<br>
<br>
</div>Does anyone read before replying? Code in HLSL (99% similar to Cg<br>
anyway) and use ATI's HLSL2GLSL.<br>
<br>--<br>
fedora-devel-list mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:fedora-devel-list@redhat.com">fedora-devel-list@redhat.com</a><br>
<a href="https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list" target="_blank">https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list</a><br></blockquote></div><br><div>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.</div>