←back to thread

3D + 2D: Testing out my cross-platform WASM graphics engine

579 points seanisom | 3 comments | 02 Apr 24 16:44 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source

I used to work at Adobe on the infrastructure powering big applications like Photoshop and Acrobat. One of our worst headaches was making these really powerful codebases work on desktop, web, mobile, and the cloud without having to completely rewrite them. For example, to get Lightroom and Photoshop working on the web we took a winding path through JavaScript, Google’s PNaCl, asm.js, and finally WebAssembly, all while having to rethink our GPU architecture around these devices. We even had to get single-threaded builds working and rebuild the UI around Web Components. Today the web builds work great, but it was a decade-long journey to get there!

The graphics stack continues to be one of the biggest bottlenecks in portability. One day I realized that WebAssembly (Wasm) actually held the solution to the madness. It’s runnable anywhere, embeddable into anything, and performant enough for real-time graphics. So I quit my job and dove into the adventure of creating a portable, embeddable WASM-based graphics framework from the ground up: high-level enough for app developers to easily make whatever graphics they want, and low-level enough to take full advantage of the GPU and everything else needed for a high-performance application.

I call it Renderlet to emphasize the embeddable aspect — you can make self-contained graphics modules that do just what you want, connect them together, and make them run on anything or in anything with trivial interop.

If you think of how Unity made it easy for devs to build cross-platform games, the idea is to do the same thing for all visual applications.

Somewhere along the way I got into YC as a solo founder (!) but mostly I’ve been heads-down building this thing for the last 6 months. It’s not quite ready for an open alpha release, but it’s close—close enough that I’m ready to write about it, show it off, and start getting feedback. This is the thing I dreamed of as an application developer, and I want to know what you think!

When Rive open-sourced their 2D vector engine and made a splash on HN a couple weeks ago (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39766893), I was intrigued. Rive’s renderer is built as a higher-level 2D API similar to SVG, whereas the Wander renderer (the open-source runtime part of Renderlet) exposes a lower-level 3D API over the GPU. Could Renderlet use its GPU backend to run the Rive Renderer library, enabling any 3D app to have a 2D vector backend? Yes it can - I implemented it!

You can see it working here: https://vimeo.com/929416955 and there’s a deep technical dive here: https://github.com/renderlet/wander/wiki/Using-renderlet-wit.... The code for my runtime Wasm Renderer (a.k.a. Wander) is here: https://github.com/renderlet/wander.

I’ll come back and do a proper Show HN or Launch HN when the compiler is ready for anyone to use and I have the integration working on all platforms, but I hope this is interesting enough to take a look at now. I want to hear what you think of this!

Show context
doctorpangloss ◴[02 Apr 24 19:13 UTC] No.39909710[source]▶
> If you think of how Unity made it easy for devs to build cross-platform games, the idea is to do the same thing for all visual applications.

But why wouldn't I "just" use Unity?

I agree with you. Nobody cares about the platform specific details anymore, and people are willing to pay a little bit of money for an end-all-be-all middleware. I have gone my whole life not paying attention to a single Apple-specific API, and every single time, someone has written a better, more robust, cross-platform abstraction.

But Unity is already this middleware. I already can make a whole art application on top of Unity (or Unreal). People do. Sometimes people build whole platforms on top of Unity and are successful (Niantic) and some are not (Improbable). You're one guy. You are promising creating a whole game engine - you're going to get hung up on not using the word game engine, but that is intellectually honest, it is a game engine - which a lot of people 1,000x better capitalized than you have promised, and those people have been unable to reach parity with Unity after years of product development. So while I want you to succeed, I feel like a lot of Y Combinator guys have this, "We make no mistakes, especially we do not make strategic mistakes." It's going to be a long 3 years!

replies(3): >>39909846 #>>39909921 #>>39912541 #
joeyjojo ◴[03 Apr 24 00:57 UTC] No.39912541[source]▶
There absolutely is a need for a robust cross-platform rendering/multimedia solution, more in a similar vein to SDL than Unity or Unreal. The offering of Unity, Unreal, and perhaps Godot is just abysmal when considering that for all of the man hours put into the game development space, that is basically all we got. There should be hundreds of viable cross platform game engines catering to a wide variety niches that continually stretch the bounds of what a game actually is and how it can be represented. Game libraries such as Monogame, Heaps, Raylib, Love2D, etc just wouldn't be that popular if Unity and Unreal are the be all and end all. Adobe Air was once a popular choice (a very large number of top 50 app store games were built with Adobe Air) and I'd wager still would be if it didn't collapse under its technical weight.

