19
78

[–] alargecoffeecup [S] 19 points 78 points (+97|-19) ago 

Windows 10 and DirectX 12 are History.

0
74

[–] Wobbley 0 points 74 points (+74|-0) ago 

I don't want them to be history because competition is good, I do however want Vulkan to succeed so it either surpasses DirectX or is equal to it. However that is a bold statement as we really don't have any "real life" cases of DX12 or Vulkan. I hope they both turn out to be strong contenders, more power to the consumer and developer.

9
99

[–] alargecoffeecup [S] 9 points 99 points (+108|-9) ago  (edited ago)

I do want windows 10 to become history sooner rather then later. This orwellian nightmare that acts like a drugdealer that hands out its first samples for free, and that tricks those with less knowledge on the topic in using it and losing their privacy and content ownership while also endangering those on their networks, should be stopped before people are conditioned in thinking that it is normal and should be expected (like those that say windows 10 is OK because Google already does stuff like this on smartphones).

As for not being able to compare. OpenGL is not limited to a set of rules like DirectX is but it's functionality is determined by the programmers using it. OpenGL communicates directly to the videocard while DirectX does this as well, but through the limited functions that are programmed in these cards (hence the DirectX9, 10, 11 etc compatible cards, new functions have to be programmed in and users have to buy new videocards) OpenGL does not have this limitation and old OpenGL versions can do stuff that only the most recent DirectXes can, or that will be introduced in future versions. Therefore, OpenGL has always been (a lot) faster then DirectX, and always (a lot) more powerfull. The only problem is the development, which was (a lot) harder then with DirectX. This will now no longer be the case and the list of parties involved in developing it guarantees this. So you are correct, it is to soon to tell for sure because we have not been able to compare them in real benchmarking environments, but all logic dictates that this assumption is a safe bet.

2
17

[–] foshizzle 2 points 17 points (+19|-2) ago  (edited ago)

If nobody used Windows 10 and Microsoft died, I don't see how that would negatively affect Linux. New games and other software would have to be developed on Linux since more people would be on that OS and software companies want to compete with each other. Linux is open source so there isn't really a monopoly. Of course, everybody could just move to Macs... Maybe BSD would become the new OS for OS hipsters cough /g/ cough.

0
1

[–] anonagent 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

Seriously? Competition is good sure, but DirectX has vendor lock in, and has far more momentum than OpenGL on the desktop, hopefully OpenGL wins this one.

0
1

[–] nm96 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

Competition doesn't really do the same thing when you're talking about free software, because there's usually no profit motive like in a normal market.

2
15

[–] lobust 2 points 15 points (+17|-2) ago 

Realistically I think we're a few years away from that yet. Unity and UE supporting Vulkan will bring a huge influx of smaller titles, but to my knowledge none of the big studios have committed themselves or their own engines yet.

I wish this was not the case as every time I think I couldn't despise windows any more they somehow go and make it even worse.

Also spare a thought for us poor professionals stuck with OGL on Windows, the worst of both worlds...

4
16

[–] alargecoffeecup [S] 4 points 16 points (+20|-4) ago  (edited ago)

Vulkan is a continuation of OpenGL, the longest running GPU API on PCs, so there is no reason to assume that it will have to take a long time. besides. Almost all phones, minipcs, routers, nasses, tvboxes, smarttvs and other microelectronics run some type of Unix. It's the biggest potential market out there for game developers, and a huge motivation for developers to jump ship ASAP.

Epic/UE has always favorred OpenGL and although I seem to be unable to quickly refind them, I know they made some rants about the death of DirectX and superiority of OpenGL.

And you shouldn't be sad for having to use Vulkan/OpenGl on windows(except for the using windows part), It will also be faster and more powerfull on Windows then DirectX is. http://www.extremetech.com/gaming/133824-valve-opengl-is-faster-than-directx-even-on-windows

0
8

[–] Koot 0 points 8 points (+8|-0) ago 

I have a team of bros at my game development course (heavily UDK focused) with VR being our primary field, and being able to finally utilize Linux AND get top-notch performance to boot would be the best thing ever.

