sqiddster's Forum Posts

  • Whoa, congrats on the Indie Box! That's awesome!

  • Here's an interesting benchmark - looking at Flash vs. webGL.

    (Let's ignore the fact the article itself is two years old and as such is totally wrong about the state of webGL today)

    My testing (on an Intel integrated graphics machine) puts the webGL benchmark at around 10 fps. The flash demo is a solid 60fps.

    Hmm, maybe Flash is the future, after all, eh?

    What I really find remarkable is that nobody working with webGL has noticed this issue, in the 4 or so years it's been out. Like, do developers not test on integrated graphics systems? Or maybe this is just a recent development? Or by some bizarre coincidence, do all 6 of the machines I've tested, as well as additional machines by helpful forum members, have the same unique problem, and on other iGPU machines it works fine?

    None of those options seem plausible to me. This issue is seriously weirding me out. Ashley I'd love it if you could do some testing on your end.

  • This is a great example of when you'd want to use an array instead of global variables. Basically, you'd have an array ('array', for instance) , and you'll be able to access the stored values with array.at(0), array.at(1) etc.

  • Colludium Hey, that's pretty cool! I don't get why Chrome would still be super janky while NW is good, but I'll take it :S Thanks a lot for testing btw!

    I was getting a black screen exporting with the 12.0 alpha builds. Hopefully they fixed that issue :/

  • Colludium Yes, it's definitely one of the major issues of a back-to-front renderer. However let's keep the perspective that performance is sometimes waaaaaay below where it should be for a specific GPU (Intel igpu's being the main culprit here). I've contacted Intel about it so hopefully we can come up with a solution, or at least a direction to go, from that end.

  • What it needs most are your creative ideas

  • Just got GPU-z.

    In renderperftest at 3000 objects, GPU load is at 100%, CPU load at 10%.

    In that fish test, with just 20 fish, GPU load is at 70% (?!?!?!) while CPU is at 10%.

    GPU usage goes up to 100% at 1000 fish, still minimal CPU usage.

    So not looking too good for this being a C2 issue... Unless those developers are missing some optimizations/workarounds that Scirra is also missing.

    The fact that I could render 150,000 cubes though... I mean, how can 3D be optimized so much that it's like 500 times faster than 2D?

  • Try Construct 3

    Develop games in your browser. Powerful, performant & highly capable.

    Try Now Construct 3 users don't see these ads

  • TiAm That demo doesn't seem to work for me. It tells me that it's running at 60fps when it's actually running at like 2fps. Also, again, it's hard to say if it's GPU or CPU bottlenecked.

  • I'd still really like to see a non C2 2D webGL *rendering speed* benchmark! That could tell us once and for all if it really is an intel problem (and I really really really really hope it's not) or a C2 problem.

    Does such a thing exist?

  • Yeah, bunnymark isn't a real rendering performance test, it's probably CPU/memory bottlenecked.

    I don't know why people are talking about multicore and CPU limitations. You do realize the problem is PURELY on the GPU side, right? Unless it's harder for the CPU to keep up with 3000 objects in renderperftest than it is for the GPU to draw it...

  • So.... the consensus is that webGL simply doesn't work (at any reasonable level, anyway) on Intel cards?

    That's bananas. If this is really true, it's a *huge* deal for anyone making HTML5 games. It's a support nightmare no matter what, as, even if it's listed in huge red text in the minimum specifications, people simply expect 2D games to run well on low/mid-end machines.

    Also, that's 20% of potential buyers gone just like that.

    I do tend to believe it's a C2 problem, or at least a 2D problem however. I just tried out this benchmark, which renders 150,000 cubes. On my integrated chip it runs at 40fps easily.

    Compare that to my C2 renderperftest which could only manage 3500 sprites at 30fps. Something has to be up. I just can't believe that 2D performance is that bad. Unfortunately I haven't been able to find any non-C2 2D webGL benchmarks - if anyone could point me to one, that would be awesome.

  • scaffa I didn't make a tutorial, but it's pretty simple. Just set the canvas size, then set the layout scale as a ratio of the original canvas size to the new canvas size.

  • TiAm I can definitely try to make a super stripped down version, yeah. Will take some time, but it's probably a good idea.

    However, if the same issue is happening to the renderperf benchmark, clearly the problem isn't my code? Can anyone else with an Intel integrated chip confirm or deny my findings?

  • R0J0hound thanks, that was my guess too. I tried turning off webGL but didn't see any improvement. Anyway, my game requires webGL so that's out.

    Can you think of an efficient way to draw lots of big thick circles? It's for a 'warp' effect at the end of my levels. Currently, I draw a whole load of big sprites which are empty circles. However naturally this absolutely slaughters the framerate because the GPU is drawing probably 90% empty pixels.

  • Hey,

    I've found a weird performance issue related to the Draw Circle action.

    Basically, drawing a circle with a line width of >1 leads to a huge difference in draw calls. In my example, it's 95% CPU usage for draw calls vs 5% CPU usage, the only difference being a line width of 1.0001 vs. a line width of 1.

    Am I missing something here? Or is drawing lots of circles always going to be inefficient?