11 ms·

> the advantage of being fully cross-platform I would scratch the fully, it's not on iOS or macOS

hellofunk 10y ago
Details: https://www.reddit.com/r/vulkan/comments/462lwi/vulkan_coming_to_os_x_and_ios/ https://www.reddit.com/r/vulkan/comments/462lwi/vulkan_comin...
- rdsnsca 10y ago
  Pretty sure that version of Vulkan will be running on top of Apple's Metal.
pjmlp 10y ago
Neither on any Android < Android N, or any console produced by Sony, Nintendo and Microsoft.
- TillE 10y ago
  > or any console produced by Sony, Nintendo and Microsoft I suspect that'll change. Sony and Microsoft are both using more or less standard AMD GPUs, and game (engine) developers will demand it.
  - pjmlp 10y ago
    No, indies will demand it. AAA studios are doing quite fine with the current API that are even lower than Vulkan. Indies with FOSS background seem to have a hard time to grasp how the games industry works in terms of IP, technology stacks and outsourcing for platform ports.
    - shmerl 10y ago
      That will change when pressure will grow. Same as ActiveX was driven out by standard Web technologies. Lock-in freaks will try to resist, but they can only delay it. > No, indies will demand it. > AAA studios are doing quite fine with the current API that are even lower than Vulkan. Meaning of "AAA" is totally mixed up, so there is no point to use this term without explaining what you mean. Indie might mean independent indeed, but what AAA stands for is completely ambiguous. You might mean projects with big budgets, but they can be independent as well (Star Citizen), so you can't use it as some universal category. For the reference Star Citizen is going to use Vulkan. Regardless of what "AAA" is supposed to mean, they will use whatever will cut their costs to do the job well enough. And cross platform options surely will, if they'll be available.
      - pjmlp 10y ago
        I see you all the time posting these Quixotic comments, then I get to attend GDC and see what everyone that matters in the industry actually thinks.
        shmerl 10y ago
        I see you still are a fan of lock-in. Calling it "fine" and saying that's how it's supposed to be is not helpful. "Industry" which thinks backwards doesn't need to be shown as an example. It's not the "industry", it's monopolistic participants who use lock-in to control the market. Progress is driven by competition, not by monopolistic lock-in stagnation.
        cobalt 10y ago
        most companies have and will just port it to different platforms, using the api that gives them the most performance. It's hardly lock-in
        shmerl 10y ago
        > most companies have and will just port it to different platforms, using the api that gives them the most performance Yes, when they have a choice and resources. It's not even the case here. I.e. it's not like developers simply prefer lock-in when dealing with some of the walled garden platforms. They simply have no choice - the likes of MS, Sony and others don't leave them that choice. It's not a discussion on technical merits. You could use your logic if developers could actually choose.
        dmytroi 10y ago
        Of course they do, but under NDA, just ask. OpenGL on top of whatever GAPI is on target platform is usually <100 KLOC, so completely possible to write your own if you REALLY need to (really is when your 1kk+$ budget game will fail just because there is an engineering problem). And if you don't have resources to ask/communicate than just use something like https://github.com/bkaradzic/bgfx/ https://github.com/bkaradzic/bgfx/ which is an awesome API agnostic rendering library.
