Post your capx or a screenshot of the events so that people can have a look at what's wrong

Aphrodite

As for moving vs nonmoving objects: If you want to test moving objects, use Bunnymark. Also, as for an optimization to not render nonmoving objects - I don't think it's that simple - as far as I can see, there really is no point at all in such an optimization because it would be rendered useless 99% of the time, i.e. with scrolling, or opacity, or anything at all being behind the object...

The problem I'm going to face is Intel telling me it's a C2 problem, since 'it works fine in every engine other than C2!' And others will say it's still an Intel problem, 'because all other GPU's work fine.' We're never going to get anywhere.

Also, hmm, maybe I should make a new topic or something because this really isn't specific to Airscape anymore... even though for some reason nobody else has ever noticed this problem? agh...

All right... Time for a New Development!

For those who don't want to read back through the topic, the current problem is that the game, and even C2 benchmarks, perform really really badly (around 3000 objects max) on Intel integrated Graphics machines. You can test that here. Interestingly, webGL in this instance seems to perform as bad as, or worse, than canvas2D (You can test the same benchmark without webGL here.

Most forum members seemed to think that because the problem happens only on intel iGPU's, the issue must be on Intel's side, as opposed to a problem in C2. The pixi.js BunnyMark test was brought up but since it was quite different from the C2 test it wasn't really seen as a good GPU benchmark, and there wasn't much we could do there.

Today I got fed up with waiting on Intel for a solution, so I thought I'd have another crack at seeing if it is indeed a C2 problem. I downloaded pixi.js, another webGL engine and decided to remake the C2 performance test exactly.

here is the result.

On my machine, the pixi.js test managed 45,000 objects before dipping below 60fps. That equates to a rendering performance over 10 times greater than Construct 2's.

While it's true that pixi.js objects have a lower overhead than C2 objects, and the same can be said about the engine itself, neither of these should come into effect when pure rendering performance is being tested.

As far as I can see, the only reasonable explanation here is that something is wrong with C2's webGL implementation, but for some reason or another it's only evident on intel iGPU's.

Ashley could you look into this?

Everyone else: Any thoughts?

irina thanks for testing! I'm assuming you're trying the Steam demo?

What's this about DX9?

In regards to the teleporter - it was automatic a little while ago, but people hated it since sometimes you want to walk over it without actually finishing the level. It sort of took control away from the player that they should have had. So yeah, a year or so ago I was agreeing with you but I think at this point the space bar (or whatever you set it to in the remapping!) is just as good.

Yeah, monitoring arrays and memory usage at a more specific level is a huge pain, but I think there's some stuff you can do in Chrome's debugger.

If you don't use arrays at all (I don't know what you mean by array behavior) then that's probably not the problem.

As for SFX, I wish there was something I could tell you! Maybe import them at a lower quality (I have NO idea if that effects runtime memory usage or not), or try to use audio effects instead of subtle variations?

Hey, anyone know if this still works in recent C2 builds after the change to 'nw.js'?

I tried putting the old PC, mac and linux files into the 'NWjsForC2' folder as well as the 'NodeWebkitForC2' folder. Every time I try to export, C2 tells me that nw.js is not installed.

Hey all,

Just another reminder that I'm still looking for people with decent GPU's that experience non-perfect performance in the web demo I posted. If you have a machine with a decent GPU, it would be really helpful if you could quickly try out that web demo, chuck it on auto resolution, fullscreen it, and see if the fps is stable at 60. If not, there's a problem there that needs to be resolved, and I could really use your help figuring it out!

Thanks!

One thing to check is that you don't have any arrays that you grow and never shrink. I once had a memory leak problem and the cause of it all was simply an array that kept getting bigger - since it was global it wasn't destroyed between layouts.

As for 400mb in sound effects, that sounds like a lot! How many SFX files is this, and roughly how long are your files?

Thanks Ashley. Hopefully this can get sorted out :/

Probably not best to use a function when timing is involved like this! Functions are supposed to be instantaneous - when you call them, they must finish before the processor moves on to anything else. Wait actions go against this. Just use regular events, or multiple spaced-out function calls.

I got a reply on the nwjs issue post.

[quote:1wqbwkd7]Okay, I ran the test.

There's a TON of images that are being loaded, and they're probably going to stay loaded even when not in use.

And since there's so many images, it's using up a ton of memory.

Just a guess, though.

Unfortunately, this is a problem with Construct 2 loading too much.

Which can't be fixed without telling the Construct 2 developers to stop loading images in advance, and to unload images if they haven't been in use for a while.

So basically, there's nothing that can be done short of patching the output from Construct 2.

But the way it's laid out, you'd need to make a patcher program to do it, because every time the game is rebuilt it will need to be repatched, and as resources are added the line numbers will change.

Also, remember that the patch has to remove resources that aren't in use, or everything will just fail once enough stuff has loaded(as in, when someone is at a certain point through the game)

I'm 95% sure this is bollocks as C2 definitely should load images on a layout-by-layout basis. Or is that only for VRAM, and it loads all the images into RAM first as well? I think I don't have total understanding here as if images are loaded purely layout-by-layout, than this build should have loaded nothing at all, which is clearly not the case.

Ashley what are your thoughts on this?

Ugh, I'm getting really sick of these constant struggles to get desktop export working

I haven't seen this personally but stuff like this is definitely more noticeable in darker lighting. Try it on different machines to see if it's really a NW issue, or if it's just a GPU/monitor issue.