Currently it is the low level, cross platform layer that is the most complex and the biggest hurdle towards making a game engine viable. If it wasn't so insanely complex, and the technical barrier towards making your own engine is reduced, the tired cliche of "don't build an engine" wouldn't hold as much weight, and it opens the doors to building a bespoke, fit for purpose engine for every game you create. Don't underestimate what an individual or small teams can produce if they are operating on a solid platform that facilitates a rich ecosystem of tools.

replies(2): >>39912740 #>>39914550 #
1. doctorpangloss ◴[03 Apr 24 07:29 UTC] No.39914550[source]▶
> Game libraries such as Monogame, Heaps, Raylib, Love2D, etc just wouldn't be that popular if Unity and Unreal are the be all and end all.

Just because it happens, doesn't mean it makes sense.

Anyway, people write their own game engines, and programming languages for game engines, because it is intellectually stimulating to do so, and something you spend 100h/wk to yield 1h of gameplay is still giving you more gameplay than something boring you spend 0h/wk on.

Then, the people who use those engines you are naming, they end up porting to Unity anyway. If you want to deploy on iOS and Switch with one codebase, it is the only game in town. And that's sometimes 60% of revenue.

> Don't underestimate what an individual or small teams can produce if they are operating on a solid platform that facilitates a rich ecosystem of tools.

Unity fits this bill exactly. I too want more competition. But in the real world I live in, if someone were to ask me, "what solid platform should I choose to make my multimedia application, as a small team, that also has a rich ecosystem of tools, and will enable me to make pretty much anything I can think of?" I would say, use Unity. Because I want them to succeed.

replies(1): >>39915543 #
2. JoeyJoJoJr ◴[03 Apr 24 10:20 UTC] No.39915543[source]▶
Two high profile examples, Celeste and Deadcells use Monogame and Heaps (Haxe). They weren’t ported to Unity. Celeste and Towerfall Ascension are two examples of very high quality games that bucked the trend and just used a low level renderer (Monogame). IMO they are better because of that.

But besides that point, the very reason why many games are ported from their niche library to Unity or Unreal is mostly just for cross platform support. Not because the game creator has a preference for Unity or Unreal. They are forced into it through lack of choice if they want cross platform. If Love2D, Phaser, Flixel, and any other niche 2D game library had an easy way to target consoles they would get a whole lot more use, but they don’t because the lower levels are extremely complex and engine/framework/library developers can’t support it. WebGPU appears to offer a path forward in that regard.

replies(1): >>39924915 #
3. doctorpangloss ◴[04 Apr 24 00:00 UTC] No.39924915[source]▶
> the very reason why many games are ported from their niche library to Unity or Unreal is mostly just for cross platform support.

Indeed.

> They are forced into it through lack of choice if they want cross platform... because the lower levels are extremely complex

That is what I am saying. There are countless indie game engines of great repute, but because they are "1 guy," they cannot reach feature parity with Unity. They never will.

The Blizzard that developed the Overwatch engine had immense experience and a notoriously frugal (in terms of employee pay) culture. It still cost them about $100m and many years to develop a great engine for 3 platforms (Windows/Xbox, Switch, PS5). What hope does Godot have with $8m, or MonoGame with kopeks?

Nobody can vibes their way past the math problem of multi-platform game engines.

This is only controversial because Unity received so much ill will; and, that the indie games business and social media are very sensitive to vibes.

> WebGPU appears to offer a path forward in that regard [like supporting the Nintendo Switch].

While I would love for this to be true, it is significantly more aspirational than saying that because of Game Porting Toolkit, DirectX offers "a path forward" on macOS.