eL_PuSHeR wrote:

...that Direct-X sucks, sucked always and will always suck (OpenGL was way way better). And that Direct-X 12 is just snake oil, a poor bait excuse for luring pc gamers to w10.

Heh, okay... How does DOOM prove any of that, seeing as it has no DirectX renderer, so there is no way to compare APIs in an apples-to-apples scenario?

eL_PuSHeR wrote:

The game is gorgeus running totally fluid and smooth at 75fps.

So, because a game can run fluid and smooth with Vulkan or OpenGL, DirectX sucks and it's snake oil?
That makes no sense at all. There are plenty of games that run totally fluid and smooth with DX as well. They're just APIs, there isn't a lot of difference between them (except that OpenGL drivers aren't as good on anything that isn't NV). As long as the game engine is well-written, the bottleneck should be the GPU, not the API.

DOOM rus fluid and smooth because it was designed that way: Its levels aren't all that complicated (lots of corridors and things, which make it easy to occlude large parts of the level, and only rendering a small part). Also, the graphics quality isn't that high. It's acceptable, and works okay for this kind of game, but it's not exactly cutting-edge in that area.
They deliberately designed the game to be fluid and smooth, to capture the feeling of the original DOOM and Quake games and make them highly maneuverable in multiplayer deathmatch and such. Games like Half-Life 2 and Team Fortress 2 were designed in a similar way: relatively simple graphics algorithms, which allowed very high framerates on even modest hardware, so the games were super-playable.

There's no reason why you couldn't make a game like DOOM that looks exactly the same and plays just as smoothly with DirectX.

Would be nice to test this game on the computer I've just built but I don't buy Denuvo games unless there's a crack. Still waiting.

At least I was able to finally buy Rise of the Tomb Raider last night, working fine without Steam.

Wonder what the chances are of the Doom (2016) source code ever being released without Carmack.

I'm running DOOM on two PCs and the Vulkan performance jump with the Radeon 7950 is remarkable. At least twice the FPS I was getting on Open GL.
On my GTX 970 machine, there's also an improvement but not quite as noticeable.
This is like a free upgrade and I only wish more games took advantage of the Vulkan API.

Splinter wrote:

This is like a free upgrade and I only wish more games took advantage of the Vulkan API.

I think Vulkan will remain a minor player, much like OpenGL before it...
The situation hasn't changed: PS4 uses its own custom API, Xbox One uses DX11 or DX12. Windows can use either DX, OpenGL or Vulkan. OS X seems limited to OpenGL and Metal at this point.
Which makes DX12 more attractive than Vulkan, because it's the only API that kills two birds with one stone: Xbox and Windows can share quite a bit of code.
For DOOM they had to develop a DX12 version anyway, for the Xbox One. Most studios probably won't want to invest in that for no apparent reason. ID/Bethesda has historically been the 'odd one out', one of the very few to use something other than DX on Windows in a major title.

don't forget unreal. it's was OpenGL supported. I know it's a old example, but it also had DX support witch made comparing the 2 simple.

Scali wrote:

I think Vulkan will remain a minor player, much like OpenGL before it... The situation hasn't changed: PS4 uses its own custom A […]
Show full quote

Splinter wrote:

This is like a free upgrade and I only wish more games took advantage of the Vulkan API.

I think Vulkan will remain a minor player, much like OpenGL before it...
The situation hasn't changed: PS4 uses its own custom API, Xbox One uses DX11 or DX12. Windows can use either DX, OpenGL or Vulkan. OS X seems limited to OpenGL and Metal at this point.
Which makes DX12 more attractive than Vulkan, because it's the only API that kills two birds with one stone: Xbox and Windows can share quite a bit of code.
For DOOM they had to develop a DX12 version anyway, for the Xbox One. Most studios probably won't want to invest in that for no apparent reason. ID/Bethesda has historically been the 'odd one out', one of the very few to use something other than DX on Windows in a major title.

Vulkan might gain ground on gaming industry because of Linux and Valve's Steam machines though, also the craze to port Android games to PCs might work in Vulkans favor too, since Vulkan works on Android while DX12 does not. I don't know what the custom API in PS4 is, but saying that it uses Mantle propably wouldn't be TOO far off, it it does indeed use Mantle, it might not be too hard to translate that to Vulkan. For Apple stuff there is https://moltengl.com/moltenvk/. Not official it seems, but better than nothing I guess.

Aideka wrote:

Vulkan might gain ground on gaming industry because of Linux and Valve's Steam machines though

I doubt it. The exact same argument went for OpenGL, but not much resulted from it.

Aideka wrote:

also the craze to port Android games to PCs might work in Vulkans favor too, since Vulkan works on Android while DX12 does not.

There is a flaw in that reasoning:
Vulkan only works on Android devices that:
A) Have a new enough OS+drivers so that Vulkan is actually available (lack of OS updates from most vendors is a big problem here, don't expect many phones to get an update to add Vulkan, if they don't have it out-of-the-box).
B) Have a GPU capable of Vulkan. Which basically means pretty high-end GPUs only, which are rare on phones. Most phones still use DX9-level GPUs, which do not meet the minimum requirements of Vulkan.

Aideka wrote:

I don't know what the custom API in PS4 is, but saying that it uses Mantle propably wouldn't be TOO far off

It doesn't. Sony developed its own proprietary API. Some info here: http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoun … e-playstation-4

Aideka wrote:

it it does indeed use Mantle, it might not be too hard to translate that to Vulkan.

