Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

 
Advanced search

1411281 Posts in 69324 Topics- by 58380 Members - Latest Member: bob1029

March 28, 2024, 08:43:29 PM

Need hosting? Check out Digital Ocean
(more details in this thread)
TIGSource ForumsDeveloperTechnical (Moderator: ThemsAllTook)Construct 2 vs Game Maker vs Game Salad vs Stencyl
Pages: 1 [2]
Print
Author Topic: Construct 2 vs Game Maker vs Game Salad vs Stencyl  (Read 19787 times)
jotapeh
Level 10
*****


View Profile
« Reply #20 on: November 24, 2011, 08:18:49 AM »

OK having seen the source code for the performance test and running it myself, it does seem fair for what it's meant to do, which is draw a lot of semi-transparent blue squares all over the stage.

So if you're writing a game with a lot of translucent sprites which need to be made translucent on the fly and not have the alpha already adjusted in a source image, this is definitely a considerable performance benchmark.

Mostly relevant to games which use particle systems, water effects and such other graphical eye candy, I think - which is definitely something fun for artists to play with.

Quote
If WebGL doesn't render properly, it might be a driver issue which wouldn't be our fault but the graphics vendors fault (are you using the latest drivers?)

Yes, I am - but it doesn't work.. and even if this did solve my issue, I can't really ask the person playing my casual web game made in Construct or Stencyl or GameSalad to download the latest drivers. It's a casual web game so they'll just move along to the next one that works properly.

To describe the problem (in case you're interested in checking it out and maybe trying to fix it) it has an extremely high framerate and tens of thousands of objects without ever slowing down, but the actual display of blue squares is only updated once every 2-3 seconds in 'hiccups'.

It happens on both my Macs - desktop and macbook pro - in the latest Chrome, so I'm pretty sure you can reproduce this without much trouble if you check it out on a friend's Mac maybe?
Logged
Desert Dog
Level 4
****



View Profile
« Reply #21 on: November 24, 2011, 01:21:45 PM »

Quote
OK having seen the source code for the performance test and running it myself, it does seem fair for what it's meant to do, which is draw a lot of semi-transparent blue squares all over the stage.

So if you're writing a game with a lot of translucent sprites which need to be made translucent on the fly and not have the alpha already adjusted in a source image, this is definitely a considerable performance benchmark.

Mostly relevant to games which use particle systems, water effects and such other graphical eye candy, I think - which is definitely something fun for artists to play with.

If that was the case, then they chose the worst possible way to do it in GM. Meaning the test wouldn't be fair at all.

In Ashley's words:
Quote
The test isn't simulating some particle effect, it's trying to simulate a really big game.

But it didn't do this, either. all it proved is that an empty Construct 'object/sprite' is lighter than an empty GM object. These are similar, but NOT equivalent things. That's a pretty moot point when it comes to actual game logic, and collisions, etc etc etc. The apparent 'heavy' ness of the GM object compared to the C2 sprite is more than made up with then.

So it does prove something, but in the end, it's apples&oranges. Others call it a meangingless test, I wouldn't necessarily go that far, but it certainly the impression that C2 is way faster than it's competitors is completely inaccurate.

The Scirra team are out to prove their the fastest. The only way they can really conclusively do that is by creating some amazing tech demo's that blow their opposition away. They have some nice stuff, but so far, it's only on par with GM-html5 'at best'.

*doesn't know anything about stencyl, gamesalad, etc, so no comment there*
Logged

jotapeh
Level 10
*****


View Profile
« Reply #22 on: November 24, 2011, 01:39:31 PM »

Yeah, I don't think that's a fair description of the test (at least the Stencyl version.)

They've got Stencyl drawing the sprite at 0.2 percent opacity every frame, when it would probably be much better to simply have a sprite with 20% opacity. It's cool to show the speed of your engine drawing at dynamic opacities, but not a typical game engine thing to do, except with particles or other effects.
Logged
jack_dracon
Level 0
**

Huurayyy!!!


View Profile WWW
« Reply #23 on: November 24, 2011, 04:13:49 PM »

I have a little simple question, the Construct 2 has the better performance on Google Chrome, but doesn't in other browser?
That is my conclusion from the replies.(Am I wrong?)
Until now, any software what is using WebGL is only working fine on Chrome.
So Construct (what I know as a good tool because a friend of mine is using for a game - Talbot - and recommended a lot, isn't the new Construct) team is focusing on the future of maintain of the tool, or was a choice for a better performance?
Because, this tools doesn't have a roadmap for future updates, and that makes me curious about this vision from the team behind these tools, what they want for the future of the tools? Am I wrong to quest this info?
Nice day! =D
Logged

Hummm...
Trevor Dunbar
Level 10
*****


Working on unannouned fighting game.


View Profile
« Reply #24 on: November 25, 2011, 05:03:50 AM »

Is there any update on fixing the broke-ness of sound in HTML 5?
Logged

Toucantastic.
Pages: 1 [2]
Print
Jump to:  

Theme orange-lt created by panic