But if you start with DirectX12, you're leaving out a lot of supporters.
Wouldn't it make more sense to start with Vulkan, if the issues turn out to not get solved, to then have a DirectX12 render option?
Seems like it'd make more sense to scrap work using the current pipeline(DirectX11, right?) and use Vulkan.
Also, after all, isn't much of how the DirectX12 API works similar to Mantle? Like isn't it the biggest rework of the API in over a decade while DirectX7-11 have all been incremental steps?
I was under the impression that AMD worked with both and both were based on Mantle's way of doing things that gave huge performance increases in Battlefield4, for example.
So I imagine whatever rendering pipeline you set up for Vulkan, you'll have a much more drop-in replacement than D3D11>Vulkan or D3D11>D3D12 is compared to Vulkan>D3D12. And Vulkan runs on the same hardware DirectX11 does, so you don't really need DirectX11 support to begin with except for a lot of extra work for a bit of potential performance gains if those issues aren't worked out. But as far as work and hardware coverage involved...
Obviously you know more than me there on the work involved, but that's how it'd seem to me. It seems to me that you would be able to streamline development more supporting Vulkan and DX12, than using DX11 and DX12 or all 3.
It seems to me that lots of people like Windows7 and don't want to upgrade.
I mean look, right now for a year, Windows10 is FREE for Windows7 and Windows8 legal customers. It's not like cost is keeping them from upgrading. Lots of people just don't want it.