lizard78 wrote on 2024-02-10, 23:01:

Hi all, So I've been developing a game with retro hardware support and I added a separate path (mostly for 'completeness', the p […]
Show full quote

Hi all,
So I've been developing a game with retro hardware support and I added a separate path (mostly for 'completeness', the performance is terrible) for OpenGL 1.0. The main renderer uses 1.1 / 1.2 features. Problem is, I'm having a hard time finding something to test 1.0 out on. I'm wondering if there are any video cards that had a complete OpenGL 1.0 ICD? I'm not talking about MiniGL or OpenGL 1.1 here. A few cards I have:
Nvidia Riva --> 1.1
3dfx Voodoo 3 --> 1.1 (full ICD, not minigl)
ATI RAGE Pro --> 1.1

I read somewhere that some drivers only reported 1.0 even though they mostly supported 1.1, but no mention of which cards these were specifically.

Assuming this accurate, https://stackoverflow.com/questions/63065312/ … -0-not-even-1-1

Anything released before 1997 had to be 1.0, AFAIU .

Cool, didn't know that!

How about the Elsa Gloria XXL?
It had that Permedia/GLINT processor and an S3 Virge 325.

The Virge was doing VGA on DOS and provided Windows 95 acceleration (2D+Direct3D).

On Windows NT, the Permedia/GLINT proccesor was in use (OpenGL support fir CAD, no Direct3D).

Speaking under correction, though. 😂

Edit: Correction, GLiNT MX + GLINT Gamma..

At the point of 1.0 would mean professional industrial 3D on NT (i.e. big Intergraph cards in the 5 figures).... basic texturing was an extension

If you wanted to go "below 1.1 spec" for the consumer space, you'd have to figure out how to target miscellaneous MiniGLs made for first gen 3d hardware and have fun workarounds on the lack of blending functions, depth, clipping, etc. 😀 Quake3's public test version was the game that got every vendor scared straight into 1.1 compliance in spring 1999, MiniGLs died right then.

Jo22 wrote on 2024-02-11, 00:11:

Cool, didn't know that! […]
Show full quote

Cool, didn't know that!

How about the Elsa Gloria XXL?
It had that Permedia/GLINT processor and an S3 Virge 325.

The Virge was doing VGA on DOS and provided Windows 95 acceleration (2D+Direct3D).

On Windows NT, the Permedia/GLINT proccesor was in use (OpenGL support fir CAD, no Direct3D).

Speaking under correction, though. 😂

Edit: Correction, GLiNT MX + GLINT Gamma..

Never heard of this card - it's some sort of professional graphics card I take it? Reminds me, I also forgot to mention I have a Permedia 2 as well in my original post... also 1.1.

leileilol wrote on 2024-02-11, 03:22:

At the point of 1.0 would mean professional industrial 3D on NT (i.e. big Intergraph cards in the 5 figures).... basic texturing was an extension

If you wanted to go "below 1.1 spec" for the consumer space, you'd have to figure out how to target miscellaneous MiniGLs made for first gen 3d hardware and have fun workarounds on the lack of blending functions, depth, clipping, etc. 😀 Quake3's public test version was the game that got every vendor scared straight into 1.1 compliance in spring 1999, MiniGLs died right then.

Right, 1.0 has some big issues. The lack of texture objects is a problem and the only solution in 1.0 (without using extensions) is plugging it into a display list and hope the driver does something intelligent with it. Another issue is the lack of any option for batching dynamic geometry. It works.... the performance just sucks. Testing on my Voodoo 3 the performance of a 1.0 compliant renderer vs 1.1 is about half the framerate. I was hoping there was something out there I could test 1.0 on mostly out of morbid curiosity. I'll probably just leave it around as a sort of compatibility layer just in case because it seems like there isn't really anything floating around out there.

MiniGL- nah don't think it's worth it for me. None of those 3dfx .dlls seem to support any of the vertex4f functions (providing geometry in clip space coordinates like you can in glide). Plus I already have a mostly finished glide renderer anyway- not much point in messing with the MiniGLs. Haven't looked into the minor vendors MiniGLs.

What about the OpenGL software renderer included with WinNT 3.51?

bakemono wrote on 2024-02-11, 13:10:

What about the OpenGL software renderer included with WinNT 3.51?

It's a good idea - but my engine needs at least Windows 95 to run. I wonder if the original release of Windows 95 included the 1.0 software renderer ? This would've pre-dated the 1.1 spec. I'm going to try that out later tonight.

lizard78 wrote on 2024-02-11, 14:16:

It's a good idea - but my engine needs at least Windows 95 to run. I wonder if the original release of Windows 95 included the 1.0 software renderer ? This would've pre-dated the 1.1 spec. I'm going to try that out later tonight.

Windows 95 didn't have one until MS released the OPENGL95.EXE addon, but I think it is the 1.1 API, similar to the software renderer in NT 4.

bakemono wrote on 2024-02-11, 14:49:

lizard78 wrote on 2024-02-11, 14:16:

It's a good idea - but my engine needs at least Windows 95 to run. I wonder if the original release of Windows 95 included the 1.0 software renderer ? This would've pre-dated the 1.1 spec. I'm going to try that out later tonight.

Windows 95 didn't have one until MS released the OPENGL95.EXE addon, but I think it is the 1.1 API, similar to the software renderer in NT 4.

You're right, I checked the original release and it doesn't have an implementation although OSR2 does (the 1.1 implementation).