Pros of Compressonator

• Compressonator provides a comprehensive set of tools for texture compression, including support for various compression formats like DXT, ETC, and ASTC.
• The project offers a GUI-based application, making it easier for users to interact with the compression tools.
• Compressonator includes a command-line interface, allowing for automated compression workflows and integration with other tools.

Cons of Compressonator

• The FidelityFX SDK offers a more focused set of tools and libraries specifically designed for game development, while Compressonator covers a broader range of texture compression tasks.
• The FidelityFX SDK may have better integration and compatibility with game engines and other game development tools compared to the more general-purpose Compressonator.
• The documentation and community support for the FidelityFX SDK may be more extensive, as it is a dedicated game development-focused project.

Code Comparison

FidelityFX-SDK (sample from the FidelityFX-CAS module):

float FidelityFX_CAS(float3 color, float sharpness)
{
    float3 luma = float3(0.2126, 0.7152, 0.0722);
    float3 weights = float3(1.0, 1.0, 1.0) - abs(dot(color, luma) - color) * sharpness;
    return dot(color, weights) / dot(weights, float3(1.0, 1.0, 1.0));
}

Compressonator (sample from the CompressonatorCLI module):

void CompressTexture(
    CMP_Texture* pSourceTexture,
    CMP_Texture* pDestTexture,
    CMP_CompressOptions* pOptions,
    CMP_Feedback_Proc pFeedbackProc = NULL)
{
    CMP_ERROR result = CMP_Compress(pSourceTexture, pDestTexture, pOptions, pFeedbackProc);
    if (result != CMP_OK)
        throw std::runtime_error("Texture compression failed.");
}

Pros of DirectX-Graphics-Samples

• Comprehensive coverage of DirectX features and techniques
• Official Microsoft samples, ensuring compatibility and best practices
• Regular updates aligned with DirectX API changes

Cons of DirectX-Graphics-Samples

• Focused solely on DirectX, limiting cross-platform applicability
• May have a steeper learning curve for beginners compared to FidelityFX-SDK
• Less emphasis on specific optimization techniques for different GPU architectures

Code Comparison

FidelityFX-SDK (HLSL shader example):

FFX_GROUPSHARED FfxFloat32x3 g_ffxSharedColor[16][16];
FFX_ATTRIBUTES void ComputeShader(FfxUInt32x3 LocalThreadId : SV_GroupThreadID)
{
    // FidelityFX-specific optimizations and computations
}

DirectX-Graphics-Samples (HLSL shader example):

groupshared float3 g_sharedColor[16][16];
[numthreads(16, 16, 1)]
void CSMain(uint3 DTid : SV_DispatchThreadID)
{
    // Standard DirectX computations
}

The FidelityFX-SDK code uses custom types and macros for potential cross-platform compatibility and optimizations, while DirectX-Graphics-Samples focuses on standard DirectX syntax and practices.

Pros of Graphics

• Integrated with Unity engine, providing seamless compatibility for Unity developers
• Extensive documentation and community support through Unity's ecosystem
• Covers a wide range of graphics features beyond just post-processing effects

Cons of Graphics

• Primarily focused on Unity-specific implementations, limiting cross-platform flexibility
• May have a steeper learning curve for developers not familiar with Unity's architecture
• Potentially heavier resource footprint due to integration with the larger Unity framework

Code Comparison

FidelityFX-SDK:

FFX_CACAO_DispatchDescription dispatch = {};
dispatch.commandList = commandList;
dispatch.screenSize = { width, height };
FFX_CACAO_Dispatch(context, &dispatch);

Graphics:

[ImageEffectOpaque]
void OnRenderImage(RenderTexture source, RenderTexture destination)
{
    Graphics.Blit(source, destination, material);
}

The FidelityFX-SDK code shows a lower-level API for dispatching CACAO (Combined Adaptive Compute Ambient Occlusion) effects, while the Graphics example demonstrates Unity's high-level approach to post-processing using the built-in rendering pipeline.

Pros of Vulkan-Samples

• Comprehensive collection of Vulkan samples covering various aspects of the API
• Regularly updated with new features and best practices
• Cross-platform support for Windows, Linux, Android, and macOS (MoltenVK)

Cons of Vulkan-Samples

• Focused solely on Vulkan, lacking support for other graphics APIs
• May be overwhelming for beginners due to its extensive coverage

Code Comparison

Vulkan-Samples (Initialization):

VkInstanceCreateInfo instance_info = {};
instance_info.sType = VK_STRUCTURE_TYPE_INSTANCE_CREATE_INFO;
instance_info.pApplicationInfo = &app_info;
vkCreateInstance(&instance_info, nullptr, &instance);

FidelityFX-SDK (Effect Setup):

FfxFsr2ContextDescription contextDescription = {};
contextDescription.flags = FFX_FSR2_ENABLE_HIGH_DYNAMIC_RANGE;
contextDescription.maxRenderSize.width = backBufferWidth;
contextDescription.maxRenderSize.height = backBufferHeight;
ffxFsr2ContextCreate(&context, &contextDescription);

The Vulkan-Samples code focuses on low-level Vulkan setup, while FidelityFX-SDK provides higher-level abstractions for specific graphics effects. Vulkan-Samples is more suitable for learning Vulkan internals, whereas FidelityFX-SDK offers ready-to-use optimized graphics features.