[HN Gopher] Drawing Graphics on Apple Vision with the Metal Rend...
___________________________________________________________________
Drawing Graphics on Apple Vision with the Metal Rendering API
Author : georginikolov
Score : 130 points
Date : 2024-10-15 06:44 UTC (16 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (github.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (github.com)
| georginikolov wrote:
| I've put everything I've learned while developing graphics for
| Apple Vision with the Metal API and Compositor Services in
| writing. It covers foveation, vertex amplification, stereoscopic
| rendering, and more techniques that extend beyond this particular
| device.
| fsloth wrote:
| Thanks! Looks very interesting and usefull.
| nelup20 wrote:
| Looks great, thanks so much for writing this!
| tomovo wrote:
| I'm curious about the autoreleasepool. What's the reason to have
| it and how much of a difference does it make?
| flohofwoe wrote:
| It's a lifetime management system for short-lived objects, same
| idea as memory arenas but for manually refcounted objects you
| got out of an API. It keeps the object alive until the end of
| the autorelease scope without anybody having to explicitly call
| the release method (the autoreleasepool does this instead). Not
| sure if the concept still makes sense with ARC though, it's
| probably just a no-op there - or probably not seeing that Swift
| seems to have inherited autoreleasepools from ObjC).
| tomovo wrote:
| Hi! Yeah I know the concept from non-arc ObjC times but
| trying to understand the point in this context.
| flohofwoe wrote:
| There's an autoreleasepool around the per-frame code -
| which seems to be standard procedure for Metal code - so
| any object within a render frame that has been created with
| autorelease will be released at the end of a frame.
|
| Metal has a couple of 'frame transient' objects (like
| MTLRenderPassDescriptor and MTLRenderCommandEncoder) which
| have a new instance created in each frame, and I guess the
| main job of the autoreleasepool is to clean up those
| transient objects (along with any other 'short-lived-junk'
| that might be returned from Metal API methods).
|
| And my guess for why this is still needed in the age of
| ARC: I guess that ARC has a 'autorelease-blindness', e.g.
| it cannot figure out at compile time what objects are
| registered with autorelease pools (especially when the
| objects are passed across DLL boundaries) - it can only add
| retain/release calls on top. Just speculation on my part
| though.
| meindnoch wrote:
| The render thread is running an infinite loop. You need to
| manually drain the autorelease pool, otherwise autoreleased
| objects created during rendering won't be released until
| the thread exits (there's an implicit top-level pool in
| each NSThread which is drained on exit). In UIKit/AppKit,
| the autorelease pool is drained at the end of each
| NSRunLoop iteration by the framework, so you don't
| typically drain it yourself. Here they created their own
| runloop - an infinite `while` loop that calls `onRender()`
| - so they must drain the pool themselves.
| lapcat wrote:
| After finally releasing a Vision Pro version of my app last week,
| I've sold a total of 7 units. That's by far my worst software
| launch ever, even worse than my past failures.
|
| Don't bother developing for this platform. The customer base is
| miniscule.
| that_lurker wrote:
| You should still get familiar with it in the event that the
| next one will be cheaper as that will increase the customer
| base a lot.
| closewith wrote:
| On track to having sold less than 15% of their Y1 target
| (400,000 vs 3 MM), production deliveries slashed, and the
| reported shareholder near-revolts, I think it's clear that
| the Vision Pro has flopped and there won't be a sequel any
| time soon.
| lapcat wrote:
| > On track to having sold less than 15% of their Y1 target
| (400,000 vs 3 MM)
|
| This is a fictitious number. Apple never had the
| manufacturing capacity to reach that so-called target.
|
| > the reported shareholder near-revolts
|
| Citation needed.
| andsoitis wrote:
| GP is exaggerating (response below); at the same time
| many would argue that their overall argument that the
| Vision Pro is most probably a flop is in the ballpark.
| There's been much to say about price, the utility of VR,
| and most recently, the news that companies simply aren't
| bringing their apps to Vision Pro[1].
|
| > On track to having sold less than 15% of their Y1
| target (400,000 vs 3 MM)
|
| All the reports online reflect actual vs. expected more
| around 450-500k vs. 800k - 1M, not 3 million.
|
| > the reported shareholder near-revolts
|
| The stock market's reaction to the Vision Pro
| announcement saw Apple's shares dip by 3%, indicating a
| mix of investor optimism and concern, not _revolt_.
