I have this idea that if they split off WebAssembly, WebGL and WebAudio into a external format for applications it would be easier to implement than a full browser.
Feasibility of low-level GPU access on the Web
41–50 of 133 posts
Re: Feasibility of low-level GPU access on the Web
#42This situation reminds me days when we, at W3C HTML5 WG, were trying to sneak SQL specification into HTML5 "umbrella". And one particular flavor of it - the SQLite's SQL as it was defined at the moment of writing. Haven't got through for many good reasons as we know. As of GPU exposure to the Web ... It makes sense only when we will have stable and unified GPU abstraction. As for now DirectX.12, Vulcan and Metal are…
Re: Feasibility of low-level GPU access on the Web
#43Earlier quoted context omitted.
It will be Vulcan and Dx12. Microsoft is nothing if not a stubborn 800 lbs gorilla.
Eh, not for WebGL it won't. Nobody even implements DX other than high-powered desktop GPUs. Will it live on? Sure, we will still have games and Xboxes. But if you're going to pick a standard that can work on mobile and desktop, there is no contender other than Vulkan.
err, Intel iGPU, available in something as tiny/low-power as a LattePanda board… and all the Windows tablets…
Re: Feasibility of low-level GPU access on the Web
#44I understand that engine developers can get some (small?) percent improvement from an ultra-low-level API that exposes more platform specific details. But they almost always support multiple APIs natively, and already use the low level ones where available. There may be a small performance benefit (over a higher level API) in the browser, but I don't think the browser is a likely target for ultra heavyweight apps / games, that usually are multi-GB downloads anyway, in the near future. And keep in mind that if smaller software sticks with WebGL because of API complexity, that might be a big performance loss for the user.
But a higher level API would have great benefits everywhere! Right now the only real cross-platform graphics API is OpenGL ES 3.0, which is becoming more and more obsolete, with little sign of the situation changing. No compute shaders, no AZDO, etc. Any move beyond that feature set now requires multiple APIs, shaders etc. And the easiest way for a small developer to get those features is still to skip Vulkan and to stick with GL ES 3.1+ on Win/Linux/Android and choose Metal on Mac/iOS. Of course on the web for those features there are no options at all.
I think if a new API was available that was easy to use and truly cross platform (including web), it would be the obvious first API to implement for all new graphics software. And this would be a much larger benefit than an unknown performance improvement that is accessible mostly to engine developers.
Re: Feasibility of low-level GPU access on the Web
#45i think the web browser is the modern terminal and it should make use of all capabilities of the device, including hardware accelerated rendering. i think the current webgl is too low level though and only needed if you want to make your own 3d engine. if it was a higher level 3d renderer it would be easier for browser wendors to make secure and optimize, and easier for developers to use.
Re: Feasibility of low-level GPU access on the Web
#46I have this idea that if they split off WebAssembly, WebGL and WebAudio into a external format for applications it would be easier to implement than a full browser.
Re: Feasibility of low-level GPU access on the Web
#47What problem does this solve for the end user? Few sites even use WebGL for anything interesting.
Re: Feasibility of low-level GPU access on the Web
#48Canvas and webgl is lovely in the way it quickly lets you get something on the screen... Pixel pushing on canvas is, easy and accessible. It makes me wonder if anyone has created some sort of port to a standalone app with no browser involved where you could use javascript/canvas-api/webgl to draw pixels on a canvas-like surface... without the fatness of the browser. Just spawning some window, that would be a lovely s…
Re: Feasibility of low-level GPU access on the Web
#49Well, as a small developer I'd love to see a higher-level, easier-to-use API (than Vulkan) that can be used as a modern, cross platform replacement for OpenGL. If it could be used both in a browser and standalone even better. If it was available outside of a browser (even as a Vulkan/Metal wrapper), I think it could become a no-brainer replacement for where OpenGL ES is used today. I understand that engine developers…
Re: Feasibility of low-level GPU access on the Web
#50This situation reminds me days when we, at W3C HTML5 WG, were trying to sneak SQL specification into HTML5 "umbrella". And one particular flavor of it - the SQLite's SQL as it was defined at the moment of writing. Haven't got through for many good reasons as we know. As of GPU exposure to the Web ... It makes sense only when we will have stable and unified GPU abstraction. As for now DirectX.12, Vulcan and Metal are…
HTML and CSS are slowly losing ascendancy as the main render surface for web apps. The canvas provides a standard pixel buffer for both JS and compiled applications, making HTML's limitations no longer a restriction.