- zanny 10y ago
  Sony and Nintendo have both announced Vulkan support on their next console iterations.
  - pjmlp 10y ago
    Where?
  - maccard 10y ago
    Sony historically supported OpenGL too, and approximately 0 games ever shipped with it.
    - vardump 10y ago
      Vulkan could very well be a different story, it doesn't have OpenGL's shortcomings.
      - pjmlp 10y ago
        The PS4 API is already much better than Vulkan.
        vardump 10y ago
        Except in portability.
        cobalt 10y ago
        given how tailored games are already anyway, as well as wanting to be as low level as possible, that wont really matter
        vardump 10y ago
        Vulkan is pretty close to "as low level as possible". If it's available, it'll certainly be a tempting target for those who have lower budget and those who need to port it faster.
- SolarNet 10y ago
  My Android [0] has hardware with Vulkan support. [0] https://oneplus.net/3 https://oneplus.net/3
  - pjmlp 10y ago
    I doubt developers will care to target an Android fork (OxygenOS).
    - SolarNet 10y ago
      I actually chose it to target vulkan on it.
shmerl 10y ago
It can be fully cross platform, as long as developers can access the system and its GPU. It doesn't include sick systems which are walled gardens and on purpose prevent cross platform technologies.
vardump 10y ago
At least it's the most cross platform low level graphics API. DirectX 12 is Windows only and Metal is iOS/macOs only. Hopefully we'll get a standard API for graphics one day. Lack of it is holding us back. Maybe Vulkan can be the TCP of graphics APIs. Something that provides stable foundations for building fancy graphics stacks on top.
01Michael10 10y ago
> I would scratch the fully, it's not on iOS or macOS Vulkan is mostly certainly cross-platform and it's only Apple stopping it from being available on their closed platform.
- psydk 10y ago
  My question will probably sound naïve because of my lack of knowledge of the Macintosh, but Macintosh hardware nowadays seems to be the same than PCs. So what prevent Intel, AMD or nVidia to propose a driver for this platform in the same way they do it for Linux and Windows? Is there a legal reason? A technical reason?
  - inDigiNeous 10y ago
    My limited guess as a OpenGL developer on Os X is that it has something to do with Apple prodividing a software OpenGL -implementation also, so maybe they don't want to pour in the work in that to support the more recent advances in OpenGL ? Or maybe they're just focusing on the Metal -implementation, and iOS more specifically. Currently the OpenGL stack is years behind on OS X compared to Windows or Linux, Os X supports only version 4.1 (released in 2010) with some 4.2 extensions thrown in. I've yet to come across a good reason. If somebody knows, would be nice to know also.
    - sangnoir 10y ago
      > I've yet to come across a good reason. If somebody knows, would be nice to know also. It's not a good reason, but a reason nevertheless: it's fair to say Apple likes to lock in developers to its platform[1]. Encouraging the use of Metal and discouraging OpenGL increases the lock-in effect. 1. My Google skills are failing me, but a few years ago there was a blog-post by an app developer who used to get lots of support from Apple while their featured app was iOS-exclusive. The day the app was ported it to Android, Apple stopped responding to their queries.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]

