
Star Citizen developers intend to drop DirectX support and only support Vulkan - shmerl
https://forums.robertsspaceindustries.com/discussion/comment/7581676/#Comment_7581676
======
hacker_9
_" Years ago we stated our intention to support DX12, but since the
introduction of Vulkan which has the same feature set and performance
advantages this seemed a much more logical rendering API to use as it doesn't
force our users to upgrade to Windows 10 and opens the door for a single
graphics API that could be used on all Windows 7, 8, 10 & Linux. As a result
our current intention is to only support Vulkan and eventually drop support
for DX11 as this shouldn't effect any of our backers. DX12 would only be
considered if we found it gave us a specific and substantial advantage over
Vulkan. The API's really aren't that different though, 95% of the work for
these APIs is to change the paradigm of the rendering pipeline, which is the
same for both APIs."_

This feels like a pretty handwavey statement. For one, all shaders would need
to be converted from HLSL to GLSL, which could become quite a big task
depending on the amount of shaders, and testing of all changes.

Secondly as I understand it the Vulkan API is much more low level and
barebones than DirectX, meaning it'll be a lot of work to shore up the
differences. I may be wrong here, but it seems to be like the developer is
saying that a DirectX -> OpenGL change is no big deal, but swapping out your
foundations _is_ a major big deal. The concepts may be the same but the APIs
are still hugely different.

And why is this even a concern for a game started in 2011? It's mind boggling
that they are making these kind of decisions 6 years into development, surely
just finishing the damn gameplay should be the focus?

~~~
wolfgke
> For one, all shaders would need to be converted from HLSL to GLSL

GLSL is just one option to write shaders for Vulkan (the only inmportant thing
is that SPIR-V code can be generated). I can even imagine quite well that one
could write a compiler which generates SPIR-V code from HLSL shaders.

> Secondly as I understand it the Vulkan API is much more low level and
> barebones than DirectX, meaning it'll be a lot of work to shore up the
> differences.

DirectX 12 is similarly low level.

> I may be wrong here, but it seems to be like the developer is saying that a
> DirectX -> OpenGL change is no big deal

DirectX 11.x is similar in "level" to OpenGL 4.x (though the difficulties are
a little different - I don't want to go into details here). Similarly DirectX
12 and Vulkan are similar in level (much more low level than their
predecessors). No wonder since both Vulkan and DirectX 12 are "strongly
inspired" by Mantle. Additionally Vulkan was intended as the succesor of
OpenGL and DirectX 12 as the succesor of DirectX 11.x.

> surely just finishing the damn gameplay should be the focus?

That is what _you_ wish. :-)

~~~
jsheard
> I can even imagine quite well that one could write a compiler which
> generates SPIR-V code from HLSL shaders.

Khronos are working on building this into the official SPIR-V compiler:
[https://github.com/KhronosGroup/glslang/issues/362](https://github.com/KhronosGroup/glslang/issues/362)

------
hd4
>use as it doesn't force our users to upgrade to Windows 10 and opens the door
for a single graphics API that could be used on all Windows 7, 8, 10 & Linux

Finally they're starting to get it.

~~~
dogma1138
Considering that the mGPU and VR support in the latest release of Vulkan
requires Windows 10 and WDDM I don't think even Kronos gets it anymore ;)

~~~
throwaway91111
I don't use windows. What's wrong with windows 10?

~~~
EasyTiger_
\- They are presenting ad 'experiences' on the Start menu, lock-screen,
notification area, taskbar and now the File Manager, too. This is happening
even on Enterprise.

\- Windows 10 will automatically install games from the Windows Store which
are not wanted such as Candy Crush

\- Extensive and opaque 'telemetry' being sent back to MS which cannot be
completely turned off

\- Lack of control over windows updates

These are my own personal reasons why I will never be installing such an anti-
consumer OS.

~~~
naikrovek
\- they are showing "suggested apps" in the start menu, which can be turned
off. The others are OneDrive and Edge suggestions and can also be turned off.

