Godot 4.3 Dev 1 Released With Rendering System Refactor, D3D12

[Weasel]

I will never get why would anyone waste time to implement DirectX when Vulkan can ca everything that DirectX can do, even on Windows, besides being natively available on other platforms too like Linux and Android.

Vulkan is also an extension mess compared to D3D12.

[shmerl]

Vulkan is also an extension mess compared to D3D12.

Fake. D3D12 is a mess on its own.

[Weasel]

Fake. D3D12 is a mess on its own.

What is "fake"? Are you claiming it's not an extension mess with hundreds of extensions? LOL.

D3D12 may be a mess, but you'll have to elaborate what parts of it you find a mess (and it should be things that aren't in other similar APIs like Vulkan or Metal), otherwise it's just a blind opinion that I can't even analyze in the slightest.

It was similar story with D3D11 vs OpenGL, the latter of which was a mess in comparison. You can hate on these "proprietary" APIs all you want, but they attract developers because they're less of a "mess".

Not saying Vulkan is bad or anything, I certainly would love if more devs used it, but they (API designers) never seem to learn from their mistakes I guess. Sometimes having too much cross-platform compatibility makes it too hard to use for the common stuff and an annoying mess ensues just to cater to some obscure pos platform.

[blackiwid]

It was similar story with D3D11 vs OpenGL, the latter of which was a mess in comparison. You can hate on these "proprietary" APIs all you want, but they attract developers because they're less of a "mess".

That's a claim without any proof just because many were attracted and you think it's less of a mess, that does not proof causation. It could just be forcing people to use it with a prison of the xbox that don't allow support for vulkan.

Also back in the opengl time as far as I understand some features got slower adopted to opengl than to direct3d, and at some point in time something sticks out as default, some sort of best practice all do it it that way therefor nobody wants to take the risk and go with the contestor.

But the fight between vulkan and direct3d is completely different back in opengl time there was no steamdeck / steamos, back then there was no big android platform with gpus that could play modern games.

Also Back then Xbox has not lost the Konsole war to such a degree if at all, the numbers I see sony sold 2 times as much consoles and Nintendo Switch sold >5 times as much konsoles than Microsoft. But yes it's hard to kill a monopoly.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/1429648/current-gen-game-console-cumulative-sales/

You need total blamage and failure on the side of microsoft for like 10 years to destroy their market manipulation abilities.

[Weasel]

That's a claim without any proof just because many were attracted and you think it's less of a mess, that does not proof causation. It could just be forcing people to use it with a prison of the xbox that don't allow support for vulkan.

Also back in the opengl time as far as I understand some features got slower adopted to opengl than to direct3d, and at some point in time something sticks out as default, some sort of best practice all do it it that way therefor nobody wants to take the risk and go with the contestor.

But the fight between vulkan and direct3d is completely different back in opengl time there was no steamdeck / steamos, back then there was no big android platform with gpus that could play modern games.

You guys are just clueless aren't you?

See for instance: https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/a/88055

Quote from the link:

What this meant for the PC was that GeForce 3 came out simultaneously with D3D v8. And it's not hard to see how GeForce 3 influenced D3D 8's shaders. The pixel shaders of Shader Model 1.0 were extremely specific to NVIDIA's hardware. There was no attempt made whatsoever at abstracting NVIDIA's hardware; SM 1.0 was just whatever the GeForce 3 did.

When ATI started to jump into the performance graphics card race with the Radeon 8500, there was a problem. The 8500's pixel processing pipeline was more powerful than NVIDIA's stuff. So Microsoft issued Shader Model 1.1, which basically was "Whatever the 8500 does."

That may sound like a failure on D3D's part. But failure and success are matters of degrees. And epic failure was happening in OpenGL-land.

NVIDIA loved OpenGL, so when GeForce 3 hit, they released a slew of OpenGL extensions. Proprietary OpenGL extensions: NVIDIA-only. Naturally, when the 8500 showed up, it couldn't use any of them.

See, at least in D3D 8 land, you could run your SM 1.0 shaders on ATI hardware. Sure, you had to write new shaders to take advantage of the 8500's coolness, but at least your code worked.

In order to have shaders of any kind on Radeon 8500 in OpenGL, ATI had to write a number of OpenGL extensions. Proprietary OpenGL extensions: ATI-only. So you needed an NVIDIA codepath and an ATI codepath, just to have shaders at all.

Now, you might ask, "Where was the OpenGL ARB, whose job it was to keep OpenGL current?" Where many committees often end up: off being stupid.

See, I mentioned ARB_multitexture above because it factors deeply into all of this. The ARB seemed (from an outsider's perspective) to want to avoid the idea of shaders altogether. They figured that if they slapped enough configurability onto the fixed-function pipeline, they could equal the ability of a shader pipeline.

So the ARB released extension after extension. Every extension with the words "texture_env" in it was yet another attempt to patch this aging design. Check the registry: between ARB and EXT extensions, there were eight of these extensions made. Many were promoted to OpenGL core versions.

Do you see the last paragraph?

Keep repeating the same mistakes.