WingNews logo WingNews
top | item 45540180

(no title)

marmarama | 4 months ago

Which is as-designed. Vulkan (and DX12, and Metal) is a much more low-level API, precisely because that's what professional 3D engine developers asked for.

Closer to the hardware, more control, fewer workarounds because the driver is doing something "clever" hidden behind the scenes. The tradeoff is greater complexity.

Mere mortals are supposed to use a game engine, or a scene graph library (e.g. VulkanSceneGraph), or stick with OpenGL for now.

The long-term future for OpenGL is to be implemented on top of Vulkan (specifically the Mesa Zink driver that the blog post author is the main developer of).

discuss

order

m-schuetz|4 months ago

> Closer to the hardware

To what hardware? Ancient desktop GPUs vs modern desktop GPUs? Ancient smartphones? Modern smartphones? Consoles? Vulkan is an abstraction of a huge set of diverging hardware architectures.

And a pretty bad one, on my opinion. If you need to make an abstraction due to fundamentally different hardware, then at least make an abstraction that isn't terribly overengineered for little to no gain.

MountainTheme12|4 months ago

Closer to AMD and mobile hardware. We got abominations like monolithic pipelines and layout transition thanks to the first, and render passes thanks to the latter. Luckily all of these are out or on their way out.

fingerlocks|4 months ago

100%. Metal is actually self-described as a high level graphics library for this very reason. I’ve never actually used it on non-Apple hardware, but the abstractions for vendor support is there. And they are definitely abstract. There is no real getting-your-hands-dirty exposure of the underlying hardware

flohofwoe|4 months ago

> fewer workarounds because the driver is doing something "clever" hidden behind the scenes.

I would be very surprised if current Vulkan drivers are any different in this regard, and if yes then probably only because Vulkan isn't as popular as D3D for PC games.

Vulkan is in a weird place that it promised a low-level explicit API close to the hardware, but then still doesn't really match any concrete GPU architecture and it still needs to abstract over very different GPU architectures.

At the very least there should have been different APIs for desktop and mobile GPUs (not that the GL vs GLES split was great, but at least that way the requirements for mobile GPUs don't hold back the desktop API).

And then there's the issue that also ruined OpenGL: the vendor extension mess.