Having quite recently written a (still experimental) Vulkan backend for sokol_gfx.h, my impression is that starting with `VK_EXT_descriptor_buffer` (soon-ish to be replaced with `VK_EXT_descriptor_heap`), the "core API" is in pretty good shape now (with the remaining problem that all the outdated and depreciated sediment layers are still part of the core API, this should really be kicked out - e.g. when I explicitly request a specific API version like 1.4 I don't care about any features that have been deprecated in versions up to 1.4 and I don't care about any extensions that have been incorporated into the core API up until 1.4, so I'd really like to have them at least not show up in the Vulkan header so that code completion cannot sneak in outdated code (like EXT/KHR postfixes for things that have been moved into core).

The current OpenGL-like sediment-layer-model (e.g. never remove old stuff) is extremely confusing when not following Vulkan development very closely since 2016, since there's often 5 ways to do the same thing, 3 of which are deprecated - but finding out whether a feature is deprecated is its own sidequest.

What I actually wrestled with most was getting the outer frame-loop right without validation layer errors. I feel like this should be the next thing which the "Eye of Khronos" should focus on.

All official tutorial/example code I've tried doesn't run without swapchain-sync-related validation errors on one or another configuration. Even this 'best practices' example code which demonstrates how to do the frame-loop scaffolding correctly produces valiation layer errors, so it's also quite useless:

https://docs.vulkan.org/guide/latest/swapchain_semaphore_reu...

What's worse: different hardware/driver combos produce different validation layer errors (even in the swapchain-code which really shouldn't have different implementations across GPU vendors - e.g. shouldn't Khronos provide common reference code for those GPU-independent parts of drivers?). I wonder if there is actually any Vulkan code out there which is completely validation-layer-clean across all possible configs (I seriously doubt it).

Also the VK_[EXT/KHR]_swapchain_maintenance1 extension which is supposed to fix all those little warts has such a low coverage that it's not worth supporting (but it should really be part of the core API by now - the extension is from 2019).

Anyway... baby steps into the right direction, only a shame that it took a decade ;)

▲

reactordev 3 hours ago | parent [-]

Vulkan is by far the most powerful and the most pain in the ass API I've ever worked with. I agree on every point you just made.

▲

jorvi an hour ago | parent [-]

Isn't the idea that 99% of people use a toolkit atop of Vulkan?

Like, these days game devs just use Unreal Engine, which abstracts away having to work with the PS5 / PS4, DirectX 12, and Vulkan APIs.

I imagine unless it's either for A. edification or B. very bespoke purpose code, you're not touching Vulkan.

	▲	flohofwoe an hour ago \| parent \| next [-]
		> Isn't the idea that 99% of people use a toolkit atop of Vulkan? This idea creates a serious chicken-egg-problem. Two or three popular engine code bases sitting on top of Vulkan isn't enough 'critical mass' to get robust and high performance Vulkan drivers. When there's so little diversity in the code hammering on the Vulkan API it's unlikely that all the little bugs and performance problems lurking in the drivers will be triggered and fixed, especially when most Unity or Unreal game projects will simply select the D3D11 or D3D12 backend since their main target platform on PC is Windows. Similar problem to when GLQuake was the only popular OpenGL game, as soon as your own code used the GL API in a slightly different way than Quake did all kinds of things broke since those GL drivers only properly implemented and tested the GL subset used by GLQuake, and with the specific function call patterns of GLQuake. From what I've seen so far, the MESA Vulkan drivers on Linux seem to be in much better shape than the average Windows Vulkan driver. The only explanation I have for this is that there are hardly any Windows games running on top of Vulkan (instead they use D3D11 or D3D12), while running those same D3D11/D3D12 games on Linux via Proton always goes through the Vulkan driver. So on Linux there may be more 'evolutionary pressure' to get high quality Vulkan drivers indirectly via D3D11/D3D12 games that run via Proton.
	▲	m-schuetz an hour ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Many people need something in-between heavy frameworks and engines or oppinionated wrappers with questionable support on top of Vulkan; and Vulkan itself. OpenGL served that purpose perfectly, but it's unfortunately abandoned.