Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Apple proposes new web 3D graphics API

webkit.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 650 posts

Re: Apple proposes new web 3D graphics API

#181

Post by mrpippy »

ioquatix wrote: post #108
om2 wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We expect DirectX 12 drivers to be more complete, more performant, and more likely to be available out of the box without a separate install. We expect Windows browsers will want to build on top of DirectX, not Vulkan.

Care to back up those assertions with real world evidence?

Intel has no stated intention of releasing production-quality Vulkan drivers for Windows. Forum statement from August:

The current Plan Of Record is that Intel® is not supporting Vulkan on Windows drivers. The drivers that were made available on Developer.com are intended for Vulkan developers.

So, it is expected that some Vulkan drivers may not work for end users.

Re: Apple proposes new web 3D graphics API

#182

Post by phire »

ytugiuyghvk wrote: post #157

Related reading re. Vulkan "What a WebGL2 successor could look like and why it can’t be WebVulkan" - https://floooh.github.io/2016/08/13/webgl-next.html See also the the author's sketch of a next-gen web graphics API on top of WebGL ( https://floooh.github.io/2016/10/24/altai.html ) which is (perhaps unsurprisingl) broadly similar to the sketch given the article (minus command queues, shader libraries, ...).

Everyone here (including me) is upset that Apple are refusing to support Vulkan (or even improve their existing OpenGL support).

They haven't even made a public statement.

And now we get the news that they are working on another API. It doesn't really matter that the new API is targeting a completely different market to Vulkan. It doesn't really matter that a WebVulkan can't really exist in the first place. It doesn't matter if this is probally the correct starting point for a NextGen web graphics API.

It doesn't even matter that the team at apple proposing this API is not the same team that would be responsible implementing Vulkan in OSX.

People just want Vulkan on MacOS and/or IOS.

Re: Apple proposes new web 3D graphics API

#183

Post by kshmir »

ricardobeat wrote: post #166
om2 wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sounds like you're focused on what is best for Vulkan, not what is best for the web.

Care to explain? Why is Vulkan not good for the web?

With that logic, we should only have blink, or webkit or gecko, just one engine

Re: Apple proposes new web 3D graphics API

#184

Post by shmerl »

om2 wrote: post #51
shmerl wrote: post #10

Will it be patent encumbered, like Apple's "proposal" for touch events API? > Meanwhile, GPU technology has improved and new software APIs have been created to better reflect the designs of modern GPUs. These new APIs exist at a lower level of abstraction and, due to their reduced overhead, generally offer better performance than OpenGL. The major platform technologies in this space are Direct3D 12 from Microsoft, Me…

We're committed to abiding by the W3C Patent Policy for this spec.

That's a positive thing, but the whole effort looks like an indirect attempt to push Metal, without making it open itself. What about shader tools and etc.? Are there any open ones for Metal? IMHO if anything like that should be created, it should be based on open APIs.

Re: Apple proposes new web 3D graphics API

#185

Post by mrpippy »

surfmike wrote: post #180
msie wrote: post #125

MS doesn't support Vulkan! Why are many people bashing Apple as the sole company not supporting it??? MS has abandoned OpenGL in support of D3D. Why have people forgotten this???

NVIDIA and Intel both ship Vulkan drivers for Windows.

Intel ships beta/test drivers, and states they will not be supporting/distributing them as production-quality:

The current Plan Of Record is that Intel® is not supporting Vulkan on Windows drivers. The drivers that were made available on Developer.com are intended for Vulkan developers.

So, it is expected that some Vulkan drivers may not work for end users.

https://communities.intel.com/thread/104380?start=30&tstart=...

Re: Apple proposes new web 3D graphics API

#186

Post by fnord123 »

detaro wrote: post #168
dkonofalski wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But Microsoft isn't supporting Vulkan in Windows either, so why is there only a fuss about Apple's support for it? Both companies have competing API's (Direct X and Metal), but Apple is the only one getting flack for it. Why is that?

For Windows I install a graphics driver by the GPU maker and get Vulkan support (according to wikipedia that is the case for Nvidia, AMD and Intel), since Windows allows drivers to offer such APIs without any specific support by Microsoft. With a Mac all the drivers come via Apple, without support for it.

Not just Mac. A big deal is ios' missing support.

Re: Apple proposes new web 3D graphics API

#187

Post by shmerl »

AsyncAwait wrote: post #175
zbuttram wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What people seem to be missing here is that based on available info it seems Microsoft isn't officially supporting Vulkan either. Sure Nvidia and AMD have released drivers for Windows that have Vulkan support, but we're talking about a web standard that would need to be implemented by browser makers and if Microsoft isn't going to use Vulkan, then what do they implement as the backing for this new standard in Edge? P…

Why are they so hostile to Vulkan and what problems does Vulkan, which is vendor independent and open, have that adding a new API to support to the pile would not?

No good reason whatsoever.

Re: Apple proposes new web 3D graphics API

#188

Post by modeless »

om2 wrote: post #139
modeless wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Vulkan on Windows is all based on unofficial drivers that don't come with Windows and aren't supported by MS. This is not materially different than the situation with OpenGL, and yet I hope you'll agree that basing WebGL on OpenGL was the right decision, rather than inventing a new API based largely on a lower level API proprietary to a single company's platforms.

As it happens, OpenGL was so high level that supporting it on top of DirectX was feasible. A number of Windows browsers use the DirectX back end to ANGLE, so users don't have to download OpenGL drives. Unfortunately, that doesn't work as well for Vulkan. Vulkan is the lowest-level of the three APIs, so it's hard to support on top of Metal or DirectX 12.

Since WebGL was released, Microsoft has demonstrated a new willingness to support Web graphics. They joined Khronos, and now ship a WebGL implementation of their own with Windows. I have confidence that if the industry moved toward a WebVulkan standard that this new Microsoft would make platform changes to better support it. Unfortunately I have no such confidence about Apple.

Re: Apple proposes new web 3D graphics API

#189

Post by nkkollaw »

eridius wrote: post #48
DigitalSea wrote: post #29

Another anti-competitive initiative disguised as "Apple-led innovation" - maybe Apple should get on board with Vulkan, everyone else has, instead of complaining about there being no cross-platform solutions.

How is this anti-competitive? They're explicitly trying to create a cross-platform JavaScript API for graphics, one that can be built on top of whatever platform-specific low-level APIs that exist. This seems to be the exact opposite of anti-competitive.

Because it's their own.

How convenient to propose your own standard as the standard, made specifically for your own engine...

Re: Apple proposes new web 3D graphics API

#190

Post by shmerl »

andreyf wrote: post #131
modeless wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Lots of design work needs to be done. So support Vulkan and then let's do the design work! The choice of underlying system API has effects on the design of the upper layers. Your refusal to support Vulkan is blocking progress.

Why so combative? How is a JavaScript API standard going to benefit from Vulkan support on Apple platforms? More specifically, how will a JS API benefit from being built exclusively for Vulkan, instead of multiple "APIs that have nuanced architectural differences", to borrow Dean's phrase?

You can simplify the design and reduce bloat if you don't need to address multiple APIs as backend.
Post reply on HN