Apple proposes new web 3D graphics API

Post by om2 » Wed, Feb 08, 2017, 12:29 PM UTC

flohofwoe wrote: post #519

om2 wrote: post #518

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's Metal-inspired, but we tried to use JS API design idioms where possible. It does help that Metal is already an object-oriented design instead of bare functions passing around primitive values and structs.

Ha, sorry I wasn't aware that you're on the WebGPU team when I replied. Please don't forget about us emscripten users, I'd love to give WebGPU a whirl with my C++ mini-3D-framework ( http://www.github.com/floooh/oryol ), would be interesting how the C/C++ code would differ from the Metal rendering backend, and how performance compares to WebGL on one hand, and Metal / GL on the other.

Post by ioquatix » Wed, Feb 08, 2017, 12:37 PM UTC

om2 wrote: post #504

simonh wrote: post #501

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tying the implementation to a single underlying API is just another kind of lock-in. You can be locked in to an open standard just as much as a proprietary one. Suppose this had been proposed 5 years ago and been tied deeply into OpenGL? In the world of today, that would pretty much make it a dead end. It's just not the job of a standard like this to pick and choose winners at a different level of abstraction.

We did actually build a standard tied deeply OpenGL, it's called WebGL. And indeed, we foresee the need to move beyond it (though WebGL is still plenty good and not a dead end yet.) Worth noting also that Khronos is considering a slightly higher-level API than Vulkan as their next iteration. So that's another reason it would be a shame to bind too tightly to Vulkan. I also find it puzzling how designing to support mu…

Post by vetinari » Wed, Feb 08, 2017, 12:50 PM UTC

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.

Post by vetinari » Wed, Feb 08, 2017, 1:02 PM UTC

MBCook wrote: post #309

int_19h wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What do you mean by "unofficial drivers"? Looking at the support matrix on Wikipedia, it seems that both NVIDIA and ATI support it in their official Windows drivers.

I believe he means unofficial as in not provided by Microsoft. Microsoft works to make sure Direct3D works and I imagine they have lots of tests and compatibility suites there. I'm guessing they don't have any tests or standards were requirements around Vulcan.

Post by unsigner » Wed, Feb 08, 2017, 1:04 PM UTC

xxs wrote: post #469

unsigner wrote: post #411

"Only platforms without Vulkan are Apple's" is most certainly NOT true. The Xbox One is a widely available platform for which a lot of 3D effort is invested, and rewards this effort really well - much better than other platforms (like desktop Linux or old versions of Windows) that are frequently thrown around as arguments for "Vulkan everywhere". It is a common observation among game developers who have really tried…

>>It is a common observation among game developers who have really tried both that Metal is a much more accessible API than Vulkan; "90% of the performance for 10% of the effort". Any citation on the matter?