I need to apologize to Matrox -- their implementation of hardware displacement mapping is NOT quad based. I was thinking about a certain other companies proposed approach. Matrox's implementation actually looks quite good, so even if we don't use it because of the geometry amplification issues, I think it will serve the noble purpose of killing dead any proposal to implement a quad based solution.Next up are a few comments on 3DLabs' P10.
They don't support NV_vertex_program_1_1, which I use for the NV20 path, and when I hacked my programs back to 1.0 support for testing, an issue did show up, but still, this is the best showing from a new board from any company other than Nvidia.The P10 isn't an all out game card yet, but Creative will be using it in mainstream graphics products in the near future. Next, Carmack pledges support for OpenGL 2.0 in the new Doom.
It is too early to tell what the performance is going to be like, because they don't yet support a vertex object extension, so the CPU is hand feeding all the vertex data to the card at the moment. It was faster than I expected for those circumstances.
I am now committed to supporting an OpenGL 2.0 renderer for Doom through all the spec evolutions. If anything, I have been somewhat remiss in not pushing the issues as hard as I could with all the vendors. Now really is the critical time to start nailing things down, and the decisions may stay with us for ten years.Carmack gets a lot of attention from the media, and his engines are widely used to benchmark graphics performance. Like it or not, the mainstream graphics industry seems to be one nation under Carmack.