Construct 2 Comparison to Other Engines (Video)

  • Have you guys seen

    Subscribe to Construct videos now

    ? Yipes!

  • I love it when someone balks at a non scripting environment, and then uses a physics engine exclusively.

    Anyway, yeah mobile physics suck on C2.

    Could they have picked a less cpu expensive method to test?

    Nope.

  • yep, saw this video a few months ago. Wasn't a very good test.

    1. As newt points out. The physics test is horrible. However this is a result of javascript problem. This would be fine if the game testing was about physics test. But it's not. It's about rendering performance.

    2. Rendering performance. C2 would still end up at the lower due to lack of effective browser acceleration on the test machine.

    Unfortunately we maybe able to export to IOS and Android C2 does not push a fully encapsulated game on the those target OS. So odds are performance will only at best be comparable to a native app. If we are using CJS.

    Though it still points out an important factor. C2 really isn't the best solution for IOS/Android. It has acceptable results when using CJS.

    If these tests were on desktop machine the performance would be comparable. However they seemed to designed to single out a particular engine to be on top.

  • Try Construct 3

    Develop games in your browser. Powerful, performant & highly capable.

    Try Now Construct 3 users don't see these ads
  • Thanks for the feedback!

    So, basically, this test is relevant only if targeting mobile platforms with physics, in which case, C2 is probably not your go-to development platform anyway...?

  • Yeah, the video is exclusively a test of physics performance, rather than the general aspects of the tool. Admittedly the performance of a physics engine in Javascript is a weak point. FWIW, we've been experimenting with using the native physics engine integrated in to CocoonJS, which could speed it up a great deal on there. They used that on the video so it would help their test, but browsers would still be slow.

    I've actually experimented a little with using an asm.js build of Box2D. On Firefox it's way faster - literally 2-4x faster. However the asm.js code was slower on Internet Explorer and a few mobile devices I tried, presumably because they don't actually support asm.js so the overhead increases even more. If lots of mobile devices supported asm.js, I'm sure we could even make physics in the browser really fast.

  • How did they get such superior physics performance on the used platform (it was an Android tablet, IIRC)? It would seem you guys could do the same thing, unless they're compiling to native code.

  • They are compiling to native code, that's why it's so much faster. As mentioned though, scirra and cocoonjs are working on acceleration of physics, and a demo of cocoonjs' implementation comes with the free cocoonjs launcher app that gets 300 objects at 50-60 fps on my ipad 3.

  • Ahhh! I didn't know they were compiling to native. Thanks, Arima, for the info.

Jump to:
Active Users
There are 1 visitors browsing this topic (0 users and 1 guests)