Windows is such a bitch to work with when you have to fuck around with a million various redists with no simple way of organizing them, it just gets in the way of productivity.

Our dream is to be able to build a fully featured VR IDE based on Archlinux with UDK, VR packages, a whole 3d suite (a'la blender) packed on a USB stick and have it on the go everywhere, which would also make it easy to recruit people since all we would have to do is hand them our personalized distro and they're ready to get to fiddlin'.

Hilariously enough, if it weren't for Win10 and the underhanded tactics used in it (not to mention serious compatibility issues with various applications and old libraries as of now) we wouldn't bother checking out linux (yet).

0
1

[–] rwbj 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

Valve has already openly committed the Source Engine 2 to Vulkan. Android has officially announced support. The big third party engines like Unreal 4 and Cryengine will also undoubtedly support Vulkan.

0
0

[–] dinosaurdynasty 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

I believe Valve already has Source 2 working with Vulkan.

0
4

[–] iamdak 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago 

I like your enthusiasm but it doesn't quite work this way. There is a prevailing perspective that people are taking with these APIs that is fundamentally wrong. These are not like consoles; you don't just pick one and say its better or worse. Ultimately the two give the same kind of low level access to the graphics hardware which means that when the dust settles the performance should be about the same. The pros and cons are in the details, eg: Vulkan (like OGL) will be multiplatform but is only focused on graphics while DX12 is MS only but is an entire suite of game development tools. Its even common that applications (on windows) use a combination of OpenGL (graphics) and DirectX (audio/io/etc). I hope that Linux gaming becomes big, but Vulkan alone isn't going to be the driving force behind that. OpenGL is capable of driving today's games but most developers wont make the switch because the consumers are already on PC. If a Linux gaming revolution happens it will more likely be caused by the Steam Box and valve's influence on other developers.

In the end of the day these new APIs are pushing graphics technology in the right direction but the Vulkan vs. DX12 arguments are very silly and usually quite wrong!

0
0

[–] fila 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

Ba-dum-tss.

8
70

[–] alargecoffeecup [S] 8 points 70 points (+78|-8) ago  (edited ago)

Basically what it boils down to is that because Microsoft owns DirectX, and DirectX was much more developerfriendly then OpenGL (even though OpenGL was always faster and more capable), microsoft owned the gaming industry on PC. Vulkan(GLNExt) is Royalty-free, multiplatform and it's development is led by all the big players, like Nvidia, AMD, IBM, ARM, Intel, Apple, and software developers like Valve, Mozilla, Google, Unity, Lucasfilm and Pixar. This time OpenGL will not only be the best and fastest API for basically all devices in existence, but it will also be the most userfriendly.

My reason for using Windows has always been it's compatibility with games. This reason is no more. Combine this with Microsoft's newest distopian nightmare, Windows 10, and their statement to 'just deal with it', and a path becomes clear: https://voat.co/v/technology/comments/426384

0
42

[–] Dingolicious 0 points 42 points (+42|-0) ago 

If this means more games are available on Linux and allows people to switch from Windows I'm all over that!

1
27

[–] alargecoffeecup [S] 1 points 27 points (+28|-1) ago 

This is exactly what it means. Developers will no longer favor DirectX, because Vulkan is easier, more powerfull, and runs on absolutely everything.

0
1

[–] Koot 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

Dude, VRlux will be a thing, trust me.

I'm so hard right now.

1
14

[–] Kookus 1 points 14 points (+15|-1) ago 

I hear you, but there are already games on the horizon with DX12, and by extension Win10, listed in the requirements. Short of Seminars like this and the occasional tech demo, I haven't heart hide nor hair of Vulkan.

I'd love for this to be true, but I heard all of this about OpenGL back in the day, and it never came to fruition. Frankly, this is sounding pretty familiar, in both form and function. Can you really say that there's a path forward that will make Vulkan's future distinctly more hopeful than the many previous DirectX death knells we've been promised?

