I need your help to figure out Airscape's performance issues

0 favourites
From the Asset Store
Game with complete Source-Code (Construct 3 / .c3p) + HTML5 Exported.
  • Colludium Yes, it's definitely one of the major issues of a back-to-front renderer. However let's keep the perspective that performance is sometimes waaaaaay below where it should be for a specific GPU (Intel igpu's being the main culprit here). I've contacted Intel about it so hopefully we can come up with a solution, or at least a direction to go, from that end.

  • Fingers crossed,

  • Check this out..... Good news, I hope!!!!

  • Colludium Hey, that's pretty cool! I don't get why Chrome would still be super janky while NW is good, but I'll take it :S Thanks a lot for testing btw!

    I was getting a black screen exporting with the 12.0 alpha builds. Hopefully they fixed that issue :/

  • Running the demo link in a v12 blank nw.js browser was very good on my system. Some others have had mixed results with their games on it though...

  • Try Construct 3

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

    Try Now Construct 3 users don't see these ads
  • sqiddster - I've tested the demo:

    Chrome 41 Beta - about 30-42 FPS

    IE 11 - about 20-30 FPS

    NW.js - about 20-50 FPS

  • I think I remember something that might explain why it is impossible to switch at runtime between canvas2d and webGL renderers (I think it was asked before in the topic):

    IIRC C2 cannot do a proper memory management without webGL being active (on canvas2d, I think it has to have every single texture in memory at any given time, or perhaps it can never unload them from memory, I do not remember exactly, I think the first one is correct, the second one was IIRC a specific ejecta hack). This is also why canvas2D is not an option to consider (well, one of the many reasons).

  • Here's an interesting benchmark - looking at Flash vs. webGL.

    (Let's ignore the fact the article itself is two years old and as such is totally wrong about the state of webGL today)

    My testing (on an Intel integrated graphics machine) puts the webGL benchmark at around 10 fps. The flash demo is a solid 60fps.

    Hmm, maybe Flash is the future, after all, eh?

    What I really find remarkable is that nobody working with webGL has noticed this issue, in the 4 or so years it's been out. Like, do developers not test on integrated graphics systems? Or maybe this is just a recent development? Or by some bizarre coincidence, do all 6 of the machines I've tested, as well as additional machines by helpful forum members, have the same unique problem, and on other iGPU machines it works fine?

    None of those options seem plausible to me. This issue is seriously weirding me out. Ashley I'd love it if you could do some testing on your end.

  • Very few developers test with Intel iGPU in mind.

    Lets hope your report to Intel is looked into seriously and a driver update can resolve it.

  • I find that hard to believe, especially for 2D games. Every 2D game I've played works wonderfully on the iGPU. I don't think that's an accident. 20% of Steam users is not a small number.

  • To be perfectly honestly, intel gpus, while vastly better than the iGPU's of old, still suck.

    I did a little googling, and it seems that intel iGPU's generally fall behind on performance and stability with OpenGL, which is the basis of webGL.

    The solution is...there is no immediate solution. It's not just you.

    On a personal note, ATM I'm looking into getting a GPU for my system because I've been having a host of display problems with my intel HD4000, including in Krita, the C2 IDE, and in my VM linux machine hosted on the same system. All are minor, but annoying, and I'm pretty sure they are all related to the shortcoming of my intel graphics driver, which is unlikely to get many (any?) more updates.

  • I just tested the Airscape demo 1080p res, with my laptop.


    -Intel i7 4710HQ 2.5Ghz - Turbo 3.5Ghz

    -16gb RAM

    -Maxwell variant of GTX 860M 4gb VRAM

    I did not notice any jank, the game ran a smooth 60fps for me, no frame drops or anything. Not too sure how many tests others have done with Nvidia GPU's, I seen a lot of AMD cards, so I figured I would put mine out there.

    Used version 41.0.2272.76 m of Chrome

  • TiAm 'suck' is relative. They won't be as good as a dedicated GPU, but they should certainly be better than a 2 year old Android tablet GPU...

    GameThirsty those are pretty much the specs of my laptop. It runs well on mine when the card is enabled. Was it enabled for you by default or did you have to play around with the NVIDIA settings?

    On a separate note from the Intel issue, I would really like to hear from anyone who's noticed bad performance on a decent/good setup (i.e. with a recent discrete GPU). This might point towards another problem.

  • sqiddster

    I have it so my dedicated GPU will run by default. I rarely use my Intel HD 4600 on board graphics.

  • I get about 32-36 FPS on my work computer. In standard browser view at whatever settings it was at default.

    In fullscreen at 640x360, I get 42-55 FPS.

    In fullscreen with resolution auto, I get around 20 FPS.

    Chrome 40.0.2214.115 m

    OS: Windows 8

    Res: 1920x1080

    CPU: Intel i3 4010u, 1.7ghz

    GPU: Intel HD Graphics 4400

    RAM: 4gb

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