Should we merge Pixi v4 with Phaser?

[tsphillips]

My preference is for option 2 -- merge Pixi v4+ into Phaser (which I presume still would be called Lazer).

Some reasons I feel this way:

• If the rendering code is shared with the latest version of Pixi, then more eyes will be on that code, increasing reliability in the long run.
• New features and performance enhancements that come from Pixi will have a clear path into Lazer.
• The effort put into Lazer can be focused on game engine features.
• The user base for Lazer potentially would be greater if there was an easy path in for folks with knowledge of Pixi.

Tom

 

[rich]

If we merge Pixi 4 with Phaser it will still just be called Phaser. Lazer is a different thing entirely and there will be no polluting it with anything outside our direct control.

[Warspawn]

I think *you* should focus on Lazer. An option that might be worth exploring is a kickstarter or other crowdfunding operation to hire somebody to integrate Pixi v4 for you, so that both can happen.

[tips4design]

I also think that focusing on Lazer is the way to go. I think the amount of work required to switch to Pixi v4 is too much for the benefits. You should really try to get some help with Lazer so it will come out faster, at least in an "alpha" version where the community can start helping.

if you think that you will keep developing and supporting Phaser 3, even after you release Lazer, than porbably at some point you will still have to switch to Pixi v4 to get rid of all the existent bugs and benefit from the newly introduced features. The state of Phaser after Lazer is released is not very clear for me, but again, if you want to keep supporting it you might actually be forced at some point to switch to Pixi v4.

[tsphillips]

If the Pixi v4 merge would only affect Phaser 2.x, then I change my preference.  Don't bother with a merge and focus on the new Lazer framework.

Tom

 

[weedshaker]

@rich I have been developing on our game for over a year and always kept up to date with the newest versions. Although, a major api change couldn't easily be digested and for that we wouldn't move to a potential Phaser 3 with Pixi 4 anyways. I guess that this applies for most developers. Ether they are too far in their project to make major changes, port to new api versions, or they are at the start and should consider Lazer once it gets ready.

Bottom line: Lets fix as many issues as possible on Phaser 2.4.x and make it an LTS till Lazer starts blazzn' and then we can jump on the new horse. Also, this will rather speed up Lazer and I am very looking forward to see more there, I certainly like what I have been seeing so far! Great work!

[ivan.popelyshev]

As one of pixiv4 dev I can promise you:

1. 2.5D transforms: Dont starve, Rayman Legends.
2. 3D models in 2.5D world
3. Better integration with Spine, FFDs on GPU
4. very fast tilemaps, both square and isometry. Rpgmaker MV will use them soon.
5. z-layer, z-index
6. portals, cycled maps
7. better support for 8-directional sprites and any rpgmaker-like skins
8. texture rotations: you wont have to specify scale.X=-1 to flip stuff

All that things I need for my games, its a bonus to v4 architectural improvements 

[rich]

Lots of WebGL only features there

[ivan.popelyshev]

 

36 minutes ago, rich said:

Lots of WebGL only features there

only 1,2,3. I actually care about Canvas  And I forgot to mention z-layer

[rich]

To be honest the issue isn't what features Pixi 4 has, it's just if it's worth spending any time merging it with Phaser, which is already very close to LTS anyway.

The overwhelming consensus is 'no', which surprised me a bit, but I can understand why. Phaser is in a nice solid place, and Pixi 4 would rock the boat massively, taking up a lot of my time and resources to deal with. Realistically you're months away from a stable release (I thought it was closer than it actually was when originally writing this post), and by that time I just can't see Phaser being updated again.

I really like the look of what Mat is doing with gl-core though, so that is well worth exploring for Lazer - although being ES5 is a big issue sadly.

[freehuntx]

Wouldn't it be possible to write an pixi.js wrapper and make phaser use this instead of combining both?

So you load the pixi library you want, instead of make phaser provide it.

I dont like the idea of taking another library and including its source and semi patch stuff.

This way you are always bound to exactly this version.

If the user can choose its pixi version, it would be more nice

[rich]

Given how many things break / change between API versions, this is extremely unsafe to do, and is the single main reason we've never done it.

Just putting Pixi 3 inside Phaser 2 has proved to be quite a task because of all the API changes, and Pixi 4 will change it all again.

As nice an idea as it sounds, it sadly doesn't work in practise.

[JimZeeKing]

On 05/02/2016 at 11:50 AM, rich said:

It's interesting because for all the "it's slow" comments (and I do see them) no-one is yet to provide me with a proper solid test case I could actually debug.

The way Phaser renders things hasn't changed for ages now, and the internal Pixi code hasn't changed either.

Most of the comments I see are all to do with Tilemaps, which have always been a point of contention - devs seem to kick Phaser into WebGL mode, render a tilemap and then wonder why it scrolls slowly on mobile. It's bound to. Perhaps part of the issue here is that with more mobiles making WebGL enabled, we're seeing where it falls over more, as before it used to just use canvas anyway.

Who knows.. it's all a bit of guess work really, although well educated guess work.

Putting Pixi 4 in isn't likely to solve any of the issues re: Tilemaps. It will solve Graphics issues, mask issues and provide a speed-increase with its multi-texture support. But it will do so at a significant time cost, and we'd be back on the 'final frontier' again dealing with a brand new build of Pixi. Which is both exciting and worrying in quite equal measure. It'd be a change so big I couldn't even call it Phaser 2.4.x

Sorry to wake this thread, but i may have i test case where i can see a real difference between a simple pixijs v3 test and phaser 2.6 port of the same test. I get 58-60 fps on mobile (iphone 5) on pixi, but about 17fps with Phaser. I made a post about it today : http://www.html5gamedevs.com/topic/24655-comparing-phaser-fps-with-pixi-fps-i-hit-a-wall/

Maybe it can be of some use for you.

 

Cheers, and thanks for your work!

[DAG]

PIXI v4 has a better performance on iOS. 
And improved for mobile devices.

[mattstyles]

6 minutes ago, DAG said:

PIXI v4 has a better performance on iOS. 
And improved for mobile devices.

@DAG did you read through the thread? (dont take this as aggressive, its not). I don't think anyone disagrees with the idea its just harder to implement than it is to put forward as an idea.

Phaser is open-source though, I'd have thought that a pull request with the relevant changes that pass all the tests would be most welcome. It's just that no-one has made a PR yet for Pixi v3 or v4 inclusion.