0
6

[–] lawofchaos 0 points 6 points (+6|-0) ago 

A major difference between then and now is that Windows was a LOT more trustworthy then. Many PC users are switching to Linux, and those that aren't are sticking with older DX12 incompatible versions of Windows. We still have yet to see how Windows 10 is really going to do however, and I do have my doubts on whether most people will really stop using it. But I'm hopeful and the chance is definitely much bigger now then it was then.

0
2

[–] alargecoffeecup [S] 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago  (edited ago)

Not really, but I do think that the list of quite literally ALL the main players in the computermarket of both hardware and software that are involved, plus the huge marketshare of unix based hardware that has been flooding the market since recent years, make it a lot more likely than in OpenGLs early days when all there was to gain was performance, that could have been gained as well by consumers buying new hardware.(making it their investment instead of that of developers)

0
3

[–] binglederry 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

I sure as hell would not describe Vulkan as user-friendly. It will be very low level and therefore you will have to do a lot of things yourself. Most developers will probably use some sort of middleware instead of directly interfacing with Vulkan.

0
2

[–] defab67 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago  (edited ago)

Seriously. ITT: people who have neither programmed either with DirectX nor with OpenGL.

0
1

[–] realpatrickstewart 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

DirectX was much more developerfriendly then OpenGL

This depends entirely on the era you're talking about.

They've been going back and forth for years with each one taking turns being a gigantic pile of dog turd.

0
46

[–] olicool10 0 points 46 points (+46|-0) ago 

For those who don't want to watch a whole hour of a seminar, here's a press release.

0
11

[–] e0steven 0 points 11 points (+11|-0) ago 

You're doing gods work..if god was really busy. Which I'm assuming he is.

[–] [deleted] 0 points 6 points (+6|-0) ago 

[Deleted]

0
1

[–] NikoMyshkin 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

playing future games on linux cos time is a circle to him

0
0

[–] plankO 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

my god man you need more upvoats!

0
25

[–] spacebob 0 points 25 points (+25|-0) ago 

... and ends microsofts hold over PC gaming.

As much as I'd like that to be the case, it probably won't. Vulkan looks promising, but I guess that's it. If you could get all the (major) developers etc. to use Vulkan, then I guess it might work.

3
8

[–] HinkMyDinkD00d 3 points 8 points (+11|-3) ago 

This press release indicates that NVidia and AMD are both on board with this.

0
15

[–] spacebob 0 points 15 points (+15|-0) ago 

K, you have a point there. But NVidia and AMD are not developing games, are they? Their job is to keep the industry up-to-date by allowing their hardware to run Directx / Vulkan / OpenGL. As I see it now, Directx is heavily focused on games. Vulkan/OpenGL not so much. AFAIK they're more used in other non-gaming industries, and in systems that cannot run Windows / Directx. Hardware developers allow their hardware to run all those different APIs, so that they have a broad market, and thus maximize their profits.

 

I'm willing to bet that Microsoft offers extensive support (financial or w/e) to game developers who use Directx. And it works. I don't know how the documentation on the different APIs compares to each other, but I guess that Directx's documentation is pretty extensive. Valve leaning towards Vulkan etc, will certainly have some effect, but idk if it will be enough to let the developers make a switch.

It's a nasty circle, and the sooner it breaks, the better. The pressure will need to come from somewhere...

0
2

[–] alargecoffeecup [S] 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago  (edited ago)

[If you could get all the (major) developers etc. to use Vulkan].. They are actually involved in developing Vulkan.

1
1

[–] ConquistadorCoronado 1 points 1 points (+2|-1) ago 

Programming graphics is one the hardest aspects of programming. Switching won't be easy.

