I'm planning on writing a game, which will use a lot of sprites and images. At first I tried EaselJS but playing some other canvas-based games I realized it's not that fast. And when I saw BananaBread by Mozilla I thought "if WebGL can do 3D so fast, then it can do 2D even faster". So I moved to three.js (using planes and transparent textures, texture offset for sprites).
The question is: is it better? Faster? Most of the WebGL games are 3D so should I use canvas 2D context for 2D and WebGL for 3D? I've also noticed that there are no libraries for WebGL in 2D (except WebGL-2d, but it's quite low level).
Please note that compatibility is not my greatest concern as I'm not planning on releasing anything anytime soon :) .
The short answer is yes. WebGL can be quite a bit more efficient if you use it well. A naive implementation will either yield no benefit or perform worse, so if you're not already familiar with the OpenGL API you may want to stick to canvas for the time being.
A few more detailed notes: WebGL can draw textured quads (sprites) very very fast, but if you need more advanced 2D drawing features such as path tracing you'll want to stick to a 2D canvas as implementing those types of algorithms in WebGL is non-trivial. The nature of your game also makes a difference in your choice. If you only have a few moving items on screen at a time Canvas will be fairly fast and reasonably simple. If you're redrawing the entire scene every frame, however, WebGL is better suited to that type of render loop.
My recommendation? If you're just learning both, start with Canvas2D and make your game work with that. Abstract your drawing in a simple manner, such as having a DrawPlayer function rather than ctx.drawImage(playerSprite, ....), and when you reach a point where the game is either functioning and you want it to run faster or the game design dictates that you MUST use a faster drawing method, create an alterate rendering backend for all those abstract functions with WebGL. This gives you the advantages of not getting hung up on rendering tech earlier on (which is ALWAYS a mistake!), let's you focus on gameplay, and if you end up implementing both methods you have a great fallback for non-WebGL browsers like Internet Explorer. Chances are you won't really need the increased speed for a while anyway.
WebGL can be much faster than canvas 2D. See http://blog.tojicode.com/2012/07/sprite-tile-maps-on-gpu.html as one example.
That said, I think you're mostly on your own right now. I don't know of any 2d libraries for WebGL except for maybe PlayN http://code.google.com/p/playn/ though that's in Java and uses the Google Web Toolkit to get converted to JavaScript. I'm also pretty sure it doesn't use the techniques mentioned in that blog post above, although if your game does not use tiles maybe that technique is not useful for you.
three.js is arguably not the library you want if you're planning on 2d.
Related
I have a sphere with texture of earth that I generate on the fly with the canvas element from an SVG file and manipulate it.
The texture size is 16384x8192 , and less than this - it's look blurry on close zoom.
But this is a huge texture size and causing memory problems... (But it's look very good when it is working)
I think a better approach would be to split the sphere into 32 separated textures, each in size of 2048x2048
A few questions:
How can I split the sphere and assign the right textures?
Is this approach better in terms of memory and performance from a single huge texture?
Is there a better solution?
Thanks
You could subdivide a cube, and cubemap this.
Instead of having one texture per face, you would have NxN textures. 32 doesn't sound like a good number, but 24 for example does, (6x2x2).
You will still use the same amount of memory. If the shape actually needs to be spherical you can further subdivide the segments and normalize the entire shape (spherify it).
You probably cant even use such a big texture anyway.
notice the top sphere (cubemap, ignore isocube):
Typically, that's not something you'd do programmatically, but in a 3D program like Blender or 3D max. It involves some trivial mesh separation, UV mapping and material assignment. One other approach that's worth experimenting with would be to have multiple materials but only one mesh - you'd still get (somewhat) progressive loading. BUT
Are you sure you'd be better off with "chunks" loading sequentially rather than one big texture taking a huge amount of time? Sure, it'll improve a bit in terms of timeouts and caching, but the tradeoff is having big chunks of your mesh be textureless, which is noticeable and unasthetic.
There are a few approaches that would mitigate your problem. First, it's important to understand that texture loading optimization techniques - while common in game engines - aren't really part of threejs or what it's built for. You'll never get the near-seamless LODs or GPU optimization techniques that you'll get with UE4 or Unity. Furthermore webGL - while having made many strides over the past decade - is not ideal for handling vast texture sizes, not at the GPU level (since it's based on OpenGL ES, suited primarily for mobile devices) and certainly not at the caching level - we're still dealing with broswers here. You won't find a lot of webGL work done with vast textures of the dimensions you refer to.
