[Open-graphics] Vision statement still not satisfying

[Bart van Leeuwen]

On Mon, 6 Dec 2004 03:27:28 +0100, Nicolas Capens wrote
> Hi Bart,
> 
> > It is not. Neither provide full documentation, which is part of the 
> > statement.
> 
> Yes, it's part of the vision statement as currently written. That 
> doesn't mean it should be. Documentation is something for the 
> developers. Our target market isn't only developers, is it?

Without developers no Linux, so this is in fact also relevant to linux users
(and those of other open soucre operating systems for that matter)

> 
> > Extra value is it being fully documented and usable, unlike anything else 
> > on the market. This may not be important to you, but it is important to 
> > quite a few others it seems.
> 
> NVIDIA and ATI cards are not usable? Well they do run immensely 
> popular games and professional applications you know. Try shaking a 
> stick at that with the Open Graphics card. It just doesn't have 
> the.. oh, right... features.

When interested in games currently I will use an NVIDIA card. As long as their
support remains as good as it is I'll keep doing that most likely. That said,
playing games is a small part of what I do with computers. Testing new
software and operating systems is soemthign I do a lot more. For that nvidia
cards are not very usefull unless 2d support is enough.

> 
> Ah, you probably meant running it on Linux? Then please don't forget 
> to mention it. It's important.

No, I meant running on any platform of my choice.
That includes but is by far not limited to Linux.

> 
> > No, running 3d applications is NOT the goal. Having graphics hardware that 
> > is fully documented and that can be very well supported on open source 
> > platforms is the goal. Good 3D performance is an additional desire, not a 
> > goal.
> 
> I wanted to express this in a nice way, especially considering your 
> effort in your previous e-mail, but...
> 
> THIS IS HILARIOUS!
> 
> Running 3D applications is not the goal? So you want to buy this 
> graphics card and just smell it or something? Your ultimate pleasure 
> is reading the documentation? Oh yes, it's going to be very well 
> supported on open-source platforms, so we can all watch how well it 
> renders text?

The specs as they are would be very usefull for making a home theatre or
digital video recorder/player device if entertainment must be in there. No, it
won't make a good gamign device if that is what you mean.

Again, there is more in this world then gaming, and a modern desktop
environment uses a fair bit of 3d graphics as well. 3d hardware acceleration
is usefull even if it doesn't allow ou to play doom 3.

> 
> That was mean... sorry, just couldn't help it. I hope it illustrates 
> more than ever how important it really is to express the vision of a 
> project, and that you just meant it other than I read it.

Hmm. It seems to me that you'd have to read the requirements and restrictions
also for a more complete picture. I find it hard to see how you misread it to
say that the aim would be to build a high performance 3d card instantly.
> 
> > A windows driver has been dscussed and considered a good thing. If the 
> > card can support the game also then no need to change graphics cards.
> If it can't, well.. that might be a problem for some indeed.
> 
> There are two options. Either we include into the vision that it 
> should have sufficient performance to run some popular (but older 
> generation) games, or we don't. In the latter case, which I 
> currently think is the only viable, I don't think it should be 
> considered a problem. There's a big difference between claiming it 
> has the right performance, while it isn't capable of running these 
> games, then just telling people to buy something else because the 
> project just doesn't target it. Maybe it can end up being something 
> in between, for good or for better, but 'maybe' is not part of the 
> goals we're working towards.

Well, its not in the vision statement indeed, it is however in the FAQ.

> 
> > It is however simply unrealistic to expect to be able to develop a high 
> > performance 3D graphics card in a short amount of time. It is very 
> > realistic to try develop one that will do well for the lower intensiy 3D 
> > graphics used in desktops nowadays. It is also quite feasable to develop a 
> > graphics card that will do very well for home theatre/media center pcs.
> 
> Fully agreed. Don't forget to mention the platform again though, or 
> you're working in an already filled market.
> 
> > It is also quite possible to do this without limiting ourselves with 
> > regards to future 3D graphics development.
> 
> Absolutely. Just don't expect to equal NVIDIA or ATI in terms of 
> performance, ever.

Expect to? nope. It is not impossible, but it is extremely unlikely. I doubt
this is a problem at all.

> 
> > So, for as afar as I am concerned, there is no viable way to enter the 
> > market on a relatively tight budget and within reasonable time if you 
> > focus on 3D graphics. Forgetting them would however be a big mistake, but 
> > first priority is catering to markets that can be served on the available 
> > budget and within a reasonable time. Gaming/high end 3D is simply not a 
> > part of that.
> 
> That's what I kept saying. And if that's the project's vision then 
> that's fine with me. Go create that card, I'll support it every way 
> I can.

Which for all I can tell is the idea.

> 
> But right now it's not in the vision statement. It's not clear at 
> all, and I see discussions about OpenGL 2.0 for the wrong reasons 
> still going. If we want to work efficiently everybody has to know 
> exactly what we're going for. No more, no less.
> 
> > That indeed means that suc a card cannot compete directly with NVIDIA and 
> > ATI and the like in their primary markets, that is already clearly stated, 
> > and is not a bad thing unless you are aiming for market domination. It 
> > seems to me that the ogp is first of all aiming at filling a niche, not at 
> > market domination.
> 
> Market domination is impossible, I do realize that. But what I and 
> many others need is to specify that niche market a little better. 
> Well, this e-mail shows your vision about it, and I largely agree 
> with it, but there can still be confusion about the text currently 
> on the website.

For all I can tell we are indeed not too clear yet about where this niche is
tho some areas have been indentified and are mentioned also on the about page
below the vision statement.

That said, maybe you want to suggest a text that words this all better. I
wrote the initial version of whats there now, but English is not my native
language, so well, it might not be the best way to state whats there.

> 
> Best regards,
> 
> Nicolas

--
Created with Open WebMail at http://www.bartsplace.net/
Read my weblog at http://soapbox.bartsplace.net/