Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Latest Winevulkan Patches Make It Usable For Doom, Wolfenstein & DXVK

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #11
    I have included winevulkan.json in the wine-vulkan repo now, so no need for text editing.

    Comment


    • #12
      Originally posted by Thunderbird View Post
      It is correct that you are seeing a white screen. My latest patches have not been merged yet. If lucky they get merged today else for the time being use wine-vulkan. BTW just a simple text editor is enough to create the json file.
      Thank you so much for the hint.

      Comment


      • #13
        Result: The Witcher 3 (upstream Wine master with pending patches + dxvk direct image mapping branch).

        Last edited by shmerl; 15 March 2018, 07:30 PM.

        Comment


        • #14
          Originally posted by Thunderbird View Post
          I have included winevulkan.json in the wine-vulkan repo now, so no need for text editing.
          Does it still need to specify 1.0.51 and why exactly?

          Comment


          • #15
            Originally posted by shmerl View Post

            Does it still need to specify 1.0.51 and why exactly?
            The version there doesn't matter so much, but it matches the version of Vulkan I support. We can't support anything newer for now (Vulkan licensing issues).

            Comment


            • #16
              Originally posted by Thunderbird View Post
              We can't support anything newer for now (Vulkan licensing issues).
              Can you elaborate on that please? I thought Vulkan API code is opened. And is there any bug to track about that?

              Comment


              • #17
                Originally posted by shmerl View Post

                Can you elaborate on that please? I thought Vulkan API code is opened. And is there any bug to track about that?
                The code is open however over time the license changed (BSD -> Apache).

                Comment


                • #18
                  Originally posted by Thunderbird View Post

                  The code is open however over time the license changed (BSD -> Apache).
                  So it's about LGPL being incompatible with Apache? How about general idea, that APIs should not be copyrightable? In this sense, it doesn't matter what license Vulkan API source has.

                  And if not, how can that be resolved (and who came up with the idea of using a restrictive license for the API source)?
                  Last edited by shmerl; 15 March 2018, 09:33 PM.

                  Comment


                  • #19
                    Originally posted by shmerl View Post

                    So it's about LGPL being incompatible with Apache? How about general idea, that APIs should not be copyrightable? In this sense, it doesn't matter what license Vulkan API source has.

                    And if not, how can that be resolved (and who came up with the idea of using a restrictive license for the API source)?
                    Didn't Oracle win the case that made APIs copyrightable?

                    Comment


                    • #20
                      Originally posted by Vash63 View Post
                      Didn't Oracle win the case that made APIs copyrightable?
                      Not in Europe, and that result should be really appealed in US too. Google just didn't go with that.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X