Ashley's Forum Posts

  • Thanks for looking in to the issues IntelTyler and team!

    I'd remind everyone that to test Crosswalk you must use the 'Crosswalk for Android' build option, and download and install the APK. Any other preview, test or build options do not currently use Crosswalk, as far as I am aware.

    For testing, the easiest thing to do is just run the game in Chrome for Android using preview-over-wifi! It should run very close to what you get in Crosswalk. As far as I'm aware there are two differences though:

    • Crosswalk can enable WebGL even when Chrome for Android doesn't enable it
    • Crosswalk can play music at any time, whereas Chrome will queue up music playback to start at the next touch.

    The music thing is pretty minor, but the WebGL difference can be pretty significant, and we might be making more changes in future (such as handling the back button and IAP). We might be able to publish a test app ourselves, since it just needs to be a Crosswalk app that can load the preview-over-Wifi URL. I'll have a look in to that.

  • If you're seeing reduced performance, how does it run in Chrome for Android? That should produce similar results. If you've never optimised your game for mobile before and you're just trying it out on Android for the first time with Crosswalk, it's also possible your game is taking advantage of the fact desktop PCs are 10x faster or more. You should test games on mobile from the start and it's not really Crosswalk's fault if you haven't done that so far.

    Text objects changing every tick can be pretty slow so try hiding them if you have that. Ize, I noticed you had some debug text that looks like it changes every tick, that's definitely going to kill performance.

  • Crosswalk should have great memory management and fast startup times. I'd highly recommend switching to that for Android.

  • Have you tried r155? We already made a fix aimed at this.

  • It asks Windows to compress the PNG, and it doesn't do the best job. But it doesn't matter because it runs all the PNGs through much better tools on export. The 'Approx download' field is not reliable, it's just a ballpark guess, since it can't anticipate what the export-time compression will result in. If you want to know an accurate figure, export the project!

  • Can't reproduce, added warp effect and it looks fine. Please add specific reproduction steps or a .capx which reproduces the problem when run, and check your graphics card drivers are up to date.

  • Which version of IE are you using? IE10+ supports CORS via the ordinary XMLHttpRequest. I think only IE9 stands to benefit from XDomainRequest (HTML5 games don't run at all in IE8 or earlier). IE9's usage share is pretty low so I'd prefer not to make non-standard hacks to fix a browser which is on the way out.

  • Try Construct 3

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

    Try Now Construct 3 users don't see these ads

  • When you import images it convers to PNG-32 to guarantee that editing is lossless. There is no point trying to replace the files in the project yourself - it will recompress everything upon export and get much smaller file sizes. Try exporting with image recompression enabled and it should be as small again - if not, even smaller.

  • This is always a graphics card driver crash, not a Construct 2 crash. Perhaps the latest drivers for your card are still broken. You should report it to nVidia.

  • Closing, please follow the bug report guidelines. You have not provided enough information for us to be able to do anything.

  • For efficiency the engine does not hold on to layer render targets after the layer has finished rendering - it then copies it directly to the destination and subsequent layers are rendered either directly to the destination or on to the same single layer render target. That means you can't currently have a sampler for each layer. It would require engine-level changes to make this possible, and we don't really want to do that since it could seriously degrade performance on mobile.

  • sasivarnan - what version of Windows are you using and what kind of graphics card do you have?

  • Baffling and disappointing. There is nothing specific about our engine about memory management. It's just about how they load ordinary Javascript Image objects, which they currently do incredibly inefficiently, and if they did it like a real browser it would be fine. I am at a loss as to why they are so insistent about this.

  • Isn't supporting a range of resolutions with the same aspect ratio just the same as "letterbox scale" mode?

  • That's not to do with this topic. It's just Apple's 'home screen' browser engine is slower than Safari.