0
0

[–] Cuddlefluff 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago  (edited ago)

It doesn't matter, because Vulkan solves absolutely nothing for the developer. Creating devices is not the issue, gl_begin and gl_end (I know they're defunct now, it's just to illustrate a point) is not the issue. The issue with competitors to DirectX is that they require the developer to a shitload of work and get very little back for it. They're usually extremely restrictive and rigid, while DirectX basically gives you all the tools you need to be able to focus on developing your game and do a lot of cool shit completely for free. Until you have something that is such a complete package of everything like DirectX is, the status quo will stay the same.

0
1

[–] Spiritreader 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

I agree, it's unlikely... sadly.

I'll never give up on the thought though. I finally want the day to come when I can switch to Linux on my desktop. I made my decision with the release of Windows 10 that I don't want to be part of the Microsoft Universe any longer than necessary.

I really hope Linux will get more attention, especially from Game Developers (which Vulkan hopefully achieves). I think if there's a platform independant method of getting games to work well without major increase of workload, the chances are way higher there'll be Linux versions, thus people changing their operating system.

Even if it's only the people who have a bit of knowledge how to set up Linux or are able to perform it / learn how to do it, it will be a much bigger step than ever before. I think a lot of people (not the majority!) have thought about (fully) switching to Linux, but haven't done it yet because there's still something missing compared to their Windows installation.

0
0

[–] Koot 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

Actually no, there couldn't have been a better time to get Vulkan going - with VR on the horizon, being able to universally and equally squeeze out optimal performance across the board on any machine that can run linux is priceless.

Not to mention OpenGL is so, so much better for VR (even before Vulkan the overhead was far lower than DX's, now it's going to be a non-issue).

All the pieces are coming together, and it's not looking good for MS.

0
1

[–] spacebob 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

I sure hope that Vulkan ends up winning. VR (like Oculus, Vive,...) requires a lot of processing power, so I guess it will be limited to PCs for a while. Vulkan will no doubt improve performance, as will Directx (Vulkan maybe a bit more). But idk if this performance improvement alone will be enough for VR. Try to think as some of the AAA developers. A major part of your market uses Windows. The leftover is shared between Linux and Apple. Will Vulkan be worth the hassle, and how will it compare to the "aid" offered by Microsoft? Performance will be the same, maybe a bit better. Documentation idk, but I think Directx is better in this aspect.

being able to universally and equally squeeze out optimal performance across the board on any machine that can run linux is priceless. I agree completely with this.

Directx is imo one of the core elements of Microsoft's monopoly (in the gaming sector), and I'm sure that they're prepared to go far in order to protect it.

[–] [deleted] 1 points 15 points (+16|-1) ago 

[Deleted]

0
8

[–] plastination_station 0 points 8 points (+8|-0) ago 

I'll just say what everyone else is thinking:

What the hell are they talking about?

1
4

[–] kyle 1 points 4 points (+5|-1) ago  (edited ago)

Basically, there are two big players in the world of real-time 3D gaming graphics: OpenGL and DirectX. These libraries were built to make it easier for programmers to make 3D games without having to do very difficult, low level programming (i.e. directly accessing the video card and doing very complex mathematics). OpenGL is the open source library that has been maintained by the Khronos group for years, and is a public project, whereas DirectX was created and is owned solely by Microsoft.

DirectX has been the popular choice for many AAA game studios for years due to it being more powerful, robust, and updated more often, but it has the disadvantage of a large price tag, and perhaps more importantly, only working on Windows (or other MS environments). OpenGL works on a myriad of different platforms ranging from Apple products, Linux, Android, iOS, web browsers, consoles, and more, and is free to use.

Khronos is the group that has been maintaining OpenGL for years, and this article is announcing their successor to OpenGL, which they are calling Vulkan. They are claiming that it is more powerful than DirectX, which people are hoping to mean that major studios will begin abandoning it in favor of Vulkan, which in turn would mean that many, many more PC games will be released on Linux and Mac.

I am personally skeptical of this claim. Microsoft is a well-run company, and if they see that Vulkan is a threat to their market share, they won't take long to release a new version of DirectX that will outperform whatever Vulkan is offering. Open-source software foundations can't really compete with that kind of efficiency.