Details: https://www.reddit.com/r/vulkan/comments/462lwi/vulkan_coming_to_os_x_and_ios/ https://www.reddit.com/r/vulkan/comments/462lwi/vulkan_comin...

rdsnsca 10y ago
Pretty sure that version of Vulkan will be running on top of Apple's Metal.

pjmlp 10y ago

Neither on any Android < Android N, or any console produced by Sony, Nintendo and Microsoft.

TillE 10y ago
> or any console produced by Sony, Nintendo and Microsoft I suspect that'll change. Sony and Microsoft are both using more or less standard AMD GPUs, and game (engine) developers will demand it.
- pjmlp 10y ago
  No, indies will demand it. AAA studios are doing quite fine with the current API that are even lower than Vulkan. Indies with FOSS background seem to have a hard time to grasp how the games industry works in terms of IP, technology stacks and outsourcing for platform ports.
  - shmerl 10y ago
    That will change when pressure will grow. Same as ActiveX was driven out by standard Web technologies. Lock-in freaks will try to resist, but they can only delay it. > No, indies will demand it. > AAA studios are doing quite fine with the current API that are even lower than Vulkan. Meaning of "AAA" is totally mixed up, so there is no point to use this term without explaining what you mean. Indie might mean independent indeed, but what AAA stands for is completely ambiguous. You might mean projects with big budgets, but they can be independent as well (Star Citizen), so you can't use it as some universal category. For the reference Star Citizen is going to use Vulkan. Regardless of what "AAA" is supposed to mean, they will use whatever will cut their costs to do the job well enough. And cross platform options surely will, if they'll be available.
    - pjmlp 10y ago
      I see you all the time posting these Quixotic comments, then I get to attend GDC and see what everyone that matters in the industry actually thinks.
      - shmerl 10y ago
        I see you still are a fan of lock-in. Calling it "fine" and saying that's how it's supposed to be is not helpful. "Industry" which thinks backwards doesn't need to be shown as an example. It's not the "industry", it's monopolistic participants who use lock-in to control the market. Progress is driven by competition, not by monopolistic lock-in stagnation.
        cobalt 10y ago
        most companies have and will just port it to different platforms, using the api that gives them the most performance. It's hardly lock-in
        shmerl 10y ago
        > most companies have and will just port it to different platforms, using the api that gives them the most performance Yes, when they have a choice and resources. It's not even the case here. I.e. it's not like developers simply prefer lock-in when dealing with some of the walled garden platforms. They simply have no choice - the likes of MS, Sony and others don't leave them that choice. It's not a discussion on technical merits. You could use your logic if developers could actually choose.
        dmytroi 10y ago
        Of course they do, but under NDA, just ask. OpenGL on top of whatever GAPI is on target platform is usually <100 KLOC, so completely possible to write your own if you REALLY need to (really is when your 1kk+$ budget game will fail just because there is an engineering problem). And if you don't have resources to ask/communicate than just use something like https://github.com/bkaradzic/bgfx/ https://github.com/bkaradzic/bgfx/ which is an awesome API agnostic rendering library.
zanny 10y ago
Sony and Nintendo have both announced Vulkan support on their next console iterations.
- pjmlp 10y ago
  Where?
- maccard 10y ago
  Sony historically supported OpenGL too, and approximately 0 games ever shipped with it.
  - vardump 10y ago
    Vulkan could very well be a different story, it doesn't have OpenGL's shortcomings.
    - pjmlp 10y ago
      The PS4 API is already much better than Vulkan.
      - vardump 10y ago
        Except in portability.
        cobalt 10y ago
        given how tailored games are already anyway, as well as wanting to be as low level as possible, that wont really matter
        vardump 10y ago
        Vulkan is pretty close to "as low level as possible". If it's available, it'll certainly be a tempting target for those who have lower budget and those who need to port it faster.
SolarNet 10y ago
My Android [0] has hardware with Vulkan support. [0] https://oneplus.net/3 https://oneplus.net/3
- pjmlp 10y ago
  I doubt developers will care to target an Android fork (OxygenOS).
  - SolarNet 10y ago
    I actually chose it to target vulkan on it.

shmerl 10y ago

It can be fully cross platform, as long as developers can access the system and its GPU. It doesn't include sick systems which are walled gardens and on purpose prevent cross platform technologies.

vardump 10y ago

At least it's the most cross platform low level graphics API. DirectX 12 is Windows only and Metal is iOS/macOs only. Hopefully we'll get a standard API for graphics one day. Lack of it is holding us back. Maybe Vulkan can be the TCP of graphics APIs. Something that provides stable foundations for building fancy graphics stacks on top.

01Michael10 10y ago

> I would scratch the fully, it's not on iOS or macOS Vulkan is mostly certainly cross-platform and it's only Apple stopping it from being available on their closed platform.

psydk 10y ago
My question will probably sound naïve because of my lack of knowledge of the Macintosh, but Macintosh hardware nowadays seems to be the same than PCs. So what prevent Intel, AMD or nVidia to propose a driver for this platform in the same way they do it for Linux and Windows? Is there a legal reason? A technical reason?
- inDigiNeous 10y ago
  My limited guess as a OpenGL developer on Os X is that it has something to do with Apple prodividing a software OpenGL -implementation also, so maybe they don't want to pour in the work in that to support the more recent advances in OpenGL ? Or maybe they're just focusing on the Metal -implementation, and iOS more specifically. Currently the OpenGL stack is years behind on OS X compared to Windows or Linux, Os X supports only version 4.1 (released in 2010) with some 4.2 extensions thrown in. I've yet to come across a good reason. If somebody knows, would be nice to know also.
  - sangnoir 10y ago
    > I've yet to come across a good reason. If somebody knows, would be nice to know also. It's not a good reason, but a reason nevertheless: it's fair to say Apple likes to lock in developers to its platform[1]. Encouraging the use of Metal and discouraging OpenGL increases the lock-in effect. 1. My Google skills are failing me, but a few years ago there was a blog-post by an app developer who used to get lots of support from Apple while their featured app was iOS-exclusive. The day the app was ported it to Android, Apple stopped responding to their queries.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]