This problem is related to my framework VilTAGE (https://github.com/ViliX64/VilTAGE). It's an ASCII web game framework, that renders to Canvas. The problem is, that the drawing time is twice as long as the computation time.
The way the rendering works now is that there is a HashMap of each CharNode (an object, with a text character, color, etc..) and CanvasElement, that has the text drawn onto it. When the loop wants to draw a CharNode (15-30x a second), it goes through the HashMap, find required CanvasElement and renders it to the main CanvasElement. (See https://github.com/ViliX64/VilTAGE/blob/master/lib/etc/utility.dart).
The individual CanvasElement snaps are small (usually about 10x10). They are drawn using drawImage(..);
The problem is, that in a game with 70x40 CharNodes, the game runs (unsuprisingly) very slow and even more, when compiled to JavaScript.
Is there any obvious mistake I am making or could you please give me any tips of improving the performance?
EDIT 1: It runs the slowest on Firefox and IE. Performance on Google Chrome is better.
If it works like it does in javascript, your issue is probably with the fact that you're cacheing a CanvasElement and that the drawImage have to retrieve the bitmapData from it each time it is called. This is a really expensive operation.
You could try to cache the imageData with getImageData and draw it with putImageData (both are CanvasRenderingContext2D methods)
Related
My team is currently working on a rather large Web application. We have switched from the flash platform to Html5 in hope for a one size fits all platform.
The UI, is mainly based on createjs, which I by the way really enjoy working with.
However we have now reached the maturity phase and started optimizing some of the animations, that doesn't run smoothly in especially IE.
The thing is that we have a around 1500 sprites (pngs & jpgs) which is drawn onto a stage. We only draw around 60 of them per frame.
They are rather large (up to 800x800 pixels), and the application engine can choose which 60 to show more or less randomly.
The images are packed in a zip file and unpacked in the browser and Html images are constructed by converting the binary data to a base64 encoded string, which is passed to the src property of an image.
So in each frame render a set of around
60 images are drawn to the stage. And this is for some reason slow.
I have therefore used some time to experiment with the Spritestage of createjs to take advantage of Webgl, but with only small improvements.
So now I'm considering to pack our sprites in a spritesheet, which results in many sheets because of the large amount of data.
My question is therefore:
Would spritestage gain any improvements if my sprites are spread across multiple sheets? According to the documentation only spritesheets with a single image are supported.
Best regards
/Mikkel Rasmussen
In general, spritesheets speed up rendering by decrease the number of draw call required by frame. Instead of say, using a different texture and render for every sprite, spritesheet implementations can draw multiple sprites with one render call, provided that the sprite sheet contains all the different individual sprite images. So to answer your question, you are unlikely to see performance gains if the sprites you want to draw are scattered on different sprite sheets.
Draw calls have significant overhead and it is generally a good idea to minimize them. 1500 individual draw calls would be pretty slow.
I dont know if it this is applicable to your situation but it is possible your bottleneck is not the number of draw calls you dispatch to GPU but you are doing too much overdraw since you mention your sprites are 800x800 each. If that is the case, try to render front to back with the depth test or stencil test turned on.
I understand it's often faster to pre-render graphics to an off-screen canvas. Is this the case for a shape as simple as a circle? Would it make a significant difference for rendering 100 circles at a game-like framerate? 50 circles? 25?
To break this into two slightly different problems, there are two aspects to what you're asking:
1) is drawing a shape off-screen and putting it on-screen faster
2) is drawing a shape one time and copying it to 100 different places faster than drawing a shape 100 times
The answer to the first one is "it depends".
That's a technique known as "buffering" and it's not really about speed.
The goal of buffering an image is to remove jerkiness from it.
If you drew everything on-screen, then as you loop through all of your objects and draw them, they're updating in real-time.
In the NES-days, that was normal, because there wasn't much room in memory, or much power to do anything about it, and because programmers didn't know much better, with the limited instructions they had to work with.
But that's not really the way games do things, these days.
Typically, they call all of the draw updates for one frame, then they take that whole frame as a finished image, and paste that whole thing on the screen.
The GPU (and GL/DirectX) takes care of this, by default, in a process called "double-buffering".
It's a double-buffer, because there's room for the "in-progress" buffer used for the updates, as well as the buffer that holds the final image from the last frame, that's being read by the monitor.
