| torok said: Yes, you are correct regarding how the supporter version of OpenGL indicates which features it supports. Having them as options isn't a problem, it's a good feature. However, it's more important to have a simple low-level API. PS4 is usually considered a machine that allows easy porting from PC or other platforms and it uses GCM as its API. Devs usually say it is quite similar to DirectX, so basically designing a good native API is good enough to facilitate porting. My critic is about the videos on the post. They compare OpenGL and Vulkan showing how Vulkan allows to decrease the cost behind draw calls and which improvements it can bring to performance. This is true for mobile devices, PCs, etc. But if it won't indicate how it will compare with the Wii because it already uses a low overhead native API. So we won't have any magical gain here regarding the API. The videos show a high-overhead API lacking behind a low-overhead one, but even Vulkan will still have a higher overhead than Wii U native APIs, while the Switch API will probably be more on par with what we expect from consoles. |
You're right. But we should note that having support for Vulkan means that all engines out there that already support it will have a lot less modifications to run on Switch than the other way. Otherwise, developers would need to change big chuncks of code to get a simple "Hello World" from their engines. This is particularly important to indie devs like Yacht Club or Shin'en that use proprietary engines.
My point is.. having support to DirectX/OpenGL/Vulkan is far from "useless". It's a very useful addition even it's only for the beginning of development. Vulkan will probably not be the most efficient way to use the hardware but it could be good enough for a lot of games. The scarce resources that small devs have would be better spent on games than trying to accomodate their engine to the Switch new proprietary API.