\- those apps are installed at the time of installation and can be removed. If
so, they are not reinstalled ever again.

\- telemetry. Scary. Every application you install does this.

\- MS found (via telemetry) that users don't like installing updates, and thus
left themselves open to many vulnerabilities that antivirus systems don't even
look for. So, MS has chosen to force users into a more secure paradigm.

These are my personal responses why I don't mind windows 10 at all, and don't
feel it to be anti-consumer at all.

~~~
mikhailt
\- they are showing "suggested apps" in the start menu, which can be turned
off. The others are OneDrive and Edge suggestions and can also be turned off.

How about they ask users first if it is okay to do this? That is a better
approach, opt in.

\- those apps are installed at the time of installation and can be removed. If
so, they are not reinstalled ever again.

That wasn't true for the first few years and even Microsoft admitted it in one
of the release notes that they weren't retaining option to never reinstall the
apps. AU update reinstalled these apps for me.

\- telemetry. Scary. Every application you install does this.

Again, they should be opt-in, not forced and found out later that they were
collecting more data than they should.

\- MS found (via telemetry) that users don't like installing updates, and thus
left themselves open to many vulnerabilities that antivirus systems don't even
look for. So, MS has chosen to force users into a more secure paradigm.

If they needed telemetry to confirm what everyone has known for decades, they
have a bigger problem.

~~~
naikrovek
>If they needed telemetry to confirm what everyone has known for decades, they
have a bigger problem.

If there is any single thing that I've learned during my time on Earth, it is
that people, collectively, "know" a lot of things that aren't actually true.
Everyone knows that pouring sugar in a car gas tank will kill the carb or fuel
injectors. (This is false.) Everyone knows that you taste sweet with a
different part of the tongue as sour. (This is False.) Everyone knows that
waking a sleepwalker is dangerous. (It isn't.) Everyone knows that Napoleon
was short. (He wasn't.) ad infinitum... I will not fault MS for taking the
time to actually prove a suspicion true or false, to themselves or to anyone
else. This happens far too rarely, and a lot of people believe a lot of things
that aren't true as a result.

The people MS are aiming for with the ads are not the type of people who would
ever opt-in to these things. Microsoft know (again, via telemetry it is
proven) that clueful users will either know how to opt-out of thing they do
not like, or will know how to find out how to opt-out. An opt-in preference
would be preferred to myself and probably a large portion of users, _of
course_ , and would probably result in approximately 0% participation, which
is very likely not what Microsoft are aiming for.

With the Creator's Update, pre-installed applications, once uninstalled, will
not be reinstalled when the OS is upgraded. I, personally can attest to this
one. I've been installing the fast-ring builds since the Anniversary Update,
and I uninstalled Candy Crush Saga exactly once. It has not returned.

------
frik
Star Citizen is one of the only Triple-A games in development that is PC
first. Good that they value their Win7, Mac and Linux gamers.

Both DirectX 12 (which has nothing in common with DirectX 11) and Vulcan
originate from AMD Mantel and the work of the Frostbite devs. Vulcan is the
better choice nowadays, and several Triple-A games incl Doom 2016 support
Vulcan.

There is no reason to use Win10 as a gamer, all games (beside the arcardy FU3)
run on Win7, even the older one that stopped working with the infamous adware
& spyware that Win10 is - as of today Win10 has ads in Windows Explorer, see
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13903519](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13903519)

~~~
cmpxchg8b
The great irony here is that Doom 2016 has no official Linux support and
Windows was necessary to play it. It only became usable under WINE within the
past couple of months.

~~~
pikzen
This was mostly an issue coming from Denuvo, which doesn't offer a way to
generate linux executables. Now that Denuvo has been stripped, it runs on
Linux, and pretty damn well with the Vulkan backend.