Probably about as hard as translating from PS4's API to DX12. They all use very similar concepts.

Aideka wrote:

For Apple stuff there is https://moltengl.com/moltenvk/. Not official it seems, but better than nothing I guess.

The problem there is that it adds another layer of abstraction. This can impair both compatibility and performance. Not to mention it's not officially supported by Apple.
So, it's not something you'd likely target for a commercial game.

Aideka wrote:

Scali wrote:

I think Vulkan will remain a minor player, much like OpenGL before it... The situation hasn't changed: PS4 uses its own custom A […]
Show full quote

Splinter wrote:

This is like a free upgrade and I only wish more games took advantage of the Vulkan API.

I think Vulkan will remain a minor player, much like OpenGL before it...
The situation hasn't changed: PS4 uses its own custom API, Xbox One uses DX11 or DX12. Windows can use either DX, OpenGL or Vulkan. OS X seems limited to OpenGL and Metal at this point.
Which makes DX12 more attractive than Vulkan, because it's the only API that kills two birds with one stone: Xbox and Windows can share quite a bit of code.
For DOOM they had to develop a DX12 version anyway, for the Xbox One. Most studios probably won't want to invest in that for no apparent reason. ID/Bethesda has historically been the 'odd one out', one of the very few to use something other than DX on Windows in a major title.

Vulkan might gain ground on gaming industry because of Linux and Valve's Steam machines though, also the craze to port Android games to PCs might work in Vulkans favor too, since Vulkan works on Android while DX12 does not.

No it won't. Scali gets it spot on. For AAA game studios (EA, Activision, UbiSoft, etc) the 90%+ of their income comes in order from the following platforms: PS4, XBOne, PC. Two of those will use DX12 making it the API to code in if you want to make money in games. Linux+Android is nothing to income bottom line. Vulkan is aimed at generally small developers who do not multiplatform.

Aideka wrote:

I don't know what the custom API in PS4 is, but saying that it uses Mantle propably wouldn't be TOO far off, it it does indeed use Mantle, it might not be too hard to translate that to Vulkan. For Apple stuff there is https://moltengl.com/moltenvk/. Not official it seems, but better than nothing I guess.

I do, as I was part of the team that designed the PS4 graphics API. I cannot say too much due to NDAs but it is not Mantle.

vladstamate wrote:

I do, as I was part of the team that designed the PS4 graphics API. I cannot say too much due to NDAs but it is not Mantle.

Do you feel like AMD tried to claim too much credit in the media with the Mantle API? Their introduction made it almost sound like both Xbox One and PS4 were using Mantle, or at least that their APIs were derived from Mantle, rather than the other way around.

Sent you a PM Scali.

I'm far more impressed by the consoles version,

Scali wrote:

It doesn't. Sony developed its own proprietary API. Some info here: http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoun … e-playstation-4

Typical Sony! 🤣

Scali wrote:

So, because a game can run fluid and smooth with Vulkan or OpenGL, DirectX sucks and it's snake oil?
That makes no sense at all. There are plenty of games that run totally fluid and smooth with DX as well. They're just APIs, there isn't a lot of difference between them (except that OpenGL drivers aren't as good on anything that isn't NV). As long as the game engine is well-written, the bottleneck should be the GPU, not the API.

Could you name some DX titles that run smooth for you?

I have several games and none of them run fluid. They may run okay and fast, but never fluid/smooth. And 99,99% of the games are still using DX9.

And I disagree with you about there isn't that lot of a difference among APIs. And I am not a programmer.

eL_PuSHeR wrote:

Could you name some DX titles that run smooth for you?

Anything that can run faster than my screen's refresh rate runs smoothly for me.

eL_PuSHeR wrote:

And I disagree with you about there isn't that lot of a difference among APIs. And I am not a programmer.

I am a programmer 😀
I am just saying that the differences in APIs are superficial, and will not result in fundamental differences of "being able to run smoothly" and "not able to run smoothly".

Jade Falcon wrote:

don't forget unreal. it's was OpenGL supported. I know it's a old example, but it also had DX support witch made comparing the 2 simple.

More like "supported". All UE1 (post Unreal/KHG) titles had a very buggy OpenGL driver shipped. The Direct3D driver was a little more mature, and the Glide and PowerVR drivers were the best to use 😜. still it's pretty bad to stage a pissing contest of APIs in Unreal.

The UnrealEngine2 OpenGL driver isn't feature-parity with their Direct3D8 renderer either so that's also bad to judge

eL_PuSHeR wrote:

Could you name some DX titles that run smooth for you? […]
Show full quote

Scali wrote:

So, because a game can run fluid and smooth with Vulkan or OpenGL, DirectX sucks and it's snake oil?
That makes no sense at all. There are plenty of games that run totally fluid and smooth with DX as well. They're just APIs, there isn't a lot of difference between them (except that OpenGL drivers aren't as good on anything that isn't NV). As long as the game engine is well-written, the bottleneck should be the GPU, not the API.

Could you name some DX titles that run smooth for you?

I have several games and none of them run fluid. They may run okay and fast, but never fluid/smooth. And 99,99% of the games are still using DX9.

And I disagree with you about there isn't that lot of a difference among APIs. And I am not a programmer.

Every game that uses DX in my library (over 250 games) run perfect, excluding shit port games, like Watch_Dogs (which runs at 60 FPS at max w/ 4x MSAA, but not the 80+ FPS I like.)