|
| [1] https://www.wsj.com/tech/personal-tech/apple-vision-
| pro-soft...
| dagmx wrote:
| I think both you and the person you're responding to are
| correct. The supply chain reports said <1M displays
| producible. That's <500K devices producible.
|
| Regarding stock, Apple almost always dips by a
| significant amount during an event. They're very much
| traded as buying on the hype and selling on the news.
| CameronBanga wrote:
| All supply chain reports before the release were in line
| with the fact that the in-headset screens were capped at
| 1million maximum production possible for the first year,
| and two screens are required for each headset.
|
| 3MM was never possible, not sure where you got these
| numbers.
| troupo wrote:
| So, a developer should spend ~$5000 with no chance of ROI on
| the off chance that at some undefined point in the future
| this will pay off when they would have to spend another
| ~$5000 developing for the newer/cheaper/whatever device?
| jsheard wrote:
| The rumor mill is saying it will be cheaper... but still not
| cheap at ~$2000.
|
| https://www.uploadvr.com/non-pro-apple-vision-headset-
| report...
|
| Meta is having enough trouble attracting developers with
| hardware that's an order of magnitude cheaper and has two
| orders of magnitude more units in the wild. They got through
| the first hurdle of convincing people to try VR but keep
| falling at the second hurdle of user retention, headsets that
| are gathering dust in a closet don't make any money for
| developers.
|
| Apples decision to go all-in on hand tracking compounds the
| software problem even further because the vast majority of VR
| software that _has_ already been developed is designed around
| controllers with IMUs /buttons/sticks/triggers/haptics, and
| would be very difficult to port over to the Vision Pros much
| more limited control scheme.
| bee_rider wrote:
| Apple does have the advantage of being able to project
| their 2D apps if they want, right? A $5k device seems like
| a dead end, and a $2k one seems pretty rough still (unless
| it totally replaces your laptop, which might make it worth
| considering).
|
| They clearly haven't executed it correctly yet. But at
| least they do have some hope of beating the bootstrapping
| problem that everybody else seems to have--they could try
| and get users first, and then I bet developers would
| quickly follow.
| marxisttemp wrote:
| > Apple does have the advantage of being able to project
| their 2D apps if they want, right?
|
| Developers have to manually check a box to enable running
| the iPad version of their app on visionOS so it's
| entirely out of Apple's hands. Not sure why they took
| this approach
| MichaelZuo wrote:
| Likely some sort of legal or PR reason.
| dagmx wrote:
| It's the opposite of your claim. It's opt out, not opt
| in.
|
| > Your iPhone and iPad apps will be made available to
| users on Apple Vision Pro, unless you edit your apps'
| availability in the App Store Connect
|
| https://developer.apple.com/help/app-store-
| connect/manage-yo...
|
| And it makes sense for some devs to not provide their app
| on the platform if they use unsupported APIs or if their
| experience is otherwise degraded for some unknowable
| reason. Though the side effect is Netflix and YouTube can
| just withhold their apps that presumably otherwise work.
| marxisttemp wrote:
| Oh thank you for the info, I'm not sure where I got my
| misinfo from! Presumably a podcast from the early days of
| the release.
| dagmx wrote:
| I think some folks confused it with the checkbox to build
| against the visionOS SDK.
| troupo wrote:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41850436
| ladyanita22 wrote:
| Meta's Horizon OS is Android, so they could basically
| just do the same. Of course, they don't have a proper app
| store for that, but the compatibility should be there.
|
| The main roadblock would be the OS support, and Meta's
| already has that. They are of course lacking another big
| roadblock, which is the store.
| jsheard wrote:
| > Meta's Horizon OS is Android, so they could basically
| just do the same.
|
| They just announced they're doing that: https://developer
| s.meta.com/horizon/blog/building-2d-apps-on...
|
| AFAICT there won't be Play Store support though, so devs
| will have to publish their 2D Android apps specifically
| to the Quest store.
| cubefox wrote:
| Presumably Google wants VR headsets to run Google's own
| version of Android, perhaps called _Android VR_ (or the
| like), though I haven 't heard of a VR version of Android
| developed by Google. Previously they developed Android TV
| and Android for smartwatches. Even a version for cars I
| believe.
