[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Public WebGL] Re: Device/Extension statistics

That's a good point, I should state that these statistics are estimates on the hardware capability, not the software stack. They're probably too optimistic (if anything) rather than too pessimistic. Likewise the extensions support is an estimate based on reported extensions of the chips, not on the SoCs and software stack. Point being, it's better estimates than before, which only took devices unqantified into consideration. WEBGL_debug_renderer_info allowed at least some quantification.

On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 2:57 PM, Ashley Gullen <ashley@scirra.com> wrote:
Remember not every device with OpenGL ES 3 compatible hardware actually supports it, since the OS must support it too. On Android this is only 4.3+. Google's own data shows ES 3 support on Android at about 30%: http://developer.android.com/about/dashboards/index.html

On 27 January 2015 at 07:38, Florian Bösch <pyalot@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 2:10 AM, Kenneth Russell <kbr@google.com> wrote:
The priority for the Chrome team, at least, will remain getting a
WebGL 2.0 prototype out the door. Major gaps in WebGL 1.0's
functionality that would be addressed by exposing extensions will
certainly be considered.
That's understood. I'm thinking a bit ahead of the (in my opinion lengthy) transition period in which WebGL 2.0 will be out, but WebGL 1.0 will still have to be supported by app developers (because it enjoys a much wider activation share), and plugging major gaps with extensions can ease that pain.