zlacker

Even today, DirectX has stricter quality/precision/behaviour requirements for hardware. On the other hand Vulkan is a lot better specified in other areas and thus better documented. So even if a vendor doesn't officially support one or the other, they will care about both…

>>TazeTS+(OP)
Kind of, not only Vulkan keeps trailing behind DirectX, where vendors collaborate with Microsoft on DirectX, and eventually they might come to Vulkan.

There is also the issues of development experience in provided SDKs versus what others provide, and apparently now Khronos rather adopt HLSL than trying to improve GLSL.

>>pjmlp+Mp
Standarization of features might lag behind D3D, but availability of features usually comes first on Vulkan because of the extension system. For example NVidia brought raytracing to Vulkan long before DXR was a thing.

>>skoczn+OH1
Nö it didn't, check your timelines with more care.

Here is tip, start with the Star Wars presentation from Unreal engine.

>>TazeTS+(OP)
if this is an argument about MS forcing DX and killing OGL, I remind you that Vulkan had/has Apple's support.

>>nspatt+sD2
I'm not arguing any such thing, just pointing to the strengths of the two standards.

>>pjmlp+Mp
Vulkan trails on some things, leads on others. DirectX doesn't exist on mobile for instance, so innovations with particular relevance to mobile GPUs tend to come to Vulkan first.

Also, its extensions make it an interesting laboratory for various vendors' experiments.