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

Native visionOS platform support

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 346 posts

Re: Native visionOS platform support

#81

Post by dagmx »

october8140 wrote: post #80

Reading a lot of comments it sounds like Apple should: 1. Give Godot some money. 2. Implement visionOS support via an extension not directly into core OR conform to industry standard OpenXR.

The people making the latter comments are ignoring the contents of this PR however, and showing a lack of understanding of the engine itself in the process.

You cannot build this as an extension. It’s a different OS and Godot needs it to be done this way, as many people in the PR have commented as well. An extension would not cover it, and people suggesting that are probably used to the PC VR development model where VR is an extension of an existing supported platform, not a platform in and off itself.

Beyond that, even if Apple supported OpenXR, you’d still need this PR first because it’s covering build support first. It doesn’t cover any of the XR/Spatial rendering elements.

Re: Native visionOS platform support

#82

Post by andsoitis »

dagmx wrote: post #77
andsoitis wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m invested in the success of Godot and fear the visionOS distraction dilutes the urgency that’s needed to compete with Unreal and Unity. Additionally, if Godot accepts this PR and related ongoing work, it would signal to me poor strategic judgment. Many an open source project progress slows down under the burden of supporting immaterial platforms.

Have you contributed to Godot yourself or made something of note with it? Multiple developers are actively asking for visionOS support as people on the Godot team have mentioned. Why should your distaste for a platform preclude them from having platform support that would benefit the things they want to build? Beyond that, have you even looked at the PR here to see what your supposed distraction would be? Most of the…

Yes

Re: Native visionOS platform support

#83

Post by andsoitis »

dagmx wrote: post #78
andsoitis wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apple has no intention of fitting within godot’s GTM strategy for VR via OpenXR standard. Amongst other signals, the PR comment says: “To support creating Immersive experiences by using a new Godot's visionOS VR Plugin.”

Okay? That still doesn’t mitigate the need for this specific PR first though to even get to that discussion point. That line you mention is not part of the contents of this PR.

A good partner discusses startegy and shared interest first, negotiates terms of engagement, tradeoffs, shared roadmaps, etc.

Instead we get a pretty arrogant and presumptive interaction from the Apple crew.

It should be noted that Apple is struggling with visionOS and Pro adoption amongst consumers and developers, so their arrogance is unwarranted and they cannot rely on market power.

Re: Native visionOS platform support

#84

Post by dagmx »

andsoitis wrote: post #83
dagmx wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Okay? That still doesn’t mitigate the need for this specific PR first though to even get to that discussion point. That line you mention is not part of the contents of this PR.

A good partner discusses startegy and shared interest first, negotiates terms of engagement, tradeoffs, shared roadmaps, etc. Instead we get a pretty arrogant and presumptive interaction from the Apple crew. It should be noted that Apple is struggling with visionOS and Pro adoption amongst consumers and developers, so their arrogance is unwarranted and they cannot rely on market power.

That’s what this PR is! It’s a first attempt to start that dialogue. You can even see the employee trying to address notes as they come in, and asking if there are better ways they should align with Godot.

Point to the arrogance involved. From all your comments I can see you have an intense distaste for Apple and I honestly feel it’s colouring your perception of this change.

The only person who seems upset is you. The Godot maintainers are positive, Miguel is positive.

Should contributors never open PRs until they’ve discussed it first? What if they want to get feedback on an idea in code form?

Re: Native visionOS platform support

#85

Post by serbuvlad »

eksu wrote: post #43
skeptrune wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The visionOS platform doesn't have OpenGL support, as it's not supported by visionOS. Hell would freeze over before Apple conformed and contributed to an existing open standard. They even failed to follow the Godot contribution guide for the PR itself.

OpenGL is quite dated for VR/AR. In the Apple ecosystem they supported OpenGL 4.1 for quite some time before moving to Metal, which was announced 2 years before Vulkan. If you spent the time developing an in house graphics API since open standards weren’t moving forward, why would you rewrite everything a second time just a few years later? Shouldn’t you expect to get a decade or two out of your existing API and only…

> why would you rewrite everything a second time just a few years later?

Why is this the dichotomy? Why not support both?