Having said that,
A. A loader will let you do other things while your textures are loading so your user isn't staring at an 'unfinished mesh'. It lets you be pretty clever with dynamic loading times and UX design. Additionally, take a look at this gist to give you an idea for what a progressive texture loader could look like. A much more involved technique, that's JPEG specific, can be found here but I wouldn't approach it unless you're comfortable with low-level graphics programming.
B. Threejs does have a basic implementation of LOD although I haven't tinkered with it myself and am not sure it's useful for textures; that said, the basic premise to inquire into is whether you can load progressively higher-resolution files on a per-need basis, just like Google Earth does it for example.
C. This is out of the scope of your question - but I'd look into what happens under the hood in Unity's webgl export (which is based on threejs), and what kind of clever tricks are being employed there for similar purposes.
Finally, does your project have to be in webgl? For something ambitious and demanding, sometimes "proper" openGL / DX makes much more sense.
Is there any known implementation of a 2D canvas fallback for the awesome playcanvas game engine?
The idea is that the system should test rendering performance during the loading process in WebGL vs Canvas 2D, and fall back to Canvas 2D in case it finds better performance there o in cas WebGL is not supporte in the browser.
Other frameworks three.js or pixijs have this feature and it would be great for playcanvas, but as long as I have seen they do not have this feature and no solution have been implemented by the community.
No, there is no Canvas 2D fallback for PlayCanvas.
First of all, Canvas 2D will never be faster than WebGL for rendering 3D scenes. This is because you would have to shift complex GPU tasks onto the CPU. PlayCanvas implements a very sophisticated physical rendering pipeline and reimplementing it CPU-side will never give acceptable performance. It makes more sense for Pixi because Pixi is largely concerned with 2D sprite primitives which can be rendered quite cheaply by Canvas 2D.
At the time of writing, WebGL has a penetration of 91.1% and the trend is still upwards. Therefore, you have a relatively small minority of people who can't experience WebGL right now.
In the situation where the user can't run WebGL (for whatever reason, such as running IE9 and below), the recommendation would be to simply display a message asking to upgrade to a WebGL-capable browser.
This fallback to canvas if no webgl is a very fringe feature and perhaps that is why there is little desire to implement it. Perhaps it was useful before when webgl support is extremely limited but I dont see much need for it atm. Heres why:
If canvas api met all your requirements, then there is little point in writing a webgl app to do the same thing as the canvas api.
If webgl features are desired/required, such as 3D, or simply need to draw many sprites with different scale/rotations, then canvas performance is likely not up to par. Furthermore, browsers (last time I checked) have very inconsistent canvas performance. It was what motivated me to write a webgl renderer in the first place.
Three.JS noob here trying to do 2d visualization.
I used d3.js to make an interactive visualization involving thousands of nodes (rectangle shaped). Needless to say there were performance issues during animation because Browsers have to create an svg DOM element for every one of those 10 thousand nodes.
I wish to recreate the same visualization using WebGl in order to leverage hardware acceleration.
Now ThreeJS is a library which I have choosen because of its popularity (btw, I did look at PixiJS and its api didn't appeal to me). I am wanting to know what is the best approach to do 2d graphics in three.js.
I tried creating one PlaneGeometry for every rectangle. But it seems that 10 thousand Plane geometries are not the say to go (animation becomes super duper slow).
I am probably missing something. I just need to know what is the best primitive way to create 2d rectangles and still identify them uniquely so that I can interact with them once drawn.
Thanks for any help.
EDIT: Would you guys suggest to use another library by any chance?
I think you're on the right track with looking at WebGL, but depending on what you're doing in your visualization you might need to get closer to the metal than "out of the box" threejs.
I recommend taking a look at GLSL and taking a look at how you can implement your visualization using vertex and fragment shaders. You can still use threejs for a lot of the WebGL plumbing.
The reason you'll probably need to get directly into GLSL shader work is because you want to take most of the poly manipulation logic out of javascript, at least as much as is possible. Any time you ask js to do a tight loop over tens of thousands of polys to update position, etc... you are going to struggle with CPU usage.
It is going to be much more performant to have js pass in data parameters to your shaders and let the vertex manipulation happen there.
Take a look here: http://www.html5rocks.com/en/tutorials/webgl/shaders/ for a nice shader tutorial.
I am trying to understand the whole 2D accelerated rendering process using SDL 2.0.
So my question is which would be the most efficient way to draw circles in the screen and why?
Some ways would be:
First to create a software surface and then draw the necessary pixels on that surface then create a texture out of that surface and lastly copy that texture to the rendering target.