At the end of the frame processing, the buffers will "swap". The newly full frame will be sent to the monitor and the old frame will be overwritten with the new image data from the other draw calls.
Now, in HTML5, there isn't really access to the frame-buffer, so we do it ourselves; make every draw call to an offscreen canvas. When all of the updates are finished (the image is stable), then copy and paste that whole image to the onscreen canvas.
There is a large speed-optimization in here, called "blitting", which basically copies over only the parts that have changed, and reuses the old image.
There's a lot more to it than that, and there are a lot of caveats, these days, because of all of the special-effects we add, but there it is.
The second part of your question has to do with a concept called "instancing".
Instancing is similar to blitting, but while blitting is about only redrawing what's changed, instancing is about drawing the exact same thing several times in different places.
Say you're painting a forest in Photoshop.
You've got two options:
Draw every tree from scratch.
Draw one tree, copy it, paste it all over the image.
The downside of the second one is that each "instance" of the image looks exactly the same.
If your "template" image changes colour or takes damage, then all instances of the image do, too.
Also, if you had 87 different tree variations for an 8000 tree forest, making instances of them all would still be very fast, but it would take more memory, because you now need to save 87x more images than when it was just one tree, to reference on every draw call.
The upside is that it's still much, much faster.
To answer your specific question about X circles, versus instancing 1 circle:
Yes, it's still going to be a lot faster.
What a "lot" means, though, will change based on a lot of different things, because now you're talking about browsers on PCs.
How strong is the PC?
How good is the videocard?
How large is the canvas in software-pixels (not CSS pixels)?
How large are the circles? Do they have alpha-blending?
Is this written in WebGL or software?
If software is the canvas compositing in hardware mode?
For a typical PC, you should still be able to hit 60fps in Chrome, drawing 20 circles, I think (depending on what you're doing to them... ...just drawing them onscreen, every frame is simple), so in this case, the instances are still a "lot" faster, but it's not going to matter, because you've already passed the performance-ceiling of Canvas.
I don't know that the same would be true on phones/tablets, or battery-powered laptops/netbooks, though.
Yes, transferring from an offscreen canvas is faster than even primitive drawings like an arc-circle.
That's because the GPU just copies the pixels from the offscreen canvas (not much CPU effort required)
I'm making a flash game, and I can't decide to use a bigger stage or a smaller one, with scrolling background to make it run smoother. I's going to be some kind of strategy game if it matters.
Thanks
One option is to have a bitmap object the size of your stage for example 800x600, then draw your objects into the bitmapdata of that bitmap using copyPixels this is known as blitting and is pretty fast.
Another option is to just use the flash display list and add every object as sprites onto the stage.
Second method is easier to handle in terms of mouse events and stuff.
My advice is to start with the second option and see if performance is enough, if not go with option 1.
There are many, many variables that determine the performance of your application.
To answer your question, a smaller stage area will make your program run faster. The amount of difference will depend on the way your application deals with display objects. Flash will not render things that are completely outside the stage bounds. So keeping only those objects that are needed at any given time on the stage is a good practice.
using flash player 11's new stage3D features (even for 2D stuff) will likely make your game very smooth. Lots of good frameworks out there that can take care of the low-level stuff if you don't want to get into it. For 2D, starling is very easy to get started with, and seems to be Adobe's favored framework.
At a bare minimum, make sure you use GPU acceleration in your output/compiler options.
There are LOTS of other tips for optimization people could get into, but that is better suited for google searches as Stackoverflow is about specific questions.
I hope this isn't too open ended.
I'm wondering if there is a better (more battery-friendly) way of doing this --
I have a small HTML 5 game, drawn in a canvas (let's say 500x500). I have some objects whose positions I update every 50ms or so. My current implementation re-draws the entire canvas every 50ms. I can't imagine that being very good for battery life on mobile platforms.
Is there a better way to do this? This must be a common pattern with games.
EDIT:
as requested, here are some more updates:
Right now, the objects are geometric primitives drawn via arcs and lines. I'm not opposed to making these small png/jpg/gif files instead of that'd help out. These are small graphics -- just 15x15 or so.
As the game progresses, more and more of the screen changes at a time. However, at the start, the screen changes relatively slowly (the objects randomly moved a few pixels every 50ms).
