next »

[Sam]

Thank you for even more responses!  The Mac Mini at 45fps is a very nice result.  15fps on a single core is kind of painful though, and I guess goes to show how much it benefits from multiple cores.  When this is eventually a game (long time yet, I'm mostly working on an unrelated collaboration thing) I think it'll need an option to turn off the fancy lighting for single-core people.

I'm not managing to recreate the crash, which is annoying.  Can't get it to crash in any browser using Flash Player 10.0.45.2 under Windows 7.  I wonder if it's a version issue as well.

I have just broken up the texture generating process so that it'll not lock up the player.  Hopefully that was the cause of the crash and is now fixed.  Hopefully.  If anyone who has experienced a crash could try this demo too - that uses similar shader stuff, but is less intensive and doesn't have the slow preprocessing segment.

I've also made the enemies pre-render their graphics, which should go a long way to fixing the slowdown when there's many enemies.

The start screen now has a "v 0.2" above "Click to Start"

[Hima]

It runs fine here at the avg fps of 55.6 here. It's mostly 60 fps all the time though. I'm on Windows 7,Firefox 3.6 and my flash player version is 10.0.42.34.


I love the lighting effect. It is stunningly beautiful

[DYRE]

58 FPS average with 20-30 enemies while shooting stuff.

Flash Player 10.0.45.2
Windows 7
Firefox 3.6.2
Intel Core i3 530 Dual Core @ 2.