Jump to content

yourdevalongtheriverup

Members
  • Content Count

    3
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About yourdevalongtheriverup

  • Rank
    Newbie
  1. Thank you for the answer, that explains why "obsolete" was there - might "superfluous" instead of "obsolete" be a more accurate word in that context? The extra flexibility that it sounds like `@pixi/layers` gives you sounds very nice, though I will have to look into it more to understand it better.
  2. Thank you very much for the detailed answer, and for the example, I have spent some time looking at it. I think I will have to roll my own "scene-like" abstraction for Pixi.js, which is OK. Some more assistance reg. resource management would not be bad, but I would guess/hope that it would not be too difficult to roll some primitive resource handling classes oneself, at least for basic needs. Pixi.js may be a little bit more "lower-level" than what I would have liked, but I think it fits my project well - for instance, I have my own non-engine physics/collision handling, so lack of physic
  3. I am currently in the process of moving a hobby project from Phaser 3 to Pixi.js (while also attempting to abstract the specific graphics engine/library away). I have only looked very briefly at Pixi.js, but from what I can tell, given the way my project is structured, it seems likely that the move should not be hard (and I can always back out or try another approach if it turns out to be hard). The main doubt I have is reg. the Phaser.Scene abstraction - I haven't quite seen anything in Pixi.js that seems equivalent to it. I could roll my own if needed, but I would like to use any existing ab
×
×
  • Create New...