Re: Native visionOS platform support

#86

Post by tim-- »

theshrike79 wrote: post #61
frosting1337 wrote: post #34

Apple should flick Godot a chunk of change to properly get this rolling.

What Apple should do is drive a truckload of money on Valve's doorstep and get a Proton-like system built for M-series Macs.

They have done that.

They gave some cash money to CodeWeavers, the company that created wine. It's called the Game Porting Toolkit: https://developer.apple.com/games/game-porting-toolkit/

Re: Native visionOS platform support

#87

Post by andsoitis »

dagmx wrote: post #81
october8140 wrote: post #80

Reading a lot of comments it sounds like Apple should: 1. Give Godot some money. 2. Implement visionOS support via an extension not directly into core OR conform to industry standard OpenXR.

The people making the latter comments are ignoring the contents of this PR however, and showing a lack of understanding of the engine itself in the process. You cannot build this as an extension. It’s a different OS and Godot needs it to be done this way, as many people in the PR have commented as well. An extension would not cover it, and people suggesting that are probably used to the PC VR development model where…

> VR development model where VR is an extension of an existing supported platform, not a platform in and off itself

This is the crux of the issue, both for Apple and for Godot.

In Apple’s case, they’re finding that their vision does not resonate with consumers or developers. So they’re searching for ways to expand chances of success but not entering with an equal partnership mentality. Thats their prerogative but I would argue the arrogance blinds them to reality.

From Godot’s perspective, the question is whether all this distraction is worth it for a platform that has for all intents and purposes failed to prove itself. There’s an opportunity cost and likely constraints that would flow from supporting Apple’s divergent and unproven vision.

In my books it seems clear that it would be a mistake for Godot to invest energy in supporting a niche, heretofore unsuccessful product that is not aligned with Godot’s technical and product roadmap.

Re: Native visionOS platform support

#88

Post by josephg »

andsoitis wrote: post #79
josephg wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> To think he and his team have not made intentional choices to support/advance or undermine OpenXR would be naïve in my view. I'm sure their choices are intentional. But thats just one business unit. Apple is a huge company. And different areas have different priorities.

Not relevant. The VisionOS crew have decided to not support OpenXR and Apple has broadly decided not to support Vulkan, which, together with DirectX are the primary VR rendering technologies.

Not relevant to what? I think we’re talking past each other.

I agree with your point - Apple clearly wants Metal & friends to be their own thing. But the comment I was replying to above commented on Apple and standards. It didn’t mention graphics at all. I replied, discussing Apple as a whole.

Re: Native visionOS platform support

#89

Post by greenknight »

skeptrune wrote: post #36
andsoitis wrote: post #27

Godot already supports VR via OpenXR. OpenXR is the Khronos-maintained industry standard for VR/AR devices—supported by SteamVR, Oculus, Vive, Pico, Windows Mixed Reality, Quest. Notably absent is visionOS / Vision Pro. I would insist Apple conforms to the industry standard. More scalable, open.

> The visionOS platform doesn't have OpenGL support, as it's not supported by visionOS. Hell would freeze over before Apple conformed and contributed to an existing open standard. They even failed to follow the Godot contribution guide for the PR itself.

Correct... But from my understanding... OpenXR isnt reliant on OpenGL? it supports Vulkan, DirectX and metal -- https://github.com/godotengine/godot/pull/98872

Re: Native visionOS platform support

#90

Post by willtemperley »

andsoitis wrote: post #65
willtemperley wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Hell would freeze over before Apple conformed and contributed to an existing open standard. Why the vitriol? Apple did in fact initiate and co-create the WebGPU standard [1]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WebGPU Edit to include quote of parent comment.

I don’t know that that is relevant. In this context, what’s relevant is OpenXR. Apple’s visionOS does not natively support OpenXR, the open standard developed by the Khronos Group for cross-platform AR/VR development. Apple has not indicated any plans to adopt OpenXR, choosing instead to promote its proprietary frameworks such as ARKit, RealityKit, and PolySpatial for spatial computing on the Vision Pro. What Apple i…

You probably didn't see the comment I was replying to. I should have quoted:

> Hell would freeze over before Apple conformed and contributed to an existing open standard.

This is patently false given the fact I posted.

Post reply on HN