------
samfisher83
Its almost been 6 years and they have raised 140+ million. I would be kind of
mad if I had contributed and the haven't released a full game yet and they are
changing something else.

~~~
gravypod
I don't get why people still keep giving them money for ships, why they are ok
with the new shifted focus (the game they are going to deliver isn't what was
promised), nor why people can't bring themselves to even acknowledge these
problems.

These aren't just Star Citizen problems, this is the entire industry. Somehow
by labeling it an art they're allowed to get away with anything.

There are very few successfully developed games and this new craze of "Early
Access" is just ruinining all QC and somehow making any publisher/programmer
imune to criticism via the "It's only the alpha! You need to expect it to be
buggy! It's not the developers fault!"

~~~
CJefferson
The real problem is seeing "inside the box". Most games are buggy and unfun
for at least 90% of development time, and change direction several times as
certainly things are found to work, or not work. The problem now is people
are, reasonably, expecting what's in the original design document, and then
getting annoyed when they get something else.

Also, as you say, having people's money already removes the need to finish --
and that push to polish and finish so you can release and get some money in my
experience is what makes games good.

------
random_comment
I personally think a more likely explanation of this move is that they are
nowhere near completion and need a good 'technical excuse' for pushing
deadlines way into the future.

Then everyone begins debating the technical issues rather than the timetabling
and funding issues.

~~~
scrollaway
There is seriously something wrong with this community whenever a Star Citizen
article comes up. Did you even click the link at all before coming up with
your conspiracy theory?

This is a reply to a question that mentions, in passing, that for simplicity
sake they are DROPPING ONE OF THE TWO targets they are CURRENTLY supporting.
This is not "we need excuses to push deadlines", this is "we're cutting
something to speed up development", with explanations accompanying it.

And that aside, HN of all communities should appreciate the level of
transparency and technical insight CIG gives to their backers. Like the one in
the post here. That you did not click because you were too busy coming up with
"technical excuses".

~~~
random_comment
Hello, thank you for your comment.

I've followed the Vulkan/DX12 issue on and off over the last year for SC as I
am an early backer.

Given that they only first approached the question of Vulkan in 2016, and as
recently as a few months ago were still in blackout as to the level of
support: e.g.

[https://forums.robertsspaceindustries.com/discussion/comment...](https://forums.robertsspaceindustries.com/discussion/comment/6522297/#Comment_6522297)

then

[https://www.reddit.com/r/starcitizen/comments/53qsy5/any_new...](https://www.reddit.com/r/starcitizen/comments/53qsy5/any_news_on_dx12vulcan_support/)

I am not persuaded that this is as simple a matter as dropping one of two
equally well-developed branches.

Generally speaking, moving from a mature high-level API (especially one which
the underlying game engine/architecture is heavily tied into) to a less mature
low-level API tends to mean refactoring work and extra implementation work, as
well as a whole new bunch of bugs and testing.

I would agree that pursuing only Vulkan or only DirectX is probably smarter
than pursuing both simultaneously in terms of a faster delivery. I also think
in terms of cross-platform development and performance it will be better to
use Vulkan (for any game).

However, the introduction of Vulkan is a relatively recent event in the
history of SC development (see above), saying 'we're only going to support it
now' might actually be saying 'a rewrite (or substantial refactoring) of the
game started last year, which we are now owning up to'.

~~~
scrollaway
I'll give you that the two branches may not necessarily be in the same state
but I can guarantee you that, if they previously had in mind supporting both
and are now down to only support one, it's a great relief in development
efforts.

As to whether it's a _good_ decision, it's a different and very hard to tell
matter. I find it a little absurd though how much input people have into this.
These decisions matter only in context; you need to be familiar with a lot of
the technical background on the game itself and its ongoing development to
really be informed on whether it is.

For context: I work with Blizzard games a ton. I'm extremely familiar with
Blizzard, their teams, the work that goes on there; nature of my job. I also
frequent the subreddits where armchair programmers and game designers think
they can outsmart the devs by throwing random buzzwords in the comments.
Everybody thinks they know better, thinks they know how to manage a community
of millions to tens of millions, thinks they know how to ship AAA games, etc.

I see a very similar pattern on HN with CIG because CIG is (far) more
transparent than your average studio. And I just wonder (this is a general
statement, not only about your comment) why people adopt this "I know better"
attitude when they clearly _don 't_ have al the variables and know it
themselves.

I've seen this in every single thread about SC. People here see a kickstarter
project taking a long time and start yelling their own startups' platitudes
like "release early release often" that aren't applicable to game dev the same
way. Every time I expect better and every time I'm disappointed

</rant>