| dagmx wrote:
| Meta just announced support for carrying standard 2D
| Android apps on their storefront at Connect a few weeks
| ago. I think the Vision Pro release has (pun intended)
| given them a vision to work towards (as seen by their
| rapid update process post launch to match features)
|
| That said, visionOS can run iPad and iPhone apps
| unmodified. Meta will not bundle Google Play Services and
| a few other Android APIs, so APKs won't be publishable on
| their store without some amount of work to use their
| alternate SDK.
| gryn wrote:
| you can already install android apps on the quest (since
| day one probably). I did that regularly over the past
| year, they work great.
|
| it's just not officially supported, since they have been
| having a fight with google for years now. meta is
| claiming that google are the ones that don't want to see
| the play store on the platform.
| jayd16 wrote:
| Unless the experience is good, it doesn't beat the
| bootstrapping problem and I haven't seen much clamouring
| for iPad apps on the AVP. It's a nice to have, sure. It
| will keep people in the headset longer, sure. But it's
| not a feature that will get someone to buy it over an
| iPad.
| bee_rider wrote:
| I sort of agree. But I think it is part of the puzzle.
|
| The Apple headset thing is $5000 and much bigger than a
| pair of sunglasses. I just don't think the tech is here
| yet to make something that most people actually want. So
| nobody has the problem that Apple can solve yet: good
| enough hardware in search of useful apps.
|
| No VR device has even gotten close to having to answer a
| question like "how is this useful" because the current
| janky hardware is only appealing to those of us who are
| happy to just play games, haha.
| kridsdale3 wrote:
| Porn. Porn is how it is useful. It is 10x better than on
| a monitior/tv, and 100x better than on a mobile device.
| Some well heeled dirtbags are willing to pay for that.
| troupo wrote:
| > being able to project their 2D apps if they want, right
|
| That's how they want to kickstart the app ecosystem by
| not doing anything.
|
| Any non-ported app with any non-trivial functionality is
| likely to break in both obvious and subtle ways
| especially around UX. Who's gonna support the app on the
| platform and deal with customer complaints? Apple? You?
| Or the dev who might not even have the device to debug it
| on?
| kridsdale3 wrote:
| This comment identifies why Netflix and Youtube and other
| Google apps (I presume) are pulled from VisionOS.
| hbn wrote:
| I'm not convinced the demographic of people willing to
| spend $2000 on an Apple headset is much different from the
| demographic of people willing to spend $3500 on an Apple
| headset
| GeekyBear wrote:
| > The rumor mill is saying it will be cheaper... but still
| not cheap at ~$2000.
|
| That same rumor mill has always said that an affordable
| consumer version is the long term goal.
|
| Apple has started development on a consumer version of the
| tech in a glasses form factor several times over the years,
| only to decide the current tech still doesn't allow for
| what they want.
|
| For instance, an iteration that was tethered to an iPhone
| that made it to test production in 2019:
|
| > Apple could begin production of its long-rumored
| augmented reality glasses as early as the end of this year,
| noted analyst Ming-Chi Kuo has said.
|
| https://www.theverge.com/2019/3/8/18256256/apple-ar-
| glasses-...
| thomastjeffery wrote:
| It's not just hand tracking. We're literally here
| commenting on a tutorial for the Apple-exclusive Metal API.
|
| Every step of development is a reason not to write software
| for this thing, and it doesn't exist in a vacuum, either.
|
| I have trouble believing that even a successor to the
| Vision Pro would look significantly better than my $800
| Pimax Crystal Light.
| jncfhnb wrote:
| Could hit double digits next time
| moolcool wrote:
| You're still making a big assumption that this is a device
| anybody actually wants in the first place. How many of the
| people who bought one of these actually still use them with
| any regularity?
| Cthulhu_ wrote:
| Familiarity is fine, but don't bet your livelihood on it just
| yet; have enough knowledge to be able to pivot to it if it
| does take off. But I'm not seeing it.
| jayd16 wrote:
| I doubt it... The platform seems like a dud without some big
| changes. If big changes are coming, how much time to market
| do you really save working on this iteration?
| layer8 wrote:
| The platform has no killer mainstream use-case besides
| watching movies on a big virtual screen in solitude, with the
| drawback of having a heavy headset strapped to your face. I
| doubt that it would fare very well even sub-$1000. If they
| invested in gaming and allowed 3D controllers, the story
| might be different.
| reaperducer wrote:
| _Don 't bother developing for this platform. The customer base
| is miniscule._
|
| A good hockey player don't skate to where the puck is. He
| skates to where it will be.
| brudgers wrote:
| 50% of hockey players are below average.
