I seem to recall from a chat i had with him at one point he was thinking about it, but maybe that was because other people were migrating over and he was just mulling it over.
Game Discussions Star Citizen Discussion Thread v12
- Thread starter Yaffle
- Start date
-
- Tags
- star citizen
I seem to recall from a chat i had with him at one point he was thinking about it, but maybe that was because other people were migrating over and he was just mulling it over.
From the comments section on an article:
Answer
Answer
Viajero
Volunteer Moderator
Obvious fake, watch more Yamiks.
Vulkan will (and not might) give better performance, not because it's better than dx12 (it's not) but because SC run on dx11. It's a generational gap. Vulkan and DirectX 12 have better support for multiple threads to send commands to the GPU simultaneously. And with Vulkan you can send commands directly to the GPU, bypassing the CPU. Rendering in SC is limited by CPU on a lot of systems in its dx11 version.
On games not optimised for Vulkan you gain some fps : here or here
But on games only made to use Vulkan, graphic intensive and tuned to use effectively the multithread capacity of Vulkan and direct GPU access, there will be a boost from dx11. And for what I've read from the devs, that's what they work for.
For now, it's hard to give a real dx11 vs vulkan comparison because games really using the vulkan capacities are rare and for most of them, they where not switching from dx11. For me SC will be the first where we will see this switch.
So from a development time and cost perspective, it might make more sense for them to upgrade to DX12 then, thereby requiring less code to changed for perhaps an almost equivalent improvement in performance.
DX has been tried and tested for many years, while Vulkan is still in its infancy and will bring its own problems. I'm not certain CIG have considered this aspect, but we know CIG love to jump on hype trains when they can.
Regardless, DX12 or Vulcan I doubt its going to change my 15 FPS standing still in a small cubicle into 60 FPS with a GTX960...
That still doesn't translate into "will" - it's still just "might".
Vulkan improves performance if, by writing directly to the metal, the developer can get rid of some of the processing overhead needed for a higher-level API and rendering layer. If instead, the developer creates some of their own overhead and inefficiencies that aren't present in the base API, then performance will in fact decrease.
It's like exchanging a handgun for a shotgun: yes, you send more lead downrange and with a bit of fancy handling, you can get some spectacular, adaptive, and task-specific effects and out of it that you couldn't previously, but you also get a much better opportunity to blow your entire leg off. The outcome depends to a much higher degree on who's manipulating the thing.
This is CIG. What the devs say they're working towards, what they're actually working towards, and what they eventually achieve, are three very distinct entities. Also, since this is CIG we're talking about, their competence so far suggests that this is more of a leg-off type scenario...
Let's not forget, they've already been down this road when they tried to jump on the Mantle bandwagon. And the DX12 bandwagon. This is not a game "only made to use Vulkan" but a game where the development has manage to outlast several generations of hardware, OS:es, and API:s. It's built on a geriatric core that needs to be replaced on the engine-maker level for it to make any real difference, and Amazon isn't likely to want to limit their applicability to any one specific layer to begin with. In place of "what the devs work for", you probably need to read "what the devs are waiting for a drop-in code package for (so they can start from scratch again for the N:th time and have the excuse even further delays).
e: Oh, and...
That's a pretty bold claim. Do you have a source for that?
Last edited:
Good, CIG have another excuse for the non-appearance of actual product.
As long as client performance is heavily dependent on server performance, I fail to see how a Vulkan renderer will be able to provide the miracle you seem to hoping for.
No. DX12 is a widely-known term. Vulcan isn't. So they drone on Vulcan and promise performance that will never be there because Vulcan is such a fringe case in usage. And the acoytes will go forth and spread the word of the wundertech as we can see just now here.
In a year some other wundertech will be pulled from CI martered rear (there was so much wunder pulled out from there) and barely anyone will remember Vulcan anymore. But they'll welcome that newly rear-pulled wunder like the purest vessel to salvation - they simply can't discern a turd from something valuable any more.
Last edited:
Vulkan will not change desynch, tickrate, rubberbanding, etc. It will 'just' give better fps for old computers and boost fps on modern one.
Vulkan can be chosen over DX12 for it's native support of Linux.
If you just switch from dx11 to dx12, you gain some fps. If you really want to use the power of dx12, you have to completly redo whole pieces of your code AND architecture. It's a pain in the asxxxs and a lot of new games claiming using DX12 doesn't really use the power of DX12.
Vulkan can be chosen over DX12 for it's native support of Linux.
Last edited:
Yeah. That why Doom Eternal only run with Vulkan... Such a bad API...
It won't. It won't make it into the code in any appliable form anyway so it's pretty useless to speculate. You really need not believe everything they tell you.
As if that mattered. The promised linux support will happen just like the moddable private servers, I'm sure.Also, it's the other way around.
Because it's an engine iteration over what was used in Doom 2016, which had the choice between OpenGL (very uneven support due to age and myriad of vendor-specific extensions, implementations, and solutions) and later Vulkan (new and vastly more unified implementation, but also largely experimental at the time). Four years later, by the time id Tech 7 came out, the early instability and unevenness of Vulkan had largely been sorted out so supporting OGL was no longer necessary on PCs. DX12 was never an option, so trying to inject that as a point of comparison between DX12 and Vulcan is... not all that informative. Or informed.
Also, no-one said it was a bad API. That's just some nonsense you threw in there because you're once again running out of things to say and have to rely on the standard strawman fallback position.
Last edited:
It doesn't, but we all know facts won't stop you claiming such nonsense anyway.
If you have a source that DE runs on DX12, I want it. Each source I've found talks about Vulkan API only used for DE.
EDIT
Why id Software Chose Vulkan over DirectX 12
id Software is one of the best-known game developers in the world, having created smash hit games for many generations. With the latest Doom game being another big hit, and a graphical powerhouse…
www.eteknix.com
Last edited:
But that wasn't what was claimed, now was it?
My bad - I misread you talking about Doom Eternal - I thought you meant Doom 2016.If you have a source that DE runs on DX12, I want it. Each source I've found talks about Vulkan API only used for DE.
EDIT
Why id Software Chose Vulkan over DirectX 12
id Software is one of the best-known game developers in the world, having created smash hit games for many generations. With the latest Doom game being another big hit, and a graphical powerhouse…www.eteknix.com
