Dota 2 is the first Valve game that will support the new Vulkan API and it could be as soon as next week.
Considering how early Valve had access to it, and even showed off a demo of it way before release of Vulkan I am still surprise Talos beat it to be the first public Vulkan game. Well, I say surprised, but "Valve Time" is a thing right?
It's exciting, as when Valve switched to Source 2 which had native OpenGL the performance was much better on Linux (in terms of smoothness and actual FPS figures) and Vulkan is supposed to improve it even more so.
Speaking on reddit, a Valve developer said this:
You can also see on SteamDB that Valve has added Vulkan content for both Windows and Linux, no Mac of course as Apple decided to go with their own Metal API.
Like I did with Dota 2 when Valve switched to Source 2, I will let you know how it runs when the Vulkan version is available. I imagine it will be possible to switch between OpenGL and Vulkan to compare it easily, as I can't imagine them instantly turning off an older and more stable API right away (that's just asking for trouble). Article taken from GamingOnLinux.com.
Considering how early Valve had access to it, and even showed off a demo of it way before release of Vulkan I am still surprise Talos beat it to be the first public Vulkan game. Well, I say surprised, but "Valve Time" is a thing right?
It's exciting, as when Valve switched to Source 2 which had native OpenGL the performance was much better on Linux (in terms of smoothness and actual FPS figures) and Vulkan is supposed to improve it even more so.
Speaking on reddit, a Valve developer said this:
FletcherDunn, ValveWe're going to release vulkan support soon, probably sometime next week. That DLC checkbox is an error and shouldn't be visible yet. Sorry for the confusion.
You can also see on SteamDB that Valve has added Vulkan content for both Windows and Linux, no Mac of course as Apple decided to go with their own Metal API.
Like I did with Dota 2 when Valve switched to Source 2, I will let you know how it runs when the Vulkan version is available. I imagine it will be possible to switch between OpenGL and Vulkan to compare it easily, as I can't imagine them instantly turning off an older and more stable API right away (that's just asking for trouble). Article taken from GamingOnLinux.com.
0 Likes
Some you may have missed, popular articles from the last month:
The comments on this article are closed.
TheRiddick May 19, 2016
Given that DX12 doesn't run on MacOS either, I doubt Vulkan not being there will hurt it what so ever. As time goes on Mac will see less games releases, and Apple will need to PAY developers to use their Metal API as its just not going to be worth it for new releases.
Maybe we will see games having late releases on Mac, If Metal API worked on Windows and Linux and Android then we could talk about it more. But nope, Apple has SHOT themselves in the foot with this one, they just don't know it yet!
Maybe we will see games having late releases on Mac, If Metal API worked on Windows and Linux and Android then we could talk about it more. But nope, Apple has SHOT themselves in the foot with this one, they just don't know it yet!
2 Likes, Who?
It is the absence of Vulkan on Mac OSX and not so much the presence of Metal that I see as a potential problem.
0 Likes
The main problem is the Apple does still have the bigger market share, so if a game built with DirectX is getting ported and they look to other platforms Apple/Metal may still end up being a winner.
The main thing to remember is that hopefully Vulkan will improve performance of games that do come to Linux.
Just keep buying Linux games, keep advertising Linux to friends and family and keep the push going guys.
The main thing to remember is that hopefully Vulkan will improve performance of games that do come to Linux.
Just keep buying Linux games, keep advertising Linux to friends and family and keep the push going guys.
2 Likes, Who?
Yeah, I absolutely, wholeheartedly support Vulkan. I just wish Apple, Sony and Nintendo would all add Vulkan support to their platforms, which would mean that all major platforms except the Xbox One would have Vulkan support.
Edit:
On another note I am surprised no anti-trust authorities have done anything about DirectX. If MS had to open up DirectX, things could be quite different.
Last edited by Kristian on 19 May 2016 at 3:11 pm UTC
Edit:
On another note I am surprised no anti-trust authorities have done anything about DirectX. If MS had to open up DirectX, things could be quite different.
Last edited by Kristian on 19 May 2016 at 3:11 pm UTC
0 Likes
Homepcgamer May 19, 2016
Quoting: liamdaweThe main problem is the Apple does still have the bigger market share, so if a game built with DirectX is getting ported and they look to other platforms Apple/Metal may still end up being a winner.This is the key question. If Apple wants to stay alive in the gaming world they need to keep their market share. If they loose users (for whatever reason) they will fall.
The main thing to remember is that hopefully Vulkan will improve performance of games that do come to Linux.
Just keep buying Linux games, keep advertising Linux to friends and family and keep the push going guys.
If the new developments do not come to the Apple OS the market share will fall and the question is... Will Apple launch new tecnologies (Vulkan) or almost actualize what they have (OpenGL) in their OSes to keep the new developments coming to Macs?
Because if Metal don't have the developers support, and there is no signs about this happening in short term the developments for Mac OSes will go down. I think is a question of time.
1 Likes, Who?
I think Kristian hits the nail on the head, Metal existing on the mac is not an issue, its the lack of Vulcan that hurts.
