By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - PC Discussion - Developer says Vulkan should be adopted for PC exclusives

walterbates on 08 July 2016

There are now alternatives to DirectX, viable alternatives that developers could be using, and open ones, rather than closed proprietary solutions like DirectX is- such as Vulkan.

But possibly because of Windows ubiquity, and because of all the hooks that DirectX has with Windows, or maybe because of all the other pushes for DirectX adoption that Microsoft have made, such as the aggressive push for Windows 10, or bringing DirectX to Xbox One, the fact remains that more and more developers are supporting DirectX 12 over Vulkan, or any other alternative, for their PC games- and this is something that Axel Gneiting, engine programmer at id Software, doesn’t necessarily approve of.

Gneiting said that developers using DirectX 12 over Vulkan ‘literally makes no sense.’ Elaborating on his stance, and in response to some questions, Gneiting pointed out that with Windows 7 forming a major chunk of the PC gaming market, and with DirectX 12 being incompatible with Windows 7, using DirectX in an attempt to have ‘one codebase’ makes no sense, since developers would need to create two separate ones anyway. He pointed out that the argument that programming for Xbox One and Windows 10 becomes easier by using DirectX 12 is moot too, because DirectX 12 on Windows and on Xbox is very different, necessitating two separate code paths anyway.

He also made some observations about how a lot of the perceived benefits of DirectX 12 are not exclusive to it, noting that both Vulkan and DirectX give similar performance benefits anyway.

Why does it bother him at all that DirectX is the preferred code path for developers over Vulkan? I suppose there is something to be said for pushing open solutions like Vulkan, over proprietary and closed ones like DirectX, which effectively trap developers in Microsoft’s development ecosystem, so I can see some of his reasoning. But then, I suppose that DirectX benefits because it is not open- it has Microsoft to evangelize it, because Microsoft have a vested investment in seeing it widely adopted. Vulkan being open by definition has no such custodian, and that is why there is no one to pitch it to developers to the extent that Microsoft do with DirectX.
 http://gamingbolt.com/id-software-dev-puzzled-by-devs-choosing-dx12-over-vulkan-claims-xbox-one-dx12-is-different-than-pc#7hhPBPZVcHscY8mt.99


Around the Network
JRPGfan on 08 July 2016

I fully support this.
That way people on linux / mac / older windows versions, can also play the games.

Dont really see any drawbacks if there are any?



Machiavellian on 08 July 2016
walterbates said:

There are now alternatives to DirectX, viable alternatives that developers could be using, and open ones, rather than closed proprietary solutions like DirectX is- such as Vulkan.

But possibly because of Windows ubiquity, and because of all the hooks that DirectX has with Windows, or maybe because of all the other pushes for DirectX adoption that Microsoft have made, such as the aggressive push for Windows 10, or bringing DirectX to Xbox One, the fact remains that more and more developers are supporting DirectX 12 over Vulkan, or any other alternative, for their PC games- and this is something that Axel Gneiting, engine programmer at id Software, doesn’t necessarily approve of.

Gneiting said that developers using DirectX 12 over Vulkan ‘literally makes no sense.’ Elaborating on his stance, and in response to some questions, Gneiting pointed out that with Windows 7 forming a major chunk of the PC gaming market, and with DirectX 12 being incompatible with Windows 7, using DirectX in an attempt to have ‘one codebase’ makes no sense, since developers would need to create two separate ones anyway. He pointed out that the argument that programming for Xbox One and Windows 10 becomes easier by using DirectX 12 is moot too, because DirectX 12 on Windows and on Xbox is very different, necessitating two separate code paths anyway.

He also made some observations about how a lot of the perceived benefits of DirectX 12 are not exclusive to it, noting that both Vulkan and DirectX give similar performance benefits anyway.

Why does it bother him at all that DirectX is the preferred code path for developers over Vulkan? I suppose there is something to be said for pushing open solutions like Vulkan, over proprietary and closed ones like DirectX, which effectively trap developers in Microsoft’s development ecosystem, so I can see some of his reasoning. But then, I suppose that DirectX benefits because it is not open- it has Microsoft to evangelize it, because Microsoft have a vested investment in seeing it widely adopted. Vulkan being open by definition has no such custodian, and that is why there is no one to pitch it to developers to the extent that Microsoft do with DirectX.
 http://gamingbolt.com/id-software-dev-puzzled-by-devs-choosing-dx12-over-vulkan-claims-xbox-one-dx12-is-different-than-pc#7hhPBPZVcHscY8mt.99

MS gives huge support, tools and resources for development.  It might be harder for Vulcan at this time to match that type of commitment so adoption is not as fast.  If someone wants Vulcan to become the defato API for PC then a group will need to do the same as MS.



JEMC on 08 July 2016

I'd like to see more Vulkan games being developed, not only indies but also big games.

But after years of dominance because, let's be honest, OpenGL hasn't always being as capable and DirectX, devs are simply more used to work with MSoft's APIs.



Please excuse my bad English.

Currently gaming on a PC with an i5-4670k@stock (for now), 16Gb RAM 1600 MHz and a GTX 1070

Steam / Live / NNID : jonxiquet    Add me if you want, but I'm a single player gamer.

Chazore on 08 July 2016

I'm all for supporting Vulkan over DX 12, especially since I'm not going to be using Windows 10. I find the notion of forcing a closed API and OS over everyone rather than giving way to alternatives is a way to stifle the freedom of choice in terms of APIs.

Vulkan supports plenty of systems over DX 12 which only supports MS devices and a single OS, not their other OS's that are still within use currently. I'd much rather devs support an API that supports my current OS rather than "get with the club" type devs that want to shove you where you don't want to go.

IF that engineer wants more people to adopt Vulkan then I would hope he and the rest of the team at id hurry up and get Vulkan support for DOOM out, they promised it "shortly" after the games release and we're already into July and all they seem to care about is trying to grab what is elft of the PC crowd for their multiplayer.



Step right up come on in, feel the buzz in your veins, I'm like an chemical electrical right into your brain and I'm the one who killed the Radio, soon you'll all see

So pay up motherfuckers you belong to "V"

Around the Network
Slimebeast on 08 July 2016

Didn't we have the exact same discussion back in the 90's when developers abandoned OpenGl for Microsoft's Direct3D?

One could see a mile away that these smaller players would lose to MS this time as well.



QUAKECore89 on 08 July 2016

It's 90s over again...



Jizz_Beard_thePirate on 08 July 2016

Vulkan would be nice but MS will continuously push dx12 so I don't see Vulkan being adopted by most developers cause its just more work developing for two APIs. One way Vulkan might succeed however is through mobile since Android now has support for Vulkan and the games that run on it perform quite well on my Galaxy s7. I doubt Android will ever support dx12 so Vulkan is here to stay one way or another.

Windows = Direct X

Android = Vulkan

imo



                  

PC Specs: CPU: 7800X3D || GPU: Strix 4090 || RAM: 32GB DDR5 6000 || Main SSD: WD 2TB SN850