Also another implementation would be to draw a circle using multiple times SDL_RenderDrawLine.And I think this is the way it is being implemented in SDL 2.0 gfx
Or there is a more efficient way to do all of this?
Take this question more generally in means of if I would wanted to draw other shapes manually, which probably, couldn't be rendered easily with the 2D rendering API that SDL provides(using draw line or rectangle).
With the example of circles this is a fairly complicated question, it is more based on the visual quality you wish to achieve which will drive performance. Drawing lots of short lines will vary vastly based on how close to a circle you wish to get, if you are happy to use say, 60 lines, which will work on small shapes nearly seamlessly but if scaled up will begin to appear not to be a circle, the performance will likely be better (depending on the user's hardware). Note also SDL_RenderDrawLines will be much much faster for many lines as it avoids lots of context switches for rendering calls.
However if you need a very accurate circle with thousands of lines to get a good approximation it will be faster to simply use a bitmap and scale and blit it. This will also give you a 'smoother' feel to the circle.
In my personal opinion I do not think the hardware accelerated render API has much use outside of some special uses such as graph rendering and perhaps very simple GUI drawing. For anything more complex I would usually use bitmap based drawing.
With regards to the second part, it again depends on the accuracy of any arcs you need to draw. If you can easily approximate the shape into a few tens of lines it will be fast, otherwise the pixel method is better.
I'm planning on writing a game using javascript / canvas and I just had 1 question: What kind of performance considerations should I think about in regards to loading images vs just drawing using canvas' methods. Because my game will be using very simple geometry for the art (circles, squares, lines), either method will be easy to use. I also plan to implement a simple particle engine in the game, so I want to be able to draw lots of small objects without much of a performance hit.
Thoughts?
If you're drawing simple shapes with solid fills then drawing them procedurally is the best method for you.
If you're drawing more detailed entities with strokes, gradient fills and other performance sensitive make-up you'd be better off using image sprites. Generating graphics procedurally is not always efficient.
It is possible to get away with a mix of both. Draw graphical entities procedurally on the canvas once as your application starts up. After that you can reuse the same sprites by painting copies of them instead of generating the same drop-shadow, gradient and strokes repeatedly.
If you do choose to draw sprites you should read some of the tips and optimization techniques on this thread.
My personal suggestion is to just draw shapes. I've learned that if you're going to use images instead, then the more you use the slower things get, and the more likely you'll end up needing to do off-screen rendering.
This article discusses the subject and has several tests to benchmark the differences.
Conculsions
In brief — Canvas likes small size of canvas and DOM likes working with few elements (although DOM in Firefox is so slow that it's not always true).
And if you are planing to use particles I thought that you might want to take a look to Doodle-js.
Image loading out of the cache is faster than generating it / loading it from the original resource. But then you have to preload the images, so they get into the cache.
It really depends on the type of graphics you'll use, so I suggest you implement the easiest solution and solve the performance problems as they appear.
Generally I would expect copying a bitmap (drawing an image) to get faster compared to recreating it from primitives, as the complexity of the image gets higher.
That is drawing a couple of squares per scene should need about the same time using either method, but a complex image will be faster to copy from a bitmap.
As with most gaming considerations, you may want to look at what you need to do, and use a mixture of both.
For example, if you are using a background image, then loading the bitmap makes sense, especially if you will crop it to fit in the canvas, but if you are making something that is dynamic then you will need to using the drawing API.
If you target IE9 and FF4, for example, then on Windows you should get some good performance from drawing as they are taking advantage of the graphics card, but, for more general browsers you will want to perhaps look at using sprites, which will either be images you draw as part of the initialization and move, or load bitmapped images.
It would help to know what type of game you are looking at, how dynamic the graphics will need to be, how large the bitmapped images would be, what type of framerate you are hoping for.
The landscape is changing with each browser release. I suggest following the HTML5 Games initiative that Facebook has started, and the jsGameBench test suite. They cover a wide range of approaches from Canvas to DOM to CSS transforms, and their performance pros and cons.
http://developers.facebook.com/blog/post/454
http://developers.facebook.com/blog/archive
https://github.com/facebook/jsgamebench
If you are just drawing simple geometry objects you can also use divs. They can be circles, squares and lines in a few CSS lines, you can position them wherever you want and almost all browser support the styles (you may have some problems with mobile devices using Opera Mini or old Android Browser versions and, of course with IE7-) but there wouldn't be almost any performance hit.