It would be completely idiotic to bother with DX12 and lock any improvements it may bring to Windows 10 when Vulkan can do the same without the OS restrictions.
Vulkan all the way.
(12-30-2015, 01:31 PM)Depressed Osaka Wrote: [ -> ]However, the experimental DX12 branch and the Ishiiruka branch that has recently adopted it are proof of how DX12 can benefit emulation.
Wrong.
It's a proof how dx12 can benefit dolphin emulator.
dx9, dx10, dx11, opengl, the latter is Vulkan
too much
I fear, PCSX2 will not be optimal
(12-30-2015, 04:41 PM)n1dminhd Wrote: [ -> ]dx9, dx10, dx11, opengl, the latter is Vulkan
too much
I fear, PCSX2 will not be optimal
maybe, maybe not.
if vulkan is useless for pcsx2, why implement it ?
Quote:People ask for a DX12 backend for PCSX2 because we have proof that it actually works
Of course, it would be difficult to make it slower. You can't translate performance gain from Dolphin to PCSX2. Here a concrete example, I implemented fast mem access (aka direct memory access) as Dolphin on the EE recompiler. Dolphin manages a 20-30% gain. So far I manage a 5% gain.
Quote:So i would say that actually you are the one who's rejecting the idea of implementing DX12 based on... nothing,
Could you even imagine the number of game that I analyzed, draw call by draw call, to built the openGL port of GSdx? On Nvidia (sorry for you), the GL renderer can actually render much more effect that DX renderer. Dx discards half of the rendering based on various hack. GL has a speed (Nvidia only) comparable to Dx however GL generates a hell of extra draw calls. In real world we call that experience not nothing.
I'm not rejecting DX12. I'm rejecting the idea that want to try to accelerate GSdx when half of the rendering is missing. I'm rejecting the vendor locking for DX12 when a portable/cross compatible solution will be available soon.
Looking at the game market, you can conclude that any recent proprietary API ought to die. Android's market is increasing every days. The only purpose of DX12 is to put "I'm first and I use new uber technology sticker" on the box to sell more item.
(12-30-2015, 04:47 PM)jesalvein Wrote: [ -> ]maybe, maybe not.
if vulkan is useless for pcsx2, why implement it ?
Vulkan will be useful for at least 1 thing bypassing the sluggish AMD driver. This way, it would be possible to have somethings that is fast on Windows/Linux/Android with Intel/Amd/Nvidia GPU.
(12-30-2015, 05:16 PM)gregory Wrote: [ -> ]Vulkan will be useful for at least 1 thing bypassing the sluggish AMD driver. This way, it would be possible to have somethings that is fast on Windows/Linux/Android with Intel/Amd/Nvidia GPU.
Well, be my guest if you want to make it, then
(12-30-2015, 04:47 PM)jesalvein Wrote: [ -> ]maybe, maybe not.
if vulkan is useless for pcsx2, why implement it ?
NO, NO, No
I fully support the Vulkan
But dx 09, 10, 11, OpenGL, Vulkan is too much
Should remove dx9, 10, focus on modern (dx 11, OpenGL, Vulkan)
And when Vulkan were common, remove OpenGL
(12-30-2015, 05:22 PM)n1dminhd Wrote: [ -> ]NO, NO, No
I fully support the Vulkan
But dx 09, 10, 11, OpenGL, Vulkan is too much
Should remove dx9, 10, focus on modern (dx 11, OpenGL, Vulkan)
And when Vulkan were common, remove OpenGL
Does this statement has any reason or are you just trolling?
It was said already several times that currently no API disturbs another one. If they will disturb each other less accurate ones will be dropped in favor to more accurate ones.
As already said some posts before dx11 isn't really used at all.
There is also no focus on dx10 as there is nobody willing to focus on it.
There is no focus on dx9 and probably there will be never again.
Currently we have one dev partially focusing on OGL and he probably doesn't want to get commands from you how and on what he should focus.
(12-30-2015, 05:20 PM)jesalvein Wrote: [ -> ]Well, be my guest if you want to make it, then
Yes yes I know. I'm just saying that it would be nice to have a portable solution that fit everyone needs.