I'm developing simple mobile game for android using cordova. The game is the simple Hidden Object game where player has to find requested objects on the scene. One of my levels had very slow performance. More powerful devices worked fine. I've tried force GPU rendering using translateZ hack and got huge performance boost but, on low-end devices started wired rendering artifacts.
This screenshot is from Meizu U10. The background consists of 3 layers with position absolute, z-index 1,2,3. Objects to find (Cow, chicken etc) has same position absolute and z-index depends from background they are related to. If run game in browser on the same device, there is no artifacts and performance just great. Google did not give me any useful clues, so i will be very appreciate any guesses and tips.
Using SVG can be an option you might need to consider, specifically inline SVGs.
Using inline SVG is beneficial to the performance of a website because
it eliminates the HTTP request needs to load in an image file. Since
no file needs to download, this results in smaller loading times for a
page. This makes your website appear faster to visitors, improving the
user experience.
You should really consider using a webGL rendering engine such as PixiJS if you want to have performance in your games. You would just have to convert your images into textures.
Related
For the past year I have been working on an isometric city builder. So far I have not used any framework apart from a loose PureMVC clone.
I have heard of Starling but only recently have I played with it.
From my research, the performance boost is fenomenal, but this forces me to manage my resource a lot tighter.
At the moment, I am exporting building animations one building at a time, in ~16 frames/pngs. These are cropped, resized and exported in Photoshop by a script and then imported in Flash, then exported as a swf, to be loaded / preloaded / postloaded on demand.
The frames are way too big to make a spritesheet with them, per building. I believe its called an atlas.
These pngs are then blited between lock() and unlock(). After the buildings + actors walking around are sorted, that is.
I am unsure if just using starling.Movieclip for the buildings, where instead of loading the pngs, I would build a MovieClip symbol with its frames. So bliting wouldn't even be necessary. Unless adding bliting on top of Starling would improve performance even more. That would allow fatter features such as particles effects, maybe some lighting.
Google isn't offering me a strait answer, thus I am asking here.
Google isn't offering a straight answer because there isn't such. It depends very very much on what you've done, how much knowledge you've got and what are your goals.
Using Starling gives benefits as well as drawbacks. Your idea of resources will change totally. If you really have enormous amount of assets, then putting them into GPU will be really slow process. You must start from there - learn what Starling does, how resources are managed with it and what you need to change in order to make the transition between the two.
If this is not that hard and time consuming task, you will have some performance optimization. BUT again it depends on your current code. Your current code is really important in this situation as if it's perfectly optimized your gain won't be that much (but commonly would still be).
If you need to switch between graphics regularly or you need to have dynamic assets (as images for example) you must keep in mind that uploading to GPU is the slowest part when talking about Starling and Stage3D.
So again, there is not a straight answer. You must think of GPU memory and limit, GPU upload time, as well as assets management. You also need to think of the way your code is built and if you are going to have any impact if you make the switch (if your code heavily depends on the MovieClip like structure, with all that frames and things) - it will be hard for you. One of the toughest things I fought with Stage3D was the UI implementation - there is almost only Feathers UI which will take you a few weeks to get along with.
On the other hand, Starling performs pretty well, especially on mobile devices. I was able to maintain a stable 45fps on a heavy UI app with a lot of dynamic loading content and multiple screens on an old iPhone 4S, which I find great. Latest mobile devices top at 60fps.
It's up to you to decide, but I'll advise you to have some experimental long-lasting project to test with, and then start applying this approach to your regular projects. I've done the dive to use it in a regular very tightened deadline project, and it was a nightmare. Everything worked out great, but I thought I would have a heart attack - the switch is not that easy :)
I would suggest using DMT for rasterizing your vector assets into Straling sprites at runtime, and it'll also keep your DisplayTree! meaning that you'll still have the parent/child relations that you had in your Flash Assets.
DMT will not duplicate assets, and will rasterize the vectors into texture atlases only one time (Cache is saved)
you can find it here: https://github.com/XTDStudios/DMT
I'm fairly new to web development (but not programming) and needed some advice:
I am working on a mobile app using HTML5, CSS, and Javascript (and Cordova for device functionality).
The app will be similar to flashcards (those things you used to use as a kid to memorize things). There will be some animation (flipping the card over), etc. but for the most part, the design of the flashcard will be static (borders with the main content in the center).
What would be the best way to proceed with that (drawing on a canvas or using an image for each flashcard? I am interested in performance and visual considerations of the two.
It really depends on the type of animation the cards will be doing, if they are flipping on the x/y axis you could simply have the image and manipulate its size/flip it etc with JS.
In my experience these kind of calculations/animations are quicker (if you want it to be compatible across multiple devices) however any more complicated animations should use the canvas - I have noticed when creating adverts for smartphones the canvas can really slow some animations down.
