This take feels willfully misconstrued.
Why so? It's sniping a small point from a larger comment, but the logic "relying on closed source software is bad for unity as a business" is my best-faith interpretation of that point.
-
-
Then you parsed it incorrectly, somehow. Unity can't replace its solution with one (Bakery or similar) that relies solely on a technology (Optix) that only supports NVIDIA GPUs. *That's* the issue. The reason they can't add AMD support themselves because Optix is closed source.
-
Ah ok, so you're interpreting it not as a "oh it might be risky long term that it's closed source" consideration but a "we can't even think of adopting it right now because we can't make it meet our immediate requirements because it's closed source" thing? That seems reasonable.
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.