Aurora Graphics Library Initial Design Discussion

[Adam Wilson]

On Sun, 19 Jan 2014 02:07:07 -0800, Mike Parker <aldacron at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sunday, 19 January 2014 at 07:55:03 UTC, Adam Wilson wrote:
>
>>
>> I picked OpenGL 4.3 primarily because it is compatible with OpenGL ES  
>> 3.0 which will make porting to iOS/Android easier. There is nothing  
>> stopping Aurora from having a backend built on an older version, but  
>> keep in mind that Aurora's front-end sets the required features, and I  
>> don't think OpenGL 1.0 can meet them without a rather large assist from  
>> handmade CPU algorithms, which will inevitably mar performance over the  
>> newer API's.
>
> I refrained from making any comments on backends precisely because  
> they're pluggable. I'd /prefer/ to see a baseline of D3D9 and OpenGL  
> 3.2, simply because of Windows XP, which DMD supports, and because Mac  
> support for GL 4.x is not very widespread and likely will not become  
> mainstream for a while yet. Even looking two or three years out, OpenGL  
> 3.2 will allow us to cover a broader user-base than 4.3. But it's not  
> big deal, really. Whatever we don't start with can be added later.
>
> I do support the idea of a D3D backend on Windows. The OpenGL situation  
> there is better than it used to be, but there are still headaches that  
> crop up now and again as a few minutes with Google can show. SDL2 and  
> Allegro5 both have D3D renderers by default on Windows for good reason.  
> That said, I would put priority on the OpenGL renderer, since it runs on  
> all of the platforms DMD currently supports.
>
> Here's something to consider, though. The Steam Hardware & Software  
> Survey [1] gives a good baseline for the gaming market (what used to be  
> called the "hardcore" market, but I think it's more than that now).  
> However, I wouldn't consider it anywhere near mainstream. Among that  
> market, D3D11 (OpenGL 4.x) penetration is only 54%. Fast-forward to a  
> year from now and you're probably looking at somewhere between 80-90%.  
> Cut that in half for the wider market and you've got a rough baseline  
> for the mainstream computer user.
>
>>
>> Another backend I'd like to serious consider is AMD's Mantle API, which  
>> is even lower-level than OpenGL and DirectX but supposedly 45% more  
>> performant. There is no sense not building as much performance into  
>> Aurora as long as it doesn't interfere with the ease-of-use goal.
>
> Yeah, that would be a good one. Down the road :)
>
> [1] http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey
>

Actually those numbers for D3D11 are probably pretty close to accurate  
since it's OS dependent. WinXP is current 20%-28% depending on the method  
and Vista is 4%. Since D3D11 is on Windows 7 it is quite widespread. I  
suspect that with the WinXP EOL in 3 months and the shabby TLS support on  
XP that DMD will be relatively quick to deprecate WinXP as well. And I  
also suspect that many people will upgrade away from WinXP quite quickly  
over the next year.

-- 
Adam Wilson
GitHub/IRC: LightBender
Aurora Project Coordinator