~~~
random_comment
Can you explain to me the difference in practice between

'a rewrite of an existing code base from language A to language B'

versus

'Saying you will support language B as well, dropping language A after a while
completely, then announcing you are going to try to complete it in language B'

Because I am not sure I perceive a large semantic difference.

I happen to agree with an earlier post suggesting that if you want to run off
with the money, then this kind of thing is a pretty good way of creating noise
and cover instead of results.

Also: can you please stop shitting on the HN community with your posts and
keep to the topic?

I get that you want to rant for some reason, but it would be better for us all
if you did it in notepad or emacs rather than here.

~~~
scrollaway
Really, I'm the one shitting on people?

You're merely claiming hundreds of game developers, part of the most
transparent game studio of all time, are involved in this grand conspiracy.

What does "running off with the money" even mean? Create artificial work for
yourself and your company all the while pissing people off on purpose? Oh yeah
that's a much better plan than just making a game.

Reminds me of people claiming the lunar landing was faked because they have it
in their head that faking the thing and maintaining the charade over decades
is somehow cheaper.

Regarding your question, we're talking about shading languages, most of which
are autogenerated by the sources. This is more akin to dropping support for a
platform than "rewriting everything".

~~~
random_comment
This forum has rules about how to talk to other people in the forum. I feel
you are ignoring them in terms of how you talk about me and other HN users.

Have you read the forum guidelines?

"You're merely claiming hundreds of game developers, part of the most
transparent game studio of all time, are involved in this grand conspiracy."

I claimed no such thing and I do not enjoy your hyperbole.

In my experience when announcements are made and timetables shifted, it comes
from higher up.

As for 'the most transparent game studio of all time'. Really? I think perhaps
you should have followed the Numenera/Torment or Elite crowdfunded projects as
a point of reference on that, you would likely have a different opinion.

"What does "running off with the money" even mean?"

I can only presume you have never funded an unsuccessful kickstarter project.
I've funded several. They all followed an identical pattern of projects scope
/ platform changes and dozens of premature 'about to ship, just 1 more month'
optimistic updates from CEOs.

Generally 'running off with the money' means taking the money and not
delivering a product. In the case of kickstarter, usually using a long series
of excuses along the way. It does not literally need to mean catching a flight
to some far-off country with the money. Often the money is simply spent while
people post misleading updates about the progress of the project. Then the
final update: "Sorry, we thought we could deliver. But we can't".

I honestly can't see a difference between what's happening with this projects
and the other projects that failed, nor any difference in the communication
style, content and frequency. Winning projects don't usually look like this.
Numenera didn't. Elite didn't.

"Reminds me of people claiming the lunar landing was faked because they have
it in their head that faking the thing and maintaining the charade over
decades is somehow cheaper."

Again, you're just being rude and hyperbolic. If you think a kickstarter
project involving repeated delays over a period of years - which turn out to
be CEO deception about project viability - is 'questioning the moon landing',
then you are perhaps naive about crowd funded projects. I am not insulting you
by saying this. I simply mean it literally: from what you're saying, it seems
you don't know what crowdfunded projects are like. I do. I've wasted plenty of
money on them.

[http://gizmodo.com/7-crowdfunding-fails-that-will-make-
you-t...](http://gizmodo.com/7-crowdfunding-fails-that-will-make-you-think-
twice-abo-1639106912)

[http://gizmodo.com/the-9-most-disgraceful-crowdfunding-
failu...](http://gizmodo.com/the-9-most-disgraceful-crowdfunding-failures-
of-2015-1747957776)

I hope star citizen does not turn out to be pie in the sky, partly because the
world needs good space sims and partly because I put my own money on the line.