When I put my Flash game into full screen interactive display mode and set stage.fullScreenSourceRect so that it uses hardware scaling, the performance at any resolution seems to be much better than if I do it without the fullScreenSourceRect. I'd really like to use this feature, but the problem is that it seems to be using a 4x blur or some similar algorithm for scaling that leaves everything looking very blurry.
It seems like an odd choice to have a blur as the only available scale mode. I would be much happier with a simple nearest-neighbor. I can't find anything about changing the scale algorithm in the documentation. Is there any way to do this while still using hardware acceleration?
What is the intended platform for this game? If this is mobile, then there are standards that can be implemented to ensure the ideal resolutions. If this is for web then, I would recommend defining rigid dimensions. Otherwise in my experience, its best to develop to your display's ideal native resolutions. Unless you have your code dynamically drawing objects to your stage, the there will always be some kind of rastering/interpolation. You can also get your screens resolutions and have the code make adjustments accordingly: How do I get the user's screen resolution in ActionScript 3?
I've developed a lot of touch screen applications that span multiple displays with different resolutions and AIR has some great options in it's 'Screen' class to make the process easier.
I am trying to choose the right technology to use for updating a project that basically renders thousands of points in a zoomable, pannable graph. The current implementation, using Protovis, is underperformant. Check it out here:
http://www.planethunters.org/classify
There are about 2000 points when fully zoomed out. Try using the handles on the bottom to zoom in a bit, and drag it to pan around. You will see that it is quite choppy and your CPU usage probably goes up to 100% on one core unless you have a really fast computer. Each change to the focus area calls a redraw to protovis which is pretty darn slow and is worse with more points drawn.
I would like to make some updates to the interface as well as change the underlying visualization technology to be more responsive with animation and interaction. From the following article, it seems like the choice is between another SVG-based library, or a canvas-based one:
http://www.sitepoint.com/how-to-choose-between-canvas-and-svg/
d3.js, which grew out of Protovis, is SVG-based and is supposed to be better at rendering animations. However, I'm dubious as to how much better and what its performance ceiling is. For that reason, I'm also considering a more complete overhaul using a canvas-based library like KineticJS. However, before I get too far into using one approach or another, I'd like to hear from someone who has done a similar web application with this much data and get their opinion.
The most important thing is performance, with a secondary focus on ease of adding other interaction features and programming the animation. There will probably be no more than 2000 points at once, with those small error bars on each one. Zooming in, out, and panning around need to be smooth. If the most recent SVG libraries are decent at this, then perhaps the ease of using d3 will outweigh the increased setup for KineticJS, etc. But if there is a huge performance advantage to using a canvas, especially for people with slower computers, then I would definitely prefer to go that way.
Example of app made by the NYTimes that uses SVG, but still animates acceptably smoothly:
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/05/17/business/dealbook/how-the-facebook-offering-compares.html . If I can get that performance and not have to write my own canvas drawing code, I would probably go for SVG.
I noticed that some users have used a hybrid of d3.js manipulation combined with canvas rendering. However, I can't find much documentation about this online or get in contact with the OP of that post. If anyone has any experience doing this kind of DOM-to-Canvas (demo, code) implementation, I would like to hear from you as well. It seems to be a good hybrid of being able to manipulate data and having custom control over how to render it (and therefore performance), but I'm wondering if having to load everything into the DOM is still going to slow things down.
I know that there are some existing questions that are similar to this one, but none of them exactly ask the same thing. Thanks for your help.
Follow-up: the implementation I ended up using is at https://github.com/zooniverse/LightCurves
Fortunately, drawing 2000 circles is a pretty easy example to test. So here are four possible implementations, two each of Canvas and SVG:
Canvas geometric zooming
Canvas semantic zooming
SVG geometric zooming
SVG semantic zooming
These examples use D3's zoom behavior to implement zooming and panning. Aside from whether the circles are rendered in Canvas or SVG, the other major distinction is whether you use geometric or semantic zooming.
Geometric zooming means you apply a single transform to the entire viewport: when you zoom in, circles become bigger. Semantic zooming in contrast means you apply transforms to each circle individually: when you zoom in, the circles remain the same size but they spread out. Planethunters.org currently uses semantic zooming, but it might be useful to consider other cases.
Geometric zooming simplifies the implementation: you apply a translate and scale once, and then all the circles are re-rendered. The SVG implementation is particularly simple, updating a single "transform" attribute. The performance of both geometric zooming examples feels more than adequate. For semantic zooming, you'll notice that D3 is significantly faster than Protovis. This is because it's doing a lot less work for each zoom event. (The Protovis version has to recalculate all attributes on all elements.) The Canvas-based semantic zooming is a bit more zippy than SVG, but SVG semantic zooming still feels responsive.
