Vulkan API instead of DX12 API

1. With Vulkan you won't have to pay licensing fee's.
   
2. You will gain more players from *nix, and older platforms. (could be as much as 20% more players to play Arma 3)
   
3. Vulkan is a continuation of Mantle 1.0, the "foundation" of Vulkan is made up of parts of Mantle.
   
4. DirectX 12 is a massive overhaul of DX11, but still only supports Windows 10
   
5. Vulkan supports Windows, Linux, and OSX
   
6. Vulkan being supported all over the place is arguably more important in our increasingly fragmented OS usage in gaming.
   
7. DX12 is just another Microsoft attempt to lock users into their OS for another 10+ years. Please do not support it if you want there to be competition.
   
8. If Steam machines are a success, AAA devs will want to use Vulcan, to make their games compatible with SteamOS
   
9. It should work on all gpus from at least 3 years back. - No need to upgrade your GPU just to use it.
   
10. Being Multiplatform means if they want to branch out to other Operating systems, the transition is considerably less painful.
    

http://i.imgur.com/Y4VrGKP.png (116 kB)

• DX12 is just another Microsoft attempt to lock users into their OS for another 10+ years. Please do not support it if you want there to be competition.
  

No sign of Bohemia interest in competition, or at least they chose not to devote internal manpower towards multiplatform Arma at this time due to prioritizing the expansion...

No sign of Bohemia interest in competition, or at least they chose not to devote internal manpower towards multiplatform Arma at this time due to prioritizing the expansion...

It is not competition to Arma. It is competition in the API market. the OS market. The implementation of Vulkan for Multiplatform purposes is to give the possibility of multi-platform expansion not necessarily immediate multi-platform expansion. If DX12 is used, only Windows 10 and Xbone platforms can be supported unless it is rewritten for Vulkan later on down the road.

That's what I voiced a belief that Bohemia doesn't care about (API/OS competition) as implied by its actions... although it seems more likely that the Real Virtuality/Enforce engine merge would/could (eventually) support Vulkan.

beeing early adopter of new technology can have very big risks with little benefit in the gaming genre... i would prefer BIS to keep their feet on the ground (like they do now) and not run after the latest tech-flavor (or vapor in some cases...) of the month.

Also, i doubt developing for linux and mac right now would make a return of the investment for them...

Edited June 21, 2015 by X3KJ

The truth is.

Vulkan and SteamOS.

The goal of SteamOS and Machine is to grab a market quota that now belongs to Xbox and Playstation.

Steam machine basically is a console and Vulkan is competing directly with Xbox. Vulkan main goal (under every aspect) is for console games type.

PC games and DirectX (Windows).

DirectX 12 is nothing more than Xbox API.

Basically means that in short time instead of 2 APIs (1 for console and 1 for PC) we will have 1 API that will be shared between PC and console.

Also means that a game for console or pc will have exactly the same architecture,

So, basically in short time we will have only 2 APIs shared by all platforms.

Vulkan for SteamOS, Steam machine and Playstation (console) and DirectX 12 for Windows, Xbox (PC and console).

This is good news for game studios, it will require much less investment to create and develop multi platform games.

Wich one is better? Well, the smell is different but the crap is the same. It's a only a fight for a market quota and profit increase.

Game studios will decide which one to use and is not easy to decide.

SteamOS and become Valve dependant? Or Windows and still having Valve as option for comercial distribution?

Obvioulsy Valve may start to distribute only SteamOS based games, but I dont believe in this, Valve do not want to lose the profit coming from Windows games..

Microsoft will always have a broader market and this may have some weight in game studios decision.

Edited June 21, 2015 by Bratwurste
Fixed playstation reference

No point switching to other API when ArmA is still Windows exclusive. Besides, if you're serious about PC gaming, you have Windows, simple as that. Maybe this will change when Steam OS/Steam Machines establish themselves but for now it is so.

@Bratwurste: DX12 is exclusive to MS platforms and will not come over to Sony PlayStation. PS consoles use Open GL ES API standard.

The truth is.

Vulkan and SteamOS.

The goal of SteamOS and Machine is to grab a market quota that now belongs to Xbox and Playstation.

Steam machine basically is a console and Vulkan is competing directly with Xbox. Vulkan main goal (under every aspect) is for console games type.

PC games and DirectX (Windows).

DirectX 12 is nothing more than Xbox API.

Basically means that in short time instead of 2 APIs (1 for console and 1 for PC) we will have 1 API that will be shared between PC and console.

Also means that a game for console or pc will have exactly the same architecture,

So, basically in short time we will have only 2 APIs shared by all platforms.

Vulkan for SteamOS, Steam machine and Playstation (console) and DirectX 12 for Windows, Xbox (PC and console).