| coolspot wrote:
| * median, below median
| bee_rider wrote:
| I mean... I think Apple hasn't totally missed VR, and is
| still the only company that seems to have much of a chance of
| making it work...
|
| But, a good hockey player doesn't skate in the direction that
| absolutely nobody else is heading, somewhere that might even
| be outside the rink (in the sense that we haven't really
| shown if a good UI for VR can actually be created, yet, so it
| might not even be a possible "part of the game," so to
| speak).
| reaperducer wrote:
| _a good hockey player doesn't skate in the direction that
| absolutely nobody else is heading_
|
| That doesn't make sense in this context. Unless you
| consider Meta, Loft Dynamics, Valve, HTC, and dozens of
| other companies to be "absolutely nobody."
| bee_rider wrote:
| I think VR is not a serious business for Meta, just
| something Zuck is doing for fun. Why not, rich enough to
| goof off, right? They spent $4b to make $400M on their
| headsets.
|
| A better business model would probably be to pay people a
| couple hundred dollars to take their headsets. At least
| that might result in some install base.
| lapcat wrote:
| > A good hockey player don't skate to where the puck is.
|
| I'm not a hockey player.
|
| > He skates to where it will be.
|
| The time scale for hockey players is _seconds_ , not years.
|
| This is such a useless cliche.
|
| Most developers have very limited resources. Apple can afford
| to invest in pipe dreams (reportedly they spent $billions
| working on the now cancelled car project), but I certainly
| can't.
| reaperducer wrote:
| If you can't grok an analogy, that's on you. But let me
| simplify.
|
| _Don 't bother developing for this platform. The customer
| base is miniscule._
|
| 1975: Don't bother writing MicroSoft BASIC. The customer
| base is miniscule.
|
| I'm not pushing Apple's AR goggles. I'm not a customer, or
| even the target demographic. But if your company, or its
| leadership, lack vision for the future and only invest in
| the present, don't be surprised when the world passes you
| by.
| KronisLV wrote:
| While your point is valid, I think the opposite might be
| as well.
|
| Just ask the people who were developing games for Stadia:
| https://www.theverge.com/2022/9/30/23381106/google-
| stadia-sh...
|
| > News that Google would be closing down Stadia was a big
| surprise for everyone, including the developers making
| games for the platform.
|
| Now, Apple can probably pull off a lot of stuff, but with
| how quickly products get killed nowadays, sometimes you
| might end up betting on a future that will never come to
| pass.
| MichaelZuo wrote:
| That comes with the territory though.
|
| The mere possibility of a 10x profit likely entails the
| possibility of a 10x risk somewhere, borne by someone, or
| groups of someones.
| GeekyBear wrote:
| > with how quickly products get killed nowadays
|
| Apple's history is to pick a strategic product direction
| and then continue to iterate on their hardware and
| software for that product year after year.
|
| For instance, Apple Watch.
|
| Throwing products over the wall and killing them if they
| don't prove to be an immediate success is more if a
| Google/Microsoft thing.
|
| Although it's fair to point out that Microsoft did at
| least update HoloLens hardware once before they killed
| it.
|
| The issue with both HoloLens and Vision Pro is the nearly
| identical price point. You aren't going to see mass
| market sales figures until you can reach mass market
| price points.
| lapcat wrote:
| > If you can't grok an analogy, that's on you.
|
| Please review and respect the HN guidelines:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
|
| > 1975: Don't bother writing MicroSoft BASIC. The
| customer base is miniscule.
|
| You're cherry-picking a single success, with the benefit
| of hindsight. How about listing _all_ of the nascent
| technologies from 1975? It 's likely that many of them
| flopped, and investing in them was a waste.
|
| > if your company, or its leadership, lack vision for the
| future and only invest in the present
|
| I am my company, a sole proprietor with very limited
| resources. I do invest in the future to some extent, but
| I can't invest in _every possible_ future. The Vision Pro
| future does not look particularly promising.
|
| Besides, you don't need to be first to be successful. I
| certainly wasn't the first to any platform, not even
| close. The thing about hockey is, there's only one puck
| on the ice. And it's a zero-sum game, one winner and one
| loser. But that's not even remotely true of tech.
| Cthulhu_ wrote:
| It's a risk / reward tradeoff; can you as an individual
| or a company afford to lose on the bet that Vision will
| become successful enough, AND that your app will become
| successful? There's much safer bets for anyone out there
| at the moment.
