Is it possible that Arkham Knight will have a Dx12 makeover for the re-release @ October/November or is it too much to ask from Rocksteady at this point? It would be a great game to test Dx12 with if that is possible.
They have not been able to release it in good condition and now you want they stop fix it as it is and use DX12 ?
Performance is the issue with the game, graphics are identical with the console release. If Dx12 improves performance in AK, why not? Are they not capable or porting over their code to Dx12? I assume it's much similar to what they are currently running on Xbox One. In fact, i'd think having the game run on Dx12 (and possibly Dx11.x for anyone not playing on W10) is the only logical explanation for the delayed re-release.
I mean it makes sense if you think about it. Game was a mess at release and it got pulled within 48 hours from Steam, that basically killed their PC sales. From a marketing standpoint when they re-release it for PC they need to have a major selling point to attract customers again, selling it as the first Dx12 AAA game might be just that. But then again they might not go the Dx12 route at all, i just hope they will just to see the performance difference in such a high budget game.
Performance is the issue with the game, graphics are identical with the console release.
Why?I don't think they can produce a good dx12 engine, and still fix the dx11 "version"...
Why?
That's true but their reputation is on the line so you never know what they might do to try to make the best of what is a big mess.So, introducing DX12 would require more testing, debugging, etc, no ?
That's true but there reputation is on the line so you never know what they might do to try to make the best of what is a big mess.
Well my bad then! I thought/assumed the new-and-improved stuff would be folded in under the OpenGL moniker just like was the case with DirectX, to build on their already well-known trademark and things like that. It would have made sense - at least to me.
Me too. I thought Vulkan was just an internal
project name. Is the final API not going to be called OpenGL? Microsoft didn't come up with a new brand for DirectX 12.
No, OpenGL name would imply backwards compatibility. Every OpenGL version has been backwards compatible. People expect their OpenGL code to work with the new version, and Vulkan breaks this promise.Me too. I thought Vulkan was just an internal
project name. Is the final API not going to be called OpenGL? Microsoft didn't come up with a new brand for DirectX 12.
Here are the facts on the ground:
1: The Khronos Group is on record: they plan for OpenGL and Vulkan to co-exist.
2: Vulkan is intended to target hardware capable of OpenGL ES 3.1 or OpenGL 4.1 or better. Hardware incapable of these will likely not be able to implement Vulkan.
3: Vulkan does not (as far as we know) provide access to any hardware functionality that OpenGL 4.5 is not also capable of accessing (plus ARB_bindless_texture).
Fact #1 really means very little. Plans change, and such a statement could simply be rhetoric to dissuade people from panicking, thinking that they must immediately jump to Vulkan or be left behind.
Fact #2 is more important. Even if Khronos immediately reneged on their plan and every IHV ditched OpenGL support on Vulkan-capable hardware, the fact remains that there is a ton of hardware out there that can't support Vulkan. Valve's Steam survey gives us a good picture of the desktop realm. GL 4.1 is approximately D3D11, and while that covers a fair portion of existing hardware, it's not even half of every computer in the survey. The mobile space is even worse shape, as ES 3.1-class hardware is pretty cutting edge, only GPUs released in the last year or so.
So for the immediate future (2 years or so), OpenGL's not going anywhere. There's just too much need to support older hardware.
Fact #3 is relevant, as this means that Vulkan usage will be primarily about performance, not functionality. Which also means that OpenGL is more-or-less complete, relative to the current landscape of GPUs. ES will be updated as mobile hardware plays catchup with desktop. But desktop GL is mostly done.
And that means that Khronos doesn't really have to do much to keep OpenGL up-to-date. It will mostly be about IHVs providing implementations. And they will have a lot of incentive to keep OpenGL implementations working than Khronos does. They don't want to break old programs. So even if Khronos's commitment to OpenGL falters, it will still exist and still have implementations for some time to come.
BTW Does anyone notice the Mantle->Vulkan semantic play? Like cooking-under-the-surface to breaking-out-into-the-open.
My German is very bad but, as I understand, they used an unreleased AMD driver... Hope to get it soon, I have tons of issues outside basis samples code...Als Treiber ist eine spezielle Catalyst-Version sowie der GeForce 355.66 installiert.