This is good news for game studios, it will require much less investment to create and develop multi platform games.

Wich one is better? Well, the smell is different but the crap is the same. It's a only a fight for a market quota and profit increase.

Game studios will decide which one to use and is not easy to decide.

SteamOS and become Valve dependant? Or Windows and still having Valve as option for comercial distribution?

Obvioulsy Valve may start to distribute only SteamOS based games, but I dont believe in this, Valve do not want to lose the profit coming from Windows games..

Microsoft will always have a broader market and this may have some weight in game studios decision.

Your theory about how Vulkan is SteamOS and PS4 only is bunk. Vulkan is Windows, Mac, Linux, PS4, Xbone, and Android.

Also, the idea that if you go Vulkan you can only be distributed via Steam is bull. SteamOS is a means to an end. The end is to show that Linux is a good gaming platform too. To improve the driver support and game dev support for an excellent platform.

SteamOS is Debian Linux with Steam Client and an optimized Kernel. You can still use Ubuntu with Steam, Fedora with Steam, ANY linux distro and Steam and get the same result. Don't like Steam? GoG.com, Desura.com, Your own freaking web store. Disc media. ANYTHING. Nothing is limiting you from releasing for ANY platform unless you go DX12. DX12 is Windows X and XBone only. The same hardware supports both DX12 and Vulkan. Don't believe me? Who designed the Xbone and PS4? AMD for the most part. What is the core of Vulkan? Mantle. Who made Mantle? AMD. What is the core of DX12? Mantle. see the picture? The only thing you get with DX12 over Vulkan is Locking into 1 Platform.....the Windows platform. aka the Microsoft platform. That is it. Nothing more.

---------- Post added at 21:58 ---------- Previous post was at 21:54 ----------

@Bratwurste: DX12 is exclusive to MS platforms and will not come over to Sony PlayStation. PS consoles use Open GL ES API standard.

Who makes OpenGL ES? Khronos Group. Who makes Vulkan? Khronos Group. What will Vulkan work on? Any hardware platform that supports openGL, openGL ES, or openCL. What was the original name for Vulkan? OpenGL Next.

This is just the continuation of the battle OpenGL vs D3D.

Just now is called Vulkan and it has a external OS (with a strong financial support) involved in the battle and for comercial purposes.

Its public how how much Valve hates Microsoft, these 2 factors will bring this war to a different level, I have no doubts.

In the same way, I have no doubts that Source games will be Vulkan based, also I have no doubts that Steam users (and source engine clients) will be "encouraged' to use SteamOS.

So yes, Vulkan goal is to do what OpenGL was not able to do these last years. The chances are better now, since Steam is involved.

But this subject is well known and widely debated already. Here is one article that basically says it all.

http://www.extremetech.com/gaming/200836-next-generation-vulkan-api-could-be-valves-killer-advantage-in-battling-microsoft

Main proponent of OGL used to be Carmack and his id Tech based engines but even he said a few years ago that DX has matched or outdone OGL. You can see here how OGL compares to DX in a popular graphic benchmarking tool:

As you can see, DX is faster at the same visual quality. Vulkan is, as you already said, an upgrade to OGL with new naming and will go against DX12. Outcome of this battle remains to be seen but the popular graphical engines these days (Unreal Engine, Unity, Frostbite, Cryengine, etc) seem to favour DX over OGL. It's more the consoles who favour OGL since only the Xbox has DX based API. And the new Source Engine also seems won't be OGL/Vulkan exclusive.

Assuming that you can port the whole codebase to another platform just because you are using Vulkan is probably a bit optimistic

Assuming that you can port the whole codebase to another platform just because you are using Vulkan is probably a bit optimistic

This too -- then again, public speculation has Bohemia looking to the still-unnamed Real Virtuality/Enforce merge ("Enfusion" is the DayZ-specific RV fork) as their "future multiplatform" solution anyway. Personally, I suspect that Bohemia doesn't mind potentially being "technological deadend" with DX12 for Arma 3 and DayZ if Real Virtuality is itself secretly considered a technological deadend anyway... (i.e. the possibility of Arma 3 being the last "pure RV" title in the series.)

Assuming that you can port the whole codebase to another platform just because you are using Vulkan is probably a bit optimistic

I don't think anyone was assuming that, but we know they are investigating the possibilities of porting the client to mac and Linux, and we also know that it would be easier to port if Vulkan was already implemented.

But I also have to defend the devs decision of using Dx12 based upon the fact that the official specification of Vulkan isn't finished yet, which makes development more uncertain and could compromise the release date of the expansion.

