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.
Related
Let's say I want to develop a Paint app and need to implement a brush engine. For a raster brush, you basically need to stamp a texture on touch locations with a given spacing.
-- Task: Composite a small image (brush tip) over a bigger one.
I decided to build a prototype first in CG using a CGContext to render the stamps and found out it performed pretty well even with coalesced touches and a decent size canvas (CGContext output size).
However, since I need to paint onto really big textures (8000x6000 would be great), I decided to give metal a chance. I know that this task might be trivial for someone with a background in Metal but I'm new in this field. So I tried to use CIFilters (Metal backed) for compositing the brush over the canvas and displaying it in a custom MetalImageView: GTKView.
I thought having the canvas and the brush as CIImages and displaying them in a Metal Layer would already be more performant than the naive CG implementation. But it's not. The CIFilter approach renders the entire canvas every single stamp(at: Point), whether in CG I just refresh a small rect around that point.
Now, I think I could accomplish that with the CIFilter if I could change the extent that is computed. I don't know if that can be done with Core Image, but I'm sure in metal would be really easy for someone with experience.
-- Question: Can a pure metal implementation be faster stamping images than the CG one, given that CG runs with Metal under the hood? If so, how faster? Is it worth learning how to do it, or should I better spend that time improving the CG implementation?
Note that I'm asking for a raster brush, not a vector brush with Bezier Paths which is way easier to code and runs faster but textured brushes can't be used.
I really appreciate any help.
There is actually a chapter in the Core Image Programming Guide about that. They describe continuous painting into the same texture using the CIImageAccumulator class. You can also download the sample app.
I think performance-wise there shouldn't be a huge difference. You should be able to optimize heavily by telling Core Image the region of interest and domain of definition (extent) of your brush stroke filter. Then it should be able to render only the necessary parts of the image instead of the whole thing in every frame.
my question may seems not new, but as far as I searched for days I couldn't find my answer.
I'm trying to make a webpage with PIXI.js which uses webGL.
My webpage is mouse movement parallax, I mean all the movements an object can have is few pixels when the user moves his/her mouse pointer.
Now my problem: I have some simple images and i don't know to use svg or png.
My images are like these:
https://1drv.ms/i/s!Aj-BeFYyTnRzhTBSVEXXeJ2c-O7V
https://1drv.ms/i/s!Aj-BeFYyTnRzhTFeTzJLrWaq_VFh
https://1drv.ms/i/s!Aj-BeFYyTnRzhTIa9lAaS9dKX1DL
I want to make my webpage as smooth as possible and I don't know to use png or svg. I searched a lot, some says it depends on the png and svg, in my case my svgs won't be too complex but some says because svg use CPU and the WebGL use GPU using them both, cause lack of performance, and also some says which using svg in PIXI makes no difference than the png because PIXI makes texure from them and there won't be any deference...
I'm new to webGL and Pixi so now with these answers I became confused, by the way, for my case the images size is not mattered, I only wanted as much smoothness as possible.
thanks a lot for your help.
It doesn't make a difference for runtime performance, the SVGs will be rasterized into textures either way. However during initialization where the browser neeeds to rasterize the SVGs to create a texture from them there might be a significant performance penalty depending on how complex your SVGs are.
However since you're developing for the web aforementioned penalty is easily offset by the fact that you're loading the SVGs from a server which introduces way more latency than rasterizing the SVG will, even more so if you consider the size difference between a rasterized PNG and a SVG(assuming you're not planning to create tiny textures from them).
So final verdict, go with SVG, its lossless and small aswell as resizable and editable from within client code. It also saves you from exporting your source assets to PNG everytime you change something.
I am building a web application which will display a large number of image thumbnails as a 3D cloud and provide the ability to click on individual images to launch a large view. I have successfully done this in CSS3D using three.js by creating a THREE.CSS3DObject for each thumbnail and then append the thumbnail as an svg:image.