0
14

[–] brucethemoose 0 points 14 points (+14|-0) ago 

I don't have anything against Vulkan, but what makes you think it'll kill DirectX on the PC?

OpenGL has been around a long, long time, and it's used everywhere except Windows. But it definitely didn't kill DirectX.

0
3

[–] ninjai 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

OpenGL has been around a long, long time, and it's used everywhere except Windows

Well, technically OpenGL is used on Windows sometimes. Some games run under Windows using OpenGL.

0
0

[–] Tumbtack 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

Minecraft is a good example of this

0
3

[–] HinkMyDinkD00d 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

The press release (Here) seems to indicate that NVidia is heavily invested in it and AMD is on board with it. I'm guessing that they would give smaller devs incentives for using Vulcan instead of DirectX since it gives your game Mac (and Linux) support and still works with Windows.

0
0

[–] brucethemoose 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago  (edited ago)

Ya, but Nvidia puts Vulkan in the OpenGL/workstation category in that statement.

Game engines like Unreal or Unity are already cross platform. I suppose Vulkan would be a good choice if you're building an engine from the ground up... But again, that only got OpenGL so far.

0
2

[–] alargecoffeecup [S] 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago  (edited ago)

  • DirectX works only on Windows and makes it harder for a developer to release their game on multiple platforms.
  • The marketshare of unixbased systems has skyrocketed since the smartphone.
  • Vulkan/OpenGL is more flexible and powerfull and almost certain faster If Vulkan becomes more developerfriendly(which kinda is their goal) then DirectX, then the last reason to prever DirectX has disapeared. (Also, platform independent browserbased 3d gaming has the potential to get huge, .. but not on DirectX) But ofcourse this does not take into account the steps Microsoft will take to prevent losing ground. I can imagine them making it multiplatform/opensource as well.

0
0

[–] Cuddlefluff 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

DirectX was created because they (and game developers) felt OpenGL was too bloated. OpenGL preceeded DirectX but was only used in CAD software because it was slow and bulky as shit. There's also a reason why DirectX is popular on Windows, even though OpenGL is usually more up-to-date on Windows than on any other platform. DirectX isn't popular because of its performance, and it's not popular because Direct3D is easier to use than OpenGL - it's because DirectX gives you everything in one big package; loading of models, textures, video, sound, network, input and everything else you could possibly need when developing a game. Vulkan is not a contender because the only thing it's a competitor of is essentially only OpenGL or Mantle (...Or 3dFx Glide) - which in game development is a tiny piece in a giant puzzle.

0
8

[–] 1902528 0 points 8 points (+8|-0) ago 

2015 is the Year of Linux. I feel like I've been hearing that since 1995.

1
-1

[–] HowAboutShutUp 1 points -1 points (+0|-1) ago 

That's because you have, and the problems that made it a load of crap in say, 2001, are the same ones that make it a load of crap now.

0
3

[–] NotAnUndercoverCop 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

It's not a load of crap. It just lacks drivers and support. That's hardly the fault of the linux kernel. Linux is golden, it's support is a load of crap.

0
8

[–] Drenki 0 points 8 points (+8|-0) ago 

Ok people, listen up, there is A LOT of bad information in this thread.

/u/alargecoffeecup

DirectX and OpenGL have been around for about the same time. While Microsoft has always had full control of DirectX, they have had significant input into OpenGL including being a voting member of the steering committtee. Microsoft will continue to have influence over Vulkan as a contributor, but no longer has voting rights.

OpenGL has only ever been marginally faster than DirectX. OpenGL has always been available on Linux.

With respect to new versions of DirectX - you have it opposite. New hardware is included on video cards and so new ways of using it are needed. The new hardware requires new software. It's possible to have an older card run a modern version of DirectX but emulation would have to recreate the hardware it's missing - so it can do it but it will be slower.

