Colludium's Forum Posts

  • By using a lot of variables with a lot of maths, blended with some trial and error. Scale was determined by distance from the centre and each wave had a hidden rotating object that acted as an angle reference.

  • I think the artwork is excellent - the images somehow reminded me of some of HR Giger's weird and creepy work he did around the Alien concept in the '70s.

  • Justin1967,

    I made a low average version for a C2 game jam a while ago. You can muddle your way through it here if you wish!

  • I submitted this as a bug report and would be interested if anyone else can reproduce what I see on my system....

    Try this capx: [attachment=1:n5nrb90z][/attachment:n5nrb90z]

    It's a variation of the one in the bug report. It creates a large number of physics balls and then just runs as they bounce around in zero gravity - the idea was to create enough balls to stress the system but to maintain near 60 fps in r195. The layout also displays a horizontal scrolling graph of dt so any variations can be seen over time. The number that stresses my system on Chrome is 1600 - so you might need to tweak that up or down depending on what hardware you're using.

    To my eye it appears that r196.2 causes more and more frequent frame drops (large dt values > 16 ms) than seemed apparent in r195. This might be a bespoke finding just to my system so it would be good for others to test it and see if it's either just me... It's also worth noting that I also consistently see no discernible improvement in performance when using asm.js over the standard box.2d.

    [attachment=0:n5nrb90z][/attachment:n5nrb90z]

  • Ashley,

    I understand your reluctance to accept older NW images as proof, but I had also tested this in the latest Chrome, the latest Firefox and the latest IE11 before I submitted the report. So, here is an image of my results running in the latest build of Chrome Version 40.0.2214.94 m:

    [attachment=0:33j319j9][/attachment:33j319j9]

    As you can see, this simple test causes lots of dropped frames, many per second, only in the r196 rendered tests. I suspect that any difference you encounter in your tests (with respect to this and to the hike in performance you get with asm.js) could be down to you using NASA spec hardware.... Of interest, I had one test run that showed 2300 objects for both asm.js and box2d web in concurrent tests on chrome. I have not been able to reproduce that performance since the one occurrence... Just to be sure, have you tested this on other hardware at all? As this is all on a single open tab of the latest stable Chrome, it is unlikely that this difference would be attributable to a chrome bug.

  • The other forums I frequent require your first couple of posts to be vetted by a moderator before you're let loose on your own. And you can't post your second until your first is accepted. This works very well indeed....

  • I've also found the 8 point max to be inconsistent. IMO asm.js is nothing but trouble with little discernable performance improvement to compensate for these limitations...

  • ^LOL!

    + welcome!

  • Zathan, I agree with your assessment - I've submitted this on the back of another bug report here.

  • Problem Description

    As per the title. After experimenting with the new asm.js I created a simple stress test to demonstrate the difference between r195 and r196 physics. It appeared that r196 caused more frames to be dropped and a larger variance in delta time than r195 - surprisingly for both asm.js and the box2d web options. It is also apparent that there is no difference in performance between the two physics options (both r195 and r196) when the browser is stressed in this way - which is representative of a game that is max-ing out the browser but is still just playable. A stress test to a lower fps would, arguably, not be as representative of a properly optimized game. I was skeptical at first and re-installed each version of C2 multiple times and the results were consistent on my system.

    Attach a Capx

    [attachment=2:2q4bz6kz][/attachment:2q4bz6kz]

    Description of Capx

    The project has one layout. It creates or destroys physics objects to stress the browser unless the frame rate is between 55-57 fps. The physics objects are bounded to stay on the visible layout; at the top a horizontal waterfall graph of delta time is drawn to show the variances of dt with time, in addition to the returned instantaneous fps and object count value.

    Steps to Reproduce Bug

    • Run the capx

    Observed Result

    r195:

    [attachment=1:2q4bz6kz][/attachment:2q4bz6kz]

    r196:

    [attachment=0:2q4bz6kz][/attachment:2q4bz6kz]

    As you can see from the images above, the number of high value delta times in r195 was much lower than in r196. Of note, there is no discernable difference between the number of objects that each physics engine could support. The images are of NW 10.5 which provided the cleanest and highest performing rendering.

    Expected Result

    1. I would expect there to be no difference in dropped frame rates / large values for delta time, between each type of physics engine in r195 and r196.

    2. I would expect there to be an apparent improvement in performance when running in asm.js compared to box 2d.

    Affected Browsers

    • Chrome (and NW 10.5): (YES)
    • FireFox: (YES)
    • Internet Explorer: (YES)

    Operating System and Service Pack

    W8.1 x64

    Construct 2 Version ID

    r195 (64 bit) and r196 (64 bit)

  • Please add Dynamic Sketch Book on

    Steam Green Light

    and

    itch.io

    There's a demo version out on Newgrounds as well, in case you're interested....

    Thanks!!

  • Also - thank you spacedoubt - I appreciate the feedback and advice / help!

    mepis - tagged as requested. It's finished - well, version 1.01.5 is at least LOL....

  • So..... I think I'm done! As in really finished!

    60 levels have been completed in themed 'chapters' of 12... some artwork has been updated, some music has been created, and lots and lots of lessons have been learned.

    Here's a link to a demo version of the game here: Newgrounds link, which gives you access to the first 14 levels of the game. Please have a go, vote how you feel and share if you think it's worth it. The game is for sale on itch.io and will also be available on a couple of other sites over the next week or so.

    Regarding Steam and the Green Light hurdle, I don't have the following (or time around my day job) to engage properly in that community to nurture a Steam following, so we'll see if the Green Light process is ever successful....

  • Good idea to add some pressure so this doesn't sit on a back burner indefinitely....

  • Try Construct 3

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

    Try Now Construct 3 users don't see these ads

  • Happy to .