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

121–130 of 650 posts

Re: Apple proposes new web 3D graphics API

#121

Post by [deleted] »

hota_mazi wrote: post #93
om2 wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you are wrong on that. Vulkan is a low-level native API, not a JavaScript API for the web. Lots of design work needs to be done. In addition, even on platforms where there are unofficial Vulkan drivers (such as Windows), it's likely the natively available API will still have more complete support and better performance. So either way, we need a cross-platform graphics API. Let's focus this discussion on impro…

I understand and see some merit to your angle, but at the end of the day, I don't think Apple will be taken seriously in that area until they support Vulkan. Go ahead and do that, then we can talk about going up the stack and judging the API you're proposing (and let's be honest, it's really Metal-for-Javascript). Show some good will.

[deleted]

Re: Apple proposes new web 3D graphics API

#122

Post by sydd »

droithomme wrote: post #20
vvanders wrote: post #7

Anything that's not based on the Vulkan spec is just a land-grab by Apple to push their own technologies. As someone who spends a lot of time in that space I don't really see what this is solving, WebGL is good enough and anyone serious about performance/compute are going to drop down to native anyway.

Yeah,what is wrong with WebGL anyway? It seems to work pretty well.

lots of things:

- Implementing OpenGL drivers is very complicated, this leads to huge drivers full of bugs and performance issues. Just look at something like this: https://dolphin-emu.org/blog/2013/09/26/dolphin-emulator-and...

- OpenGL's state machine logic is outdated and horrible to debug. We need something more modern. Basically its carrying cruft from the last ~20 years.

- It can be very slow compared to Vulkan/Metal/DX 12.

- It doesnt allow modern features like GPGPU. this would allow is to truely use the GPU for computing stuff (e.g. AI, novel shaders, new graphics pipelines etc.)

Re: Apple proposes new web 3D graphics API

#123

Post by madeofpalk »

ChuckMcM wrote: post #67
om2 wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We're not complaining, we're explaining the lay of the land. Working on top of all three of these APIs is totally doable and will result in a better API for the web. Things worth noting: - We believe other browser vendors agree with us that the web API should work on all three of the major native APIs. - The web has security requirements which force us to go a bit higher-level than Vulkan anyway. I understand your de…

The optics are just really bad. Apple could say "In the mean time we'll support Vulkan" and bam! there is a cross platform solution. Instead you say "We will generously let everyone implement our specifications, we hate to see everyone suffering so, but if everyone else works really hard to do what we say, things will be great!"

...but Vulcan wouldnt run in a web browser anyway so whether Apple platforms support Vulcan or not is kind of beside the point, isnt it?

Re: Apple proposes new web 3D graphics API

#124

Post by dman »

om2 wrote: post #83
yellowapple wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"We're not complaining, we're explaining the lay of the land." The "lay of the land" is that the rest of the world is adopting Vulkan, and therefore the right target for WebGPU is very obviously Vulkan. Even macOS and iOS can (theoretically) support it thanks to MoltenVK [0], and Vulkan is already available on Windows. Trying to wrap all three "major" native APIs is pointless when there's already one that works every…

Vulkan on Windows is all based on unofficial drivers that don't come with Windows and aren't supported by MS. We don't think it's right to depend on this even if it's theoretically possible. Likewise for unofficial macOS/iOS drivers.

I would much prefer hardware vendor supplied drivers since they have an active interest in adding support for newer versions of graphics apis. OS vendors have proven to have a very poor track record supporting newer versions of graphics apis that they did not create themselves. (Microsoft support for OpenGL on Windows and OpenGL/Vulkan support on Mac). Calling driver vendors "unofficial" seems a bit backwards to me.

Re: Apple proposes new web 3D graphics API

#126

Post by botverse »

fooey wrote: post #98
NickGerleman wrote: post #9

"The major platform technologies in this space are Direct3D 12 from Microsoft, Metal from Apple, and Vulkan from the Khronos Group. While these technologies have similar design concepts, unfortunately none are available across all platforms." So Apple, the only company not supporting Vulkan on their platforms, is complaining that there isn't a cross-platform solution?

I don't know why Apple thinks they're going to have any sway over the people working on 3D graphics. Their hardware support for 3d graphics has been so awful for so long, I have a hard time imagining there's a very big user base they can leverage to get their way. So far as I can tell, what Apple wants here is almost completely irrelevant to the industry.

IMHO you are underestimating the leverage that Apple has given that macs are the tool of choice for most web developers. Apple is probably aware of this and this move looks like an anticipation.

Re: Apple proposes new web 3D graphics API

#127

Post by om2 »

Benjamin_Dobell wrote: post #80
om2 wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't get what you are suggesting. Apple supporting Vulkan on macOS and iOS wouldn't do anything to expose a new GPU API to the web. They are totally orthogonal. We're expecting work on the new web API to be super collaborative, so your framing is uncharitable and incorrect.

I think it's a bit disingenuous to say they're totally orthogonal. Presumably you understand that if Apple supported Vulkan natively, then "WebVulkan" would be the obvious choice for a web API (just as it was with OpenGL/WebGL).

I don't think browsers will choose to pipe this through Vulkan drivers on Windows (since they are all unofficial and in general don't have as complete coverage) and I don't think they'd choose to use unofficial Vulkan drivers for Apple platforms either, even if they existed.

Also, if you compare the sample code in the post with a sample of Vulkan code, I think it will be clear that a literal "WebVulkan" is a road best not traveled.

Re: Apple proposes new web 3D graphics API

#128

Post by goldfire »

acqq wrote: post #104
sydd wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why come up with a new API for this? Why not use the one supported by Google, and MS, Vulkan? We dont need another (a fourth!) API for the same thing. Introduce a web variant like Khronos with with WebGL (its almost like OpenGL ES, which is almost like OpenGL).

> Why not use the one supported by Google, and MS, Vulkan? https://www.lunarg.com/faqs/microsoft-support-vulkan/ "Microsoft has not expressed intent to support Vulkan."

They don't need to support it, because the GPU vendors have done so in their drivers, so it works fine on Windows without Microsoft's assistance.

Re: Apple proposes new web 3D graphics API

#129

Post by pharrington »

om2 wrote: post #41
NickGerleman wrote: post #9

"The major platform technologies in this space are Direct3D 12 from Microsoft, Metal from Apple, and Vulkan from the Khronos Group. While these technologies have similar design concepts, unfortunately none are available across all platforms." So Apple, the only company not supporting Vulkan on their platforms, is complaining that there isn't a cross-platform solution?

We're not complaining, we're explaining the lay of the land. Working on top of all three of these APIs is totally doable and will result in a better API for the web. Things worth noting: - We believe other browser vendors agree with us that the web API should work on all three of the major native APIs. - The web has security requirements which force us to go a bit higher-level than Vulkan anyway. I understand your de…

You say Vulkan drivers will, for the forseeable future, be of lower quality than D3D12 drivers and lack official support. Lets assume I blindly accept this faith-based argument. WebGPU than, must be implemented on top of D3D12 and Metal, two already very different APIs. What, than, makes a hypothetical WebVulkan unfeasible in contrast to WebGPU?
Post reply on HN