Edit: And yea, there's the fact that no drivers are publicly available yet for Vulkan, which might also make it harder for developers. Dx12 drivers have been publicly available for a while now from both AMD and Nvidia which makes it more convenient.

Edited June 21, 2015 by Brisse

^ Also key, if Bohemia's on a mindset that prefers "stable seeming" technologies to emerging ones, even at the expense of forward-thinking/future-proofing.

"futureproofing" with technologies that are still on the drawing board... bad idea.

... there's a F-35 joke waiting to happen. :D

I don't think anyone was assuming that

Well that's the impression I had. And, going back in the thread, it still is.

but we know they are investigating the possibilities of porting the client to mac and Linux, and we also know that it would be easier to port if Vulkan was already implemented.

Even it that case, if a Linux version comes I will suddenly turn into an Arma fanboy, but honestly I wouldn't count on a Linux version anytime soon just because of Vulkan.

But I also have to defend the devs decision of using Dx12 based upon the fact that the official specification of Vulkan isn't finished yet, which makes development more uncertain and could compromise the release date of the expansion.

Edit: And yea, there's the fact that no drivers are publicly available yet for Vulkan, which might also make it harder for developers. Dx12 drivers have been publicly available for a while now from both AMD and Nvidia which makes it more convenient.

If I'm not mistaking Vulkan is expected at the end of the year. If you are serious you can join Khronos, like many major developers did. I bet in that case you do get your drivers. Apparently it costs $15k per year. I do wonder wtf canonical is doing there, but that's another story

It's interesting that I'm getting into a discussion about Vulkan and I have no clue of how it works. Smart

I really hope BIS can consider this option.

And also SteamOS/Machine.

Isn't the RV engine already DirectX-based? If so, they'd have to re-write the ENTIRE CODEBASE from rendering to physics to AI to scripting for Vulcan. Many bugs and errors are bound to happen and it'd be an immense effort for little to no monetary gain. We'd be back at Alpha performance and stability until the team gets used to the API and its quirks. Instead, they save time and effort by simply upgrading to DX12.

Isn't the RV engine already DirectX-based? If so, they'd have to re-write the ENTIRE CODEBASE from rendering to physics to AI to scripting for Vulcan. Many bugs and errors are bound to happen and it'd be an immense effort for little to no monetary gain. We'd be back at Alpha performance and stability until the team gets used to the API and its quirks. Instead, they save time and effort by simply upgrading to DX12.

What the hell are you talking about? You know Dx12 is not an iteration of previous DirectX versions, right?

You are aware that this is not gonna happen, at least because we are talking about an expansion, not a new game, right?

Isn't the RV engine already DirectX-based? If so, they'd have to re-write the ENTIRE CODEBASE from rendering to physics to AI to scripting for Vulcan. Many bugs and errors are bound to happen and it'd be an immense effort for little to no monetary gain. We'd be back at Alpha performance and stability until the team gets used to the API and its quirks. Instead, they save time and effort by simply upgrading to DX12.

They would have to redo the entire code base for DX12 regardless so it would be essentially the same amount of work. What they could do is pencil in the spots for Vulkan API support so they could have both DX12 and Vulkan APIs as options. If you have Windows 10 you can use DX12, if you dont have Windows 10 either because you didnt upgrade or you dont run Windows, you can use Vulkan.

Think of it like with Mantle and BF4. You could choose Mantle or DX11 as the renderer in BF4.

Also: Vulkan is NOT OpenGL.

Here is a nice intro to what the difference is and what APIs actually do.

And here is a video of Intel showing off Vulkan on an Intel iGPU.....so much for Vulkan not existing yet......

Vulkan and SPIR-V from Khronos Group

and finally a video rendered in OpenGL showing all the open-standard APIs from Khronos working in tandem.

Edited June 25, 2015 by LinuxMaster9

are we still talking about a product that is not finished nor in deliverable to developers state? Would you base your product on something that is not really out there yet?

are we still talking about a product that is not finished nor in deliverable to developers state? Would you base your product on something that is not really out there yet?

not really. If you join the Khronos Group you get access to the early drivers being released by AMD/Nvida/Intel for Vulkan. You also have all the other members to help you get it running and implemented. Specifically, Valve and a couple others are more than willing to help game devs get accustomed to using it as well as implement it.

Why not give it a try? Is too much trouble?

Well, if major game studios like EA, Sony, Blizzard, Epic and major brands like Intel, Nvidia, AMD are working with Khronos, can't be that bad.

Heck, if even Microsoft is moving close to OpenGL with DirectX 12 (YES, Xbox API is more close from OpenGL than DirectX) this new Vulkan API can't be that bad.

Why not have both (DX12 and Vulkan) so users can chose whats fit better? Is too much trouble?