| tsunamifury wrote:
| Buddy a hockey player skates to where the puck of being
| passed not to where the puck might be in the second half.
|
| I think it's you who deeply deeply misunderstands the
| metaphor.
|
| Or to put it another way.
|
| "Timing is everything"
| madeofpalk wrote:
| I'm doubtful this is where the puck will be.
| gpm wrote:
| Any chance you can link to your app?
| gpm wrote:
| Replying to myself, I believe it is this:
| https://apps.apple.com/us/app/stopthemadness-pro-
| spatial/id6...
| airstrike wrote:
| In my hallucination, my customer base is myself. If I had extra
| time right now and one of these devices to play with, I'd build
| something I wish existed, not something I expect the general
| population to buy.
|
| If it's good enough for me, it's probably already worth my time
| --though https://xkcd.com/1319/ comes to mind
|
| Then maybe some subset of the population that is closer in
| interests to me would also find it useful, in which case the
| app might get more traction. That'd be nice, but not a
| necessary requirement for my definition of success
|
| The big issue here is justifying spending thousands of dollars
| on the product. I'd go for it at $500 or so. Definitely not $2k
| or $5k.
| latexr wrote:
| The developer in question makes a living selling Safari
| extensions, and the Vision Pro app they're referring to is a
| version of what's probably their most well-known. So we're
| talking about an established developer with an established
| user base selling a version of an established app.
|
| Your advice makes sense in general but doesn't apply to this
| specific case.
| airstrike wrote:
| It still applies to this specific case. He's released a
| version of his existing app hoping others might use,
| instead of solving a problem he identified would be best
| tackled with a Vision Pro than with a desktop app.
|
| All I'm saying is "don't build an app for the masses if the
| market is small. build something that solves a real need
| that you have personally identified"
| lapcat wrote:
| > He's released a version of his existing app hoping
| others might use
|
| I released a version of my existing app because customers
| requested it. I had no independent interest in the
| platform.
|
| > instead of solving a problem he identified would be
| best tackled with a Vision Pro than with a desktop app.
|
| I can't think of any problems that would be best tackled
| with a Vision Pro than with a desktop app.
| FumblingBear wrote:
| For what it's worth, I'm a big fan of your app and was hoping
| for a Vision Pro release. I didn't know you released it, but
| will be buying it today.
|
| I know that doesn't pay the bills, but I appreciate the hard
| work you do.
| azinman2 wrote:
| What's the app?
| assassinator42 wrote:
| I would assume targeting OpenXR would be much more productive?
| It's unfortunate that Apple insists on being so proprietary.
| gpm wrote:
| The app in question appears to be a safari extension... so...
| unlikely.
| spookie wrote:
| They are a latecomer to this market. Decisions like this are
| going to kill any hopes of success...
|
| (Just a guy who has seen all proprietary APIs in this space
| being left in the dust when a standard arrived)
| corysama wrote:
| I've always assumed the Vision Pro was an experimental platform
| that is available publicly solely to enable developers to
| figure out what the heck can be done with a high-quality MR
| device.
| dagmx wrote:
| This is a pretty great reference repo in general for optimized
| mobile rendering, and most of it other than compositor services,
| can be generalized to other headsets in terms of approach (not
| API).
|
| Thanks for putting this up!
| neomantra wrote:
| This is a great read, thank you for sharing! I learned a lot from
| reading it and I'm pretty experienced in this space! I enjoyed
| checking out your other work too.
|
| OPs article heavily covers Vertex Amplification. I didn't realize
| VisionOS used Vertex Amplification for this, but it makes sense
| since the hardware supports it.
|
| For those interested in Mesh Shading (a few good videos released
| this week [1][2][3]), Vertex Amplification is a key tech for Mesh
| Shading, where one writes Object/Mesh functions (names in Metal
| API, called Task/Mesh/Amplification shaders in other APIs).
| Introduced by Nvidia in 2018 and only really available en masse
| for the last couple years, Vertex Amplification was the first
| time a GPU could _create_ vertices (or "destroy" them by not
| emitting anything), versus the fixed mesh inputs. It's so cool
| and powerful and a different way of thinking about the pipeline.
|
| This article shows the same concept, but in Vertex Shaders for
| multiple render targets. While you might not make a Vision app,
| it could be worthwhile read to further understand this
| architecture. I've spent a few months in Metal Mesh Shading and
| hadn't realized this application of it at all.