The sad reality is that a majority of developers are Microsoft developers because that's the best they can hope to be. Microsoft's tools, geared towards the least common denominator, enable these people to work with hardware that would otherwise be beyond their skill. (There's an old joke that "XML is the subset of SGML that Microsoft developers can understand".)

The truth is that if Microsoft makes DX12 easy to use and Khronos can't or doesn't, then MS will continue leading with games.

0
4

[–] Icy-Defiance 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago 

No one is writing games with either DX or GL unless they're either stupid or just trying to learn how it all works. People write engines with those things, like Unity or UE4, then other people write games with those engines. And the goal of most engines is to be as fast as possible, regardless of the difficulty of getting there. The math that goes into those things is already so insane, Vulkan probably won't make a big difference.

That said, for a AAA studio using their own engine based on DX, it would probably take a lot less time to upgrade to DX12 instead of replacing everything with Vulkan, and a 5% performance difference isn't going to be enough motivation. If Vulkan is 30% faster, then you'll see everyone rushing to switch.

0
3

[–] Drenki 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

DX12 and Vulcan are doing basically the same thing, shrinking the API layer and putting resource management back into the game engine. I'm willing to bet MS comes out with much better tools for devs who will be new to that type of resource management. Their Xbox dev kits are heads and shoulders above Sony and Nintendo. (MS is, after all, a software company.)

You can look at how multicore CPUs have been utlized to get an idea of what will happen. Even though they've been out for a long time now, most developers are not talented enough to make full use of them in their engines. They will do naive things like dedicate one logical unit to networking, or one to AI, instead of knowing how to distrubute work to each core evently.

0
0

[–] alargecoffeecup [S] 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

aside from gained performance and functionality, i think the main motivator can be found in its flexibility

0
2

[–] iamdak 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

There is rampant misinformation on the majority of threads discussing Vulkan and DX12. I mostly agree with you but only take issue with your "sad reality." Developers using DX for the past several years (and years to come) is because microsoft offers tools that would otherwise have to be built or purchased by the developer. It represents a path of less resistance to use the existing tools and by extension API. This is no different than using the Unreal Engine or Unity; if your goal is to make a video game then getting to that end is the only thing that matters. In fact, one of the huge draws toward Vulkan is that its being designed in a way that allows these tools to work more seamlessly with Vulkan products. The question is who is going to make them (looking at you Valve and AMD).

0
0

[–] Cuddlefluff 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

The sad reality is that a majority of developers are Microsoft developers because that's the best they can hope to be. Microsoft's tools, geared towards the least common denominator, enable these people to work with hardware that would otherwise be beyond their skill. (There's an old joke that "XML is the subset of SGML that Microsoft developers can understand".)

Seriously, if you want to criticize DirectX, that's fine, but don't think for a second that using DirectX is anything other than a technical decision. It's not because the majority of game developers is stupider than you, because that's evidently not the case. The only part of what you're saying that is true is the part about DirectX having a software layer for missing functionality, the rest of your post is pure garbage.

DirectX and OpenGL also have not been around "for about the same time", unless you count 6 years difference as "for about the same time". Direct3D was created initially because game developers felt that OpenGL was too slow and bloated to be used for game development (its primary use was - and to a big extent still is - CAD and 3D modelling software), so Microsoft created DirectX to make something more lightweight and performant for game developers. Even to this day Windows is still the OS which is in the highest likeliness to have the newest version of OpenGL installed, even though people on this thread seemingly think that OpenGL is a direct competitor to DirectX - which it is not.

DirectX provides a fuckload of things that people using OpenGL will usually just skip altogether because it takes too much effort to implement. For instance, how many OpenGL games do you see with Unicode support? This is a non-trivial task, and something that often gets conveniently left out of OpenGL games. Hrmf. How about controller-agnostic games? How about audio effects like reverb and distortion? How about video effects and decoders? How about skeletal animation? How about inverse kinematics? There's a shitload of things that gets traded away by indie-developers because they take too much time to implement, but it would be almost trivial to implement with DirectX.

load more comments ▼ (37 remaining)