It works great for upto ~1200 thumbnails and then performance starts to drop off (very low FPS and long load time). By the time you hit 2500 thumbnails it is unusable. Ideally I want to work with over 10k thumbnails.
From what I can tell I would be able to achieve the same result by creating each thumbnail as a WebGL mesh with texture. I am a beginner with three.js though, so before I put in the effort I was hoping for guidance on whether I can expect performance to be better or am I just asking too much of 3D in the browser?
As far as rendering goes, CSS3 should be relatively okay for rendering quite big amount of "sprites". But 10k would probably be too much.
WebGL would probably be a better option though. You could also take care about further optimizations, storing thumbnails in atlas texture or such...
But rendering is just one part. Event handling can be serious bottleneck if not handled carefully.
I don't know how you're handling mouse clock event and transition towards fullsize image, but attaching event listener to each of 2.5k+ objects probably isn't a good choice anyway. With pure WebGL you could use imagespace for detecting clicked object. Encoding each tile with different id/color and using that to determine what's clicked. I imagine that WebGL/CSS3D combo could use this approach as well.
To answer question, WebGL should handle 10k fine. Maybe you'll need to think about some perf optimization if your rectangles are big and they take a significant amount on the screen, but there are ways around it if that problem appears.
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 in the process of starting to build a strategy game (think warcraft) for the web. I've been doing research on HTML5 Canvas and CSS3 sprites and still can't decide which technology to use.
The game won't be completed for another 6 months.
Any advice would be appreciated.
As you probably hear so frequently... "It Depends..." ™
My suggestion would be consider the feel of the application you're after. If you are trying to build a very graphically rich, mostly-images application, then I would use Canvas. However if you are trying to animate some graphics, but have the page remain and behave more "Web-like", mixed with other HTML content, I'd give CSS3 a try.
Two additional points:
Currently, Canvas is better supported than CSS3 animation/sprites.
If you use Canvas you're going to be implementing your own render loop and animation code (or making use of a 3rd partly library). Your code create animation by compositing the various layers of each frame, applying movement, and repeating. You can't simply say "move this image a little to the right". You'll have to do that yourself.
The EA web game "Lords of Ultima", as dull as it is, is an excellent example of a WarCraft-styled (well, it's more city building as there are no visible units) overworld, with animations and everything, built on a pure HTML and CSS sprite base. It looks and performs well and I think the square block box-model nature of HTML suits that kind of tile based design, especially since a lot of the image processing (embed an <img> or a <div> with a background, change background-position for animation) and click/mouse handling is done for you in simple html.
If you do go canvas you have to manage that yourself which will greatly increase the complexity and dev time. You'll have more control of minor elements and improved performance, but then you'll also lose (if it's at all important), greater backwards compatibility with older browsers. So it depends on how complex your design is and what kind of performance you need.
Use Canvas. If you use CSS sprites to build a game, then you are going to make a lots of <div>'s which performs operations on the DOM, which may slow down and also have a lots of focus and compatibility problems.
It may pay off to trade the development time for performance on <canvas>, by the assumption of "A code will be maintained forever".
I think CSS3 sprite system takes more time to develop, because you need to handle browser compatibility.
Browsers like IE 8 (8 or 9?) are using GPU to accelerate graphics, which lets you get the free lunch of Moore's Law.
There's pros and cons to both. Currently, Canvas is better supported then is CSS3, but you said that your game won't be done for another 6 months, by then the support for CSS3 could be much much better. There's also a lot of other variables here, such as: What browser will the game be viewed on? How advanced are the graphics you need to animate? etc... I would say that canvas would be better for support of the current generation of browsers and for gaming graphics, however CSS3 would be quicker, but wouldn't even come close to the support or graphics handling. But it doesn't seem like your in a rush to get it done.
Basically:
Canvas: Graphics, current support in users browser
CSS3: Speed of development
Ether will work. But for now I would use Canvas. However, 6 months in the tech world is an eternity, things could be a lot different then.