Yet there is no magic bullet for performance, and these four possible approaches don't begin to cover the full space of possibilities. For example, you could combine geometric and semantic zooming, using the geometric approach for panning (updating the "transform" attribute) and only redrawing individual circles while zooming. You could probably even combine one or more of these techniques with CSS3 transforms to add some hardware acceleration (as in the hierarchical edge bundling example), although that can be tricky to implement and may introduce visual artifacts.
Still, my personal preference is to keep as much in SVG as possible, and use Canvas only for the "inner loop" when rendering is the bottleneck. SVG has so many conveniences for development—such as CSS, data-joins and the element inspector—that it is often premature optimization to start with Canvas. Combining Canvas with SVG, as in the Facebook IPO visualization you linked, is a flexible way to retain most of these conveniences while still eking out the best performance. I also used this technique in Cubism.js, where the special case of time-series visualization lends itself well to bitmap caching.
As these examples show, you can use D3 with Canvas, even though parts of D3 are SVG-specific. See also this force-directed graph and this collision detection example.
I think that in your case the decision between canvas and svg is not like a decision between »riding a Horse« or driving a »Porsche«. For me it is more like the decision about the cars color.
Let me explain:
Assuming that, based on the framework the operations
draw a star,
add a star and
remove a star
take linear time. So, if your decision of the framework was good it is a bit faster, otherwise a bit slower.
If you go on assuming that the framework is just fast, than it becomes totally obvious that the lack of performance is caused be the high amount of stars and handling them is something none of the frameworks can do for you, at least I do not know about this.
What I want to say is that the base of the problem leads to a basic problem of computational geometry, namely: range searching and another one of computer graphics: level of detail.
To solve your performance problem you need to implement a good preprocessor which is able to find very fast which stars to display and is perhaps able to cluster stars which are close together, depending on the zoom. The only thing that keeps your view vivid and fast is keeping the number of stars to draw as low possible.
As you stated, that the most important thing is performance, than I would tend to use canvas, because it works without DOM operations. It also offers the opportunity to use webGL, what increases graphic performance a lot.
BTW: did you check paper.js? It uses canvas, but emulates vector graphics.
PS: In this Book you can find a very detailed discussion about graphics on the web, the technologies, pros and cons of canvas, SVG and DHTML.
I recently worked on a near-realtime dashboard (refresh every 5 seconds) and chose to use charts that render using canvas.
We tried Highcharts(SVG based JavaScript Charting library) and CanvasJS(Canvas based JavaScript Charting library). Although Highcharts is a fantastic charting API and offers way more features we decided to use CanvasJS.
We needed to display at least 15 minutes of data per chart (with option to pick range of max two hours).
So for 15 minutes: 900 points(data point per second) x2(line and bar combination chart) x4 charts = 7200 points total.
Using chrome profiler, with CanvasJS the memory never went above 30MB while with Highcharts memory usage exceeded 600MB.
Also with refresh time of 5 seconds CanvasJS rendering was allot more responsive then Highcharts.
We used one timer (setInterval 5 seconds) to make 4 REST API calls to pull the data from back end server which connected to Elasticsearch. Each chart updated as data is received by JQuery.post().
That said for offline reports I would go with Highcharts since its more flexible API.
There's also Zing charts which claims to use either SVG or Canvas but haven't looked at them.
Canvas should be considered when performance is really critical. SVG for flexibility. Not that canvas frameworks aren't flexible, but it takes allot more work for canvas framework to get the same functionality as an svg framework.
Might also look into Meteor Charts, which is built on top of the uber fast KineticJS framework: http://meteorcharts.com/
I also found when we print to PDF a page with SVG graphics, the resulting PDF still contains a vector-based image, while if you print a page with Canvas graphics, the image in the resulting PDF file is rasterized.
Suppose I am using a DIV element for which I can either add a background image or can replicate the same style creating a CSS3 gradient. Now, for Phonegap applications (where all the image files reside in the device itself), which option is better to go for.
I am asking this because I saw somewhere that the gradients takes some computation time where using image may create a loading time issue. But for Phonegap apps, the image load time issue may not be there. So, maybe just using the image be a better option here?
According to an article on the Webkit Wiki, images perform better:
Sometimes it's tempting to use webkit's drawing features, like -webkit-gradient, when it's not actually necessary - maintaining images and dealing with Photoshop and drawing tools can be a hassle. However, using CSS for those tasks moves that hassle from the designer's computer to the target's CPU. Gradients, shadows, and other decorations in CSS should be used only when necessary (e.g. when the shape is dynamic based on the content) - otherwise, static images are always faster. On very low-end platforms, it's even advised to use static images for some of the text if possible.
Source: https://trac.webkit.org/wiki/QtWebKitGraphics#Usestaticimages
Of course, you have to balance that CPU time with the extra time it would take to load the image from the server. Also, for Internet Explorer, filters are extremely slow, especially if you have many on one page.