4 ms·
> If OpenGL is maintained as a fallback, then how does adding Vulkan and keeping OpenGL simplify the code? I think the idea here is that Vulkan will be the "mo
by bri3d 3y ago
> If OpenGL is maintained as a fallback, then how does adding Vulkan and keeping OpenGL simplify the code?
I think the idea here is that Vulkan will be the "modern" renderer and OpenGL will become the "legacy" renderer. Then, there's no need to worry about conditionally "up-featuring" the OpenGL renderer anymore. They're two separate backends, which is arguably cleaner than a million conditionals in the OpenGL code.
I think the biggest argument, reading as a complete outsider, is really this one:
* driver behavior is much more predictable and well specified.
OpenGL drivers, overall, are _screwed up_ and ridiculously unpredictable. And it's only getting worse now that Vulkan is around, since there's even less incentive than ever for GPU vendors to make functioning OpenGL drivers. Supporting Vulkan now would both save out on driver compatibility issues and get out ahead of the OpenGL driver atrophy.
- mcpackieh 3y ago> OpenGL drivers, overall, are _screwed up_ and ridiculously unpredictable. Can you expand on what it means for the OpenGL drivers to be unpredictable? Are you referring to things like this? > "sRGB textures, which do hardware accelerated and automatic conversions between sRGB and linear encoding. With OpenGL, the behavior with alpha is implementation defined" To be honest I'm not sure what that means. Does it mean that on different hardware, colors created from the blending of two or more textures will be slightly different because they're using different blending algorithms? Is this a trivial matter of outputs looking slightly different on different hardware that blends colors in slightly different ways, or are there more serious consequences to this sort of thing?