21–30 of 78 posts
OK I'm missing this completely. What problem is this solving ? I can't believe they have never seen a smartphone recently, so they know what cheapo hardware is capable of pushing nowadays. Yet this exists. So what is it that is exiting here but fly high over my head ?
How will this be different than http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Graphics_Project which had some promise and then faded into the sunset?
- prices seem reasonable for doing this as a commercial project
- badly written intro that assumes far too much
- seems to be based on 2000-era technology
- not actually delivering hardware, so very limited practical use
- the community that demands open hardware on principle is a lot smaller than they think, so this probably won't get funded
But we're not used to kickstarting software projects at normal rates, we're more used to founders working for free to prototype something and using kickstarter to push it into production. This misses that last (even more expensive) stage.
How will this be different than http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Graphics_Project which had some promise and then faded into the sunset?
It was also a more complicated architecture than it needed to be IMHO due to splitting functions between two FPGAs, one for the graphics bit and the other for the bus interface.
As someone with a chip design background: - prices seem reasonable for doing this as a commercial project - badly written intro that assumes far too much - seems to be based on 2000-era technology - not actually delivering hardware, so very limited practical use - the community that demands open hardware on principle is a lot smaller than they think, so this probably won't get funded But we're not used to kickstartin…
Could you elaborate?
As someone with a chip design background: - prices seem reasonable for doing this as a commercial project - badly written intro that assumes far too much - seems to be based on 2000-era technology - not actually delivering hardware, so very limited practical use - the community that demands open hardware on principle is a lot smaller than they think, so this probably won't get funded But we're not used to kickstartin…
>- seems to be based on 2000-era technology Could you elaborate?
ps: instead of parallel compute units for vertex/pixel shader.
ps2: I'd like to see an open hardware RISC movement for GPU. I wish for a 'simple' parallel array of visual oriented floating point primitives, very small and regular, but very open so that people can write compilers and drivers with ease. As opposed to very potent but obscure gpu followed with crippled drivers. Just enough to get fast yet low power css/dom like systems (with little bonus like path rendering) to help lift the visual work away from RPI-class SoCs.
Is there a reason why the demo video looks like the cutting edge in 1993? Maybe I'm missing something...