Although I'm not sure where all the concern in the thread about lack of OS X support is coming from? Are we assuming it would make linux development more attractive if the OSX market share was compatible? As someone who is heavily invested in the Apple eco system I'd love for gaming to come to Mac but I also am not under any illusion its a big untapped market. The API is not the limiting factor, OSX needs a big improvement in hardware to become a serious gaming platform. I love my macbook and am typically on it 8+ hours a day, but its used for presentations, spreadsheets, web browsing, music and videos etc. This is what apple has focused on and the product reflects that.
Although I'm not sure where all the concern in the thread about lack of OS X support is coming from? Are we assuming it would make linux development more attractive if the OSX market share was compatible? As someone who is heavily invested in the Apple eco system I'd love for gaming to come to Mac but I also am not under any illusion its a big untapped market. The API is not the limiting factor, OSX needs a big improvement in hardware to become a serious gaming platform. I love my macbook and am typically on it 8+ hours a day, but its used for presentations, spreadsheets, web browsing, music and videos etc. This is what apple has focused on and the product reflects that.
0 Likes
Quoting: StebsQuoting: bubexelSame as they don't support opengl. What i can't understand is why nvidia, intel and amd don't add vulkan on their drivers for mac?Apple doesn't allow it.
On OS X, Apple controls the drivers, those are written only "with the help of" Nvidia, Intel etc., and not simply by Nvidia, Intel...
Specifics about this seem to be secret.
That is probably also why OS X is still at OpenGL 4.1 (4.0 actually).
And Metal doesn't even support features like Geometry shaders or Tesselation shaders, it's designed for mobile usage...
This is why I don't support Apple on the desktop. They love to use permissively licensed software as the base of their operating systems, but rarely give back. They do for CUPS and LLVM, but keep a lot of the improvements to themselves.
What does Apple lose from supporting Vulkan? Are they worried that people will use that instead of Metal when porting games over? If Microsoft blocked OpenGL and Vulkan at the OS level to force DirectX, they would get a lot of negative press and lawyers potentially involved.
Of course when Apple does this, they get a pass. Screw them.
2 Likes, Who?
Quoting: HalKadoI think Kristian hits the nail on the head, Metal existing on the mac is not an issue, its the lack of Vulcan that hurts.
Although I'm not sure where all the concern in the thread about lack of OS X support is coming from? Are we assuming it would make linux development more attractive if the OSX market share was compatible? As someone who is heavily invested in the Apple eco system I'd love for gaming to come to Mac but I also am not under any illusion its a big untapped market. The API is not the limiting factor, OSX needs a big improvement in hardware to become a serious gaming platform. I love my macbook and am typically on it 8+ hours a day, but its used for presentations, spreadsheets, web browsing, music and videos etc. This is what apple has focused on and the product reflects that.
Yeah, Apple seriously needs to provide beefier hardware in order to be a relevant factor in gaming.
As far as Metal goes, its biggest strength is probably iOS, which is a less fragmented platform than Android.
0 Likes
natewardawg May 19, 2016
Quoting: KristianWhy would a development studio add Vulkan support to their game and/or engine if it already supports DX12 and they have zero intentions to support Linux? As far as I can tell they wouldn't tend to do so.
If they have no intentions to support Linux, they won't care about porting to Vulkan, this is obvious. But, that isn't the point.
Most game studios exist to make a profit, not to support their favorite platform (IE Mac). Vulkan makes Linux a more profitable option by significantly lowering development costs. Metal doesn't lower development costs for Mac ports at all. In fact, it more likely increases development costs moreso than porting to OpenGL because there is far less documentation and help out there for Metal.
However, several developers have already said that Vulkan is almost a 1 to 1 API from DX12, therefore if the Windows DX12 counterpart is already done, the graphics portion of the porting, which is usually where majority of the porting cost will be, is practically already done under Linux. Therefore, a company can much more easily recoup the development costs, and then make a profit, on Linux than Mac.
It makes porting to Linux much less risky than OSX, therefore we may actually see more AAA ports to Linux than OSX.
Last edited by natewardawg on 19 May 2016 at 3:51 pm UTC
3 Likes, Who?
Quoting: natewardawgQuoting: KristianWhy would a development studio add Vulkan support to their game and/or engine if it already supports DX12 and they have zero intentions to support Linux? As far as I can tell they wouldn't tend to do so.
If they have no intentions to support Linux, they won't care about porting to Vulkan, this is obvious. But, that isn't the point.
Most game studios exist to make a profit, not to support their favorite platform (IE Mac). Vulkan makes Linux a more profitable option by significantly lowering development costs. Metal doesn't lower development costs for Mac ports at all. In fact, it more likely increases development costs moreso than porting to OpenGL because there is far less documentation and help out there for Metal.
However, several developers have already said that Vulkan is almost a 1 to 1 API from DX12, therefore if the Windows DX12 counterpart is already done, the graphics portion of the porting, which is usually where majority of the porting cost will be, is practically already done under Linux. Therefore, a company can much more easily recoup the development costs, and then make a profit, on Linux than Mac.
It makes porting to Linux much less risky than OSX, therefore we may actually see more AAA ports to Linux than OSX.
Surely we would see EVEN more AAA ports to Linux if Apple had Vulkan support in Mac OSX, right?
2 Likes, Who?
Patreon
PayPal
See more from me