However, projects that suddenly announce changes of this magnitude when they
ought to have delivered something years ago, often turn out to have other
underlying problems that prevent their ultimate success. Star Citizen has
undergone multiple changes of project scope, changes of technology platform,
never-ending delays, and it is hard to believe that this is the result of the
kind of management that wants to deliver a good product on time and is capable
of doing it.

I also funded Elite Dangerous as a kickstarter backer, and I consider it to be
a good example of good project management. I have had the pleasure of playing
it for years.

~~~
scrollaway
Yes, CIG is absolutely the most transparent game studio of all time. I say
this with over 13 years experience in and around the games industry. They're
creating a plethora of video and text content on their process, on the
development of the game, the design, the experiences, failures and successes,
etc. They share time tables. They share their deadlines. They often miss them
in fact, and so do I at my company. It doesn't mean they're running off with
the money.

As for Elite, that is an excellent example of a project that failed to deliver
what it promised. I love Elite, by the way, but the only reason you're touting
it here is because it's already out, whereas SC is not. I understand that,
you're a gamer, you want something you can play now, not something you can
play later.

Here's the thing: Star Citizen and CIG are both plagued with issues. Cultish
behaviour from their communities, overpromising tendencies, micromanagement,
etc. It's not a flawless game or studio. But game development is _hard_ and
game developers are some of the most passionate about their job, of all
professions on earth. So it really _pisses me off_ when people start claiming
that all they want to do is "run with the money".

It's possible to fail. You're on a forum where people build their own
companies from scratch. Most of these people fail. If after dedicating years
of your life on your vision while being questioned at every corner you end up
failing, that's not "running with the money", that's failing. It's hard, it
sucks, it destroys you and this happens to people on here every single day.
It's not some kind of goal that they're all looking forward; "oh man I can't
wait until we don't have to keep up this charade anymore of pretending to work
on the game every day, so that we can enjoy all the jaccuzzis we've been
buying!".

You want points of reference, I invite you to look at game studios that
_actually_ "take the money and run". Start with Zynga, see how deep that
rabbit hole goes.

~~~
random_comment
> Yes, CIG is absolutely the most transparent game studio of all time. I say
> this with over 13 years experience in and around the games industry.

If that's the best you've seen, I would recommend you to Riot Games excellent
series of blog articles on their game design (principles, practice, front end,
back end, player management etc). Or... Elite's dev blog and forums, which
were excellent?

> As for Elite, that is an excellent example of a project that failed to
> deliver what it promised.

Uhhh.. no? I think it delivered everything I hoped for, and more? As a player
of the original I've been delighted by the scope of the game. Feel welcome to
disagree of course, but let's be clear that we're talking opinions not facts.

One thing is for sure: they delivered a game that has given me a lot of fun
for a long time.

SC has delivered posts as you say, e.g. about deadlines - that they've missed
- it's really much less useful for me in terms of my personal enjoyment.

> But game development is hard

Yes, but looking at peers with less money and grand goals, those peers
actually achieved their goals, let's celebrate that maybe a bit more instead?

> So it really pisses me off ...

That's not actually an OK excuse for how you've been writing on here.

> It's possible to fail. You're on a forum where people build their own
> companies from scratch. Most of these people fail.

Sure, but it's not the 1970s. We should not be celebrating game companies that
are in the process of possibly failing, holding them up as gems of the
industry (as you appear to be doing, from my perspective), especially when
many of their choices lead directly to missed deadlines and the absence of a
game for me to play.

> You want points of reference, I invite you to look at game studios that
> actually "take the money and run". Start with Zynga, see how deep that
> rabbit hole goes.

Zynga delivered, over and over and over. What they delivered wasn't a game,
arguably, more a skinner box, but you'd have a pretty hard time convincing me
they entertained fewer people than SC has.