Nearly every game with continuous animation like this redraws everything every frame; clever updating algorithms are only applicable when a small part of the screen is changing and there is a nice rule to figure out what is overlapping that part.
Here is some general optimization advice:
Make sure that as much as possible of your graphics are handled by the GPU and not the CPU. (This may be impossible if the user's browser does not use the GPU for 2D canvas rendering, but you can expect upgrades may change that as HTML5 gaming gains popularity.)
This means that you should avoid elaborate clever algorithms in favor of doing as little work as possible in JS code — except that avoiding performing a lot of drawing when it is easy to determine that it will be invisible (e.g. outside the bounds of the screen) is generally worthwhile.
If your target platforms support it (generally not the case for current mobile devices), try using WebGL instead of 2D Canvas. You will have to do more detail work, but WebGL allows you to use operations which are much more likely to be provided efficiently by the GPU hardware.
If your game becomes idle — that is, nothing is actually animating at the moment — stop redrawing. Stop your update loop until the user interacts with the game or a timeout occurs.
It may be helpful for you to add to your question details of what types of graphics you are drawing (e.g. are you using sprites, or geometric primitives? Are you drawing images rotated/scaled? Does most of the screen change or just a few small objects? Are you blending many layers?) and perhaps even a screenshot or two; then we can suggest what sort of optimizations are suitable for your particular game.
Don't draw a background, make it an image and set the CSS background-image of the canvas.
Using requestAnimationFrame should help with battery life.
http://paulirish.com/2011/requestanimationframe-for-smart-animating/
Only do a redraw if something has actually changed. If you haven't already, introduce the concept of invalidations. (ie, the canvas is valid so nothing redraws until something moves. Anything moving within the window of the canvas causes the canvas to become invalid, thus needing a redraw)
If you want to be battery friendly you can use Crafty. This game engine is using modern CSS3 technology so it doesn't need to update a canvas all the time. Look at this example game here.
The way you don't want to redraw entire canvas every frame, it only can be the "Dirty-Check" or "Dirty Matrix" algorithms.
Dirty-check seems more efficient than entire redraw. but I think it depends on your render implementation.
it is not necessary to use it if you are using canvas2D to render. Nearly every game has complex sprites and animation. if you use dirty-check, when a part of sprite or background map need to update, you have to figure out what is overlapping this part. and then clearRect this small area of canvas, and then redraw every sprite or map. etc, what is overlapping.
It means your had to run canvas render api more times than normal render implementation because of the overlapping part. And Canvas2d render performance usually does't sounds efficient.
But if you use WebGL, that maybe quite difference. even though I am not family with WebGL, I do knew that maybe more efficient. Dirty-Check should be a good Choice to match your propose.
I hope my English is good enough.
The Problem:
I am developing some canvas game, using context2d. I did a perfomance test to see how well canvas render and stuff.
For painting, the method drawImage was used with some 50x50 jpg preloaded in memory at start.
My test was to instantiate a lot of logic square 50x50 objects moving random in the canvas
with no collission just to see the fps.
main loop was done with interval.
The problem, i noticed low fps when about 3000 random 50x50 on the screen, well i know the more you render, the less framerate. But i wanna ask something.
The question:
Is a good idea render every logic object in the canvas screen alone?
For example, with no collision, if i overlap two 50x50 in the same position, or almost the same position, the visible output is something lesser than (50·50)2 pixels, but i am drawing (50·50)2 pixels using drawimage for each element in the main loop.
Hope you guys understand the problem and the question.
Render alternatives? some logic techniques to archieve this instead of rendering every object alone?
I understand what you are asking, you are asking maybe you should try and rendering the collisions so you don't have to draw twice. Well frankly, I think you'd be better off just drawing the second square on top of the first one, and I'll tell you why:
Your logic will probably take more actions to determine the amount of overlapping and drawing the more complex shape, then actually drawing it.
So in my opinion, you'd be better off not testing for collisions in this one.
People, correct me if I'm wrong.
Definitely just draw. The bitblt (pixel copy) is optimized and will certainly be faster than collision logic between sprites. However, the one exception is possibly testing for off-screen sprites. This is a fast test because you're only checking against the screen bounds, that is, if a sprite is off the screen. If you have 10,000+ sprites, and many are off-screen most of the time - for example when zoomed in - then the test is worth it.. If they're always on screen, then just draw.