|
| [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41839190
|
| [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3EMdMD1PsgY
|
| [3] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EtX7WnFhxtQ (good explanation
| and demo)
| dagmx wrote:
| Nit: amplification shaders are not the same as mesh shaders
| (though in many cases they can be seen as abstractions over
| one)
|
| Your description is of a mesh shaders, but an amplification
| shader is able to basically reuse vertex data from a vertex
| shader pass without use of a mesh shader.
| cubefox wrote:
| Nit: Mesh shading, or the mesh shader pipeline, has two
| unique parts: optional task/amplification shaders, and
| mandatory mesh shaders.
| neomantra wrote:
| Thanks both for pulling on this point. In drafting, I was
| both torn and fuzzy about the nomenclature. Also trying to
| be distinct about hardware features (dynamic vertex data?)
| versus language/API constructs. But you are right, it's
| important to be clear because they are different and
| hardware might not support both.
|
| I was trying to see if the other graphics APIs (Vulkan,
| DirectX) had this Vertex Amplification in Vertex Shader
| feature, but it doesn't seem so? Maybe it was easier for
| Apple to inject the concept into Metal (advantage of
| controlling of the whole stack).
| cubefox wrote:
| I'm not sure this is relevant but apparently Apple
| introduced proper mesh shading only with the M3
| generation chips:
|
| > The [M3] GPU is faster and more efficient, and
| introduces a new technology called Dynamic Caching, while
| bringing new rendering features like hardware-accelerated
| ray tracing and mesh shading to Mac for the first time.
|
| https://www.apple.com/ne/newsroom/2023/10/apple-
| unveils-m3-m...
|
| That means the M2 (which is inside the Apple Vision) must
| have at most some sort of partial mesh shading support.
| dagmx wrote:
| AFAIK Apple support fallback to compute shader based
| implementations of both raytracing and mesh shading on
| older GPUs. It'll be slower, but for something like
| amplification shaders the win would be worth it
| tasoeur wrote:
| For people who want to play with metal shaders on Apple Vision
| Pro I recommend this live coding app: https://shader.vision
| Animats wrote:
| Metal is the main reason many games are never ported to MacOS.
|
| Metal is roughly equivalent to Vulkan, which is on Windows and
| Linux. But Apple just had to Think Different. So all the major
| rendering libraries either have a layer which abstracts over
| Vulkan and Metal, or they don't support MacOS at all.
|
| That's what WGPU does. If it were not for Apple ignoring
| standards, much of that would be unnecessary. It adds so much
| excess baggage that the consensus is to go direct to Vulkan or
| DX12, and blow off MacOS support.
| spease wrote:
| Does Metal allow for better performance with Apple hardware
| than if Vulcan were the "direct" interface, if you optimize
| with it?
| GeekyBear wrote:
| There is no such thing as "the one true gaming graphics API"
|
| Windows/Xbox uses Direct3D, Mac/iDevices use Metal, PlayStation
| uses GNM/GNMX, Nintendo Switch uses NVN.
|
| Compared to DirectX, Vulkan is barely used at all in gaming,
| except on Linux and the most recent subset of Android devices.
|
| If it weren't for Proton's DirectX emulation running on top on
| Vulkan, Vulkan would be largely irrelevant, from a "widely used
| in real world gaming" perspective.
| aseipp wrote:
| If Apple actually wanted to bring games to MacOS, they'd give
| Valve and CodeWeavers a billion dollars and get the Steam
| Client working, put tons of effort into a d3dvk-for-Metal
| solution, and have it working with as little overhead as
| possible. They don't do this because they can't funnel them
| through the App Store. The graphics API they use for the
| operating isn't relevant (Vulkan isn't used very much for most
| games.)
|
| The funny thing is that with the rise of Proton and Steam Deck
| driving its development -- there's literally no reason anymore
| for a game developer to ever target any "Desktop PC" platform
| except x86_64 Portable Executable files, using DirectX. Because
| Proton will just handle the port with nearly zero effort. Even
| on ARM64 devices like Snapdragon, the CPU is often not the
| limiting factor (and binary translation is only in the realm of
| 15%) so emulation for games is totally viable if the GPU can
| handle the load.
| aYsY4dDQ2NrcNzA wrote:
| > Apple just had to Think Different.
|
| Metal is 1.7 years older than Vulkan. (June 2014 versus
| February 2016)
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-10-15 23:01 UTC)