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
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
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.
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.
- Chrome (and NW 10.5): (YES)
- FireFox: (YES)
- Internet Explorer: (YES)
Operating System and Service Pack
Construct 2 Version ID
r195 (64 bit) and r196 (64 bit)