If I can sum up your arguments:

\- Elite: a project that failed to deliver what they promised \- Zynga: a game
studio that took the money and run

I simply can't see that you would get widespread agreement with those views.
They are both profitable companies with hundreds of thousands more happy users
of their products than SC has. Zynga in particular didn't even charge for many
of their products, so it's a bit hard to claim they 'took the money and ran'.

Anyway, why don't we leave our discussion here. You can post again if you like
but I won't respond to it, I don't believe either of us is presenting
information that will persuade the other person of their view.

------
admax88q
Why does this vaporware still get news?

This game is never going to be completed. They've already made their money and
have taken on a job that's way more more ambitious then the developers or any
of their backers realize.

~~~
wtfishackernews
I don't what the problem is. They are extremely transparent with development
and internal timelines. No one expects the game to be finished anytime soon,
but there is continuous progress.

(I'm not backer, just interested in the game)

~~~
cercatrova
Yeah, as many backers exist that apparently delude themselves into thinking
the game will be done soon, there are just as many that call it vaporware when
there is clear progress every single week. They made presale money, sure, but
it seems like the latter just can't comprehend that, just as with open source
projects, the developers are building the game because they want to build it,
not just because it will make money.

~~~
_Codemonkeyism
Which is the point, "the developers are building the game because they want to
build it" \- they don't want to finish.

~~~
admax88q
Also just because they want to build it doesn't mean they will ever finish.
Nor does it mean that they're able to build what they've set out to build.

Anyone remember the DayZ standalone? People said the same thing about rocket.
That he won't abandon his game. He cashed out years ago and the game is still
a buggy piece of shit. And that's a far less ambitious game than Star Citizen.

Just because they "want" to build it, doesn't mean that they can or that they
won't lose interest in a few years when the interesting bits are done and its
just a long road of grinding to actually get something shippable.

------
edem
Cool. 2+ developer years of development time fore refactoring. At least I did
not back this game so I have no expectations.

~~~
krautsourced
As I understand their post they are currently developing for both, so dropping
one shouldn't be _that_ bad.

------
kayoone
Considering that Vulkan is faster and should be well supported on all
platforms by the time this game finally comes out, i think it's a good
decision. I guess only possible since they don't plan console support.

~~~
ygra
It's faster than OpenGL or older DirectX versions, but DX12 was pretty much on
the same level of abstraction as far as I understood it.

~~~
simion314
Yes, DX12 is very similar to Vulkan but the major difference is Vulkan is
present on most gaming platforms except iOS, so it makes sense if you have to
choose one of those two you will choose Vulkan.

~~~
nottorp
Isn't Vulkan AMD only though?

~~~
hansjorg
Vulkan is based on Mantle from AMD, but the code was donated to Khronos. Both
Nvidia and Intel have Vulkan drivers.

~~~
vetinari
Does Intel have a vk driver?

AFAIK, they only have a Linux one, but only for Broadwell and newer. Do you
know something about the Windows driver?

------
wnevets
The duke nukem forever of kickstarter games.

------
empath75
I'm sure people will appreciate it in 2100 when the game is released.

~~~
bhouston
Is the game going to be released?

~~~
imron
Duke Nukem got released, and if that made it anything can!

FWIW, Duke also swapped graphics and engines several times during development.

~~~
wolfgke
> Duke Nukem got released

Created by a completely independent studio, not the original makers.

~~~
imron
And this same thing could never happen to Star Citizen?

~~~
wolfgke
Since there is no publisher sitting in the tail, it is at least IMHO far more
unlikely.

~~~
arkbird
CIG could run out of money and be forced to sell

------
partycoder
I hope more game developers do the same.

And I hope if this time Microsoft comes up with a FUD campaign against Vulkan
(like what happened with OpenGL) people can just uninstall Windows and try
another OS.

------
TylerH
Is this gonna push release back another four years?

