jessepmason Posted December 21, 2015 Share Posted December 21, 2015 i get about 50 - 56 fps on my Galaxy s6 chromeand the canvas size seems to be fixed, I don't get the cropped view with the scroll bar anymore which is good! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jerome Posted December 21, 2015 Share Posted December 21, 2015 If you want to display the fps meter in chrome at will without changing the flags, just do this :open the dev tools consolethen in the Console bottom part, there are 3 tabs : console, emulation, renderingclick Renderingcheck Show FPS meter the fps meter will be displayed only with this console, not permanently jessepmason 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mightymarcus Posted December 21, 2015 Share Posted December 21, 2015 Hi. Now there's only 1 material and I removed the hemisphere-light, bjs canvas is resized to fit screen. Now there are 1000 rotating boxes. Bjs: 5 fps Threejs: 25 fps. Bjs with instances instead of clones: 20 fps. Three js with own geometry for each box and Bjs new Mesh instead of clones: (should be an identical scene then) Bjs: 5 fps Threejs: 25 fps. <--- not true, it's 15 fps I don't know if this "benchmark" is meaningful at all. But for me it seems that in Bjs there's a litte CPU overhead? I would have no problems with the performance of Bjs, but I want to do a really minimalistic game and for that I don't need much of the features, so I tried to do the same I did with Bjs with pure WebGL, and that was much faster. Then I tested out three.js and it performs near as well as pure WebGL. UPDATE: I made some errors. First, 25 fps are 15 fps. And I had a typo with checkOnlyOnce is checkReadyOnlyOnce. Now I get bjs 9 fps and three.js 15 fps. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jerome Posted December 21, 2015 Share Posted December 21, 2015 the twitter guy updated the two initial links and added a FPS meterNow there are 1000 boxes, one material. The 3js version is faster on my old laptop than the bjs one (25 fps / 55 fps) I'm not sure that the canvas size (what has a real big impact on the render performance) is really the same currently in the two (bjs / 3js) demos Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jerome Posted December 21, 2015 Share Posted December 21, 2015 I just did a PG with his code copied/pasted : http://www.babylonjs-playground.com/#1QJFHY runs at 15 fps only on my old laptop Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GameMonetize Posted December 21, 2015 Author Share Posted December 21, 2015 hey marcus, thanks for this!There is a typo: Can you please rename checkOnlyOnce by checkReadyOnlyOnce? (and can you reference directly http://www.babylonjs.com/babylon.max.js ?) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GameMonetize Posted December 21, 2015 Author Share Posted December 21, 2015 To make it simpler to understand, I will add a mat.freeze() function Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jerome Posted December 21, 2015 Share Posted December 21, 2015 http://www.babylonjs-playground.com/#1QJFHY#1 checkReadyOnlyOnce = true; Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GameMonetize Posted December 21, 2015 Author Share Posted December 21, 2015 And here is the fixed PG: http://www.babylonjs-playground.com/#1QJFHY#2 Lol Jerome was faster than me Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GameMonetize Posted December 21, 2015 Author Share Posted December 21, 2015 And which FPS now Jerome? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jerome Posted December 21, 2015 Share Posted December 21, 2015 30 fps on my old laptop it is to say twice faster than before ! but compared to this : http://worldsnews.org/webgltests/three/ 55 fps 3js still faster on this very demo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GameMonetize Posted December 21, 2015 Author Share Posted December 21, 2015 And what about this one:http://www.catuhe.com/trash/perf.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jessepmason Posted December 21, 2015 Share Posted December 21, 2015 Comparing those Two ^^BJS 16fps3JS 28fps galaxy s6 - chrome Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GameMonetize Posted December 21, 2015 Author Share Posted December 21, 2015 DId you use my version ? http://www.catuhe.com/trash/perf.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jerome Posted December 21, 2015 Share Posted December 21, 2015 @DK : 48 fps on my old laptop vs 55 fps for the 3js one arrgg... near Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GameMonetize Posted December 21, 2015 Author Share Posted December 21, 2015 @JErome: can you check with a profiler where we spend time? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jessepmason Posted December 21, 2015 Share Posted December 21, 2015 DId you use my version ? http://www.catuhe.com/trash/perf.htmlyes 16fpshttp://www.catuhe.com/trash/perf.html 28fpshttp://worldsnews.org/webgltests/three/ galaxy s6 - chrome Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GameMonetize Posted December 21, 2015 Author Share Posted December 21, 2015 Rats!!! jessepmason 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jerome Posted December 21, 2015 Share Posted December 21, 2015 Ok, I'll run the profiler and let you know else, the SPS can rescue us : http://www.babylonjs-playground.com/#1QJFHY#4 60 fps on my old laptop I can even reach 1700 boxes at 60 fps Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reddozen Posted December 21, 2015 Share Posted December 21, 2015 BTW guys, I've found that FireFox android is faster than chrome. To profile FireFox mobile you have to Bluetooth / USB to your PC then you can profile it on your PC. I had to do that for a site I built recently to see why it wasn't working right on FireFox. I'll test it on FireFox mobile later if someone doesn't beat me to it, but it's worth looking there too. EDIT:Maybe this is a moot point since DK found another problem... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jerome Posted December 21, 2015 Share Posted December 21, 2015 48 fps without specular ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GameMonetize Posted December 21, 2015 Author Share Posted December 21, 2015 Actually there is specular on both but not same color, so I fixed it Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jerome Posted December 21, 2015 Share Posted December 21, 2015 Ok 50 fps nowI run the profiler on it Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jerome Posted December 21, 2015 Share Posted December 21, 2015 When I unfold some consuming method calls, I just can notice that render is always the final call that consumes quite all the part of each call. In brief, with this profile, I can just notice that render is the most consuming call in every case. This has been monitored for about 18 s Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GameMonetize Posted December 21, 2015 Author Share Posted December 21, 2015 Yes which is obvious Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.