Quoting: GuestI suggest you change your thinking then, if that's how you see it.
nvidia cannot dictate to the entirety of Vulkan how everything will be; they can hint, provide guidance, and their solution will likely be 95% of what is ultimately accepted, but they can't dictate everything.

And if you're suggesting everything be written only for nvidia hardware (and then, only for specific drivers), that defeats the whole purpose of Vulkan.

I'm suggesting that Nvidia first produce extensions for their own hardware. That's ones with _NV_. They can do it at any time. Then there is a collaborative work to make something common which takes longer. So again, how is that they produced DXR ones before their own for Vulkan? I'm not talking about common ones.

Quoting: Guestand is acceptable performance everywhere.

It's never going to be acceptable without dedicated hardware. That's the point. So the whole thing was a red herring from the start, including the need to use DXR.

For something acceptable, there are other approaches to lighting, like the one Godot implemented recently. And do you think CDPR can't hire developers on that skill level too? They are making their own engine, so they already need them.

Last edited by Shmerl on 5 July 2020 at 3:45 pm UTC

Quoting: Guestnvidia didn't produce DXR. Microsoft did. And nvidia could rely on it not suddenly changing overnight. Anything nvidia write for Vulkan may well change, or end up not being accepted into Vulkan at all.

MS couldn't do it targeting Nvidia specific hardware without working very closely with Nvidia. So my guess is, Nvidia produced it, not MS. But they did it according to some MS preferred spec.

So, I assume it worked like this. Nvidia came up with idea for new hardware and MS wouldn't just make DXR out of nowhere, if it wouldn't work on actual hardware. So MS paid them to make DXR and Nvidia did it before making their Vulkan extensions because they were paid. It's called collusion.

Last edited by Shmerl on 5 July 2020 at 4:46 pm UTC

Quoting: GuestI've already answered everything you wrote there. I'm signing off from the conversation because you seem to not read that, and it's kind of pointless to continue if you've no interest in informing yourself of the realities of current game development.

The realities are corrupt politics and dirty money for pushing lock-in, and developers who oblige those corrupt pushers. And then there are developers who don't (Godot is a good example, they went Vulkan all the way, DXR and their red herring notwithstanding).

Last edited by Shmerl on 5 July 2020 at 4:54 pm UTC

@shmerl. Out of curiosity, do you have experience as a developer in a bigger sized project? And do you have experience with working in a company with lets say more than 1K employees and have you seen inner and outer politics first hand?

Last edited by jens on 5 July 2020 at 5:34 pm UTC

Quoting: jens@shmerl. Out of curiosity, do you have experience as a developer in a bigger sized project? And do you have experience with working in a company with lets say more than 1K employees and have you seen inner and outer politics first hand?

Yes, I do. And I'm not naive to expect major companies like MS with huge track record of anti-competitive behavior to play fair. They are corrupt to the core when it comes to pushing their lock-in.

They were doing it even after they were caught and went through anti-trust case. They just paid the government off and went on. The only case when they stop is when competition beats them to a pulp and then they crawl back saying how they "support open standards" or "changed for the better" and the rest of their blah blah blah. When they know they can get away with it, they are that evil corpo that cyberpunk is talking about.

Last edited by Shmerl on 5 July 2020 at 6:18 pm UTC

I don't like it too that developers choose to go with D3D12 and friends instead of Vulkan. But actually I cannot blame Microsoft or NVidia either. They have some tech at hand and they want it to be used to strengthen their market positions with partnerships and vendor lock-ins. Name me a company that would not try to do this if the opportunity is there.
If you want to blame someone, I guess it is better to look at the customer (CDPR) who accepts the partnership. But even here I can't blame them since they have a massive projects with massive pressure and likely open to every helping hand to reduce the risk of a failure.
It is unfortunate that Vulkan wasn't apparently a feasible alternative all things considered, but I guess except for the very few Linux users nobody else of CDPR's customer base cares. May be an option to use Vulkan will appear at some point, but also here I would understand CDPR to not offer this in the non-stadia version since every extra configuration switch is likely to increase support costs.
In the long term it is I guess really just increased Linux market share that will help.

I know, it doesn't seem fair, but in the end there are very few people thinking of the greater good, most people (I guess me included) just look at their own interests, benefits and beliefs.

PS: Thanks for answering.

Last edited by jens on 5 July 2020 at 6:11 pm UTC

Well, I actually can blame them and I do. Lock-in is a disgusting practice that harms any industry and better working competition law should have prevented most of such junk. But in practice, it became almost toothless, which allows these corpos to throw money at manipulating the market not through competition on merit but through exclusion and lock-in.

Those who dance under that tune just feed that monstrosity, and yes, I blame CDPR too. But the main corrupt culprits here are MS (and possibly Nvidia if they were paid for advancing DXR ahead of Vulkan).

Last edited by Shmerl on 5 July 2020 at 6:30 pm UTC

Quoting: EhvisNvidia is being normal here. They create new technology and try to push it in order to keep their lead. Same as any company would do. AMD on the other hand create a shiny demonstration video that clearly demonstrated they understood the importance of realtime ray tracing, but did nothing with it. They need to catch up like they did with their CPUs. Consumers need Nvidia to have a full blown competitor, not a company that's several years behind.

"Normal" in the sense of what Nvidia always do, but not in a way that we can consider that it's "ok".

They create a "new" PROPRIETARY specification and invest in order to get their tech in a couple of games. There is a big difference between creating open specifications (like freesync) and a closed one that locks your users. Consumer should think twice when thinking that this are good features.

Last edited by x_wing on 5 July 2020 at 9:47 pm UTC

I can't say I disagree with Shmerl on lengths Microsoft can go. I am baffled that there was a time where a Microsoft spokesman spoke about force upgrading users to Windows 10 so casually bv saying "We went too far":

QuoteThere was one particular moment in particular where, you know, the red X in the dialog box which typically means you cancel didn't mean cancel," Capossela said. "And within a couple of hours of that hitting the world, with the listening systems we have we knew that we had gone too far and then, of course, it takes some time to roll out the update that changes that behavior.

Last edited by Linuxwarper on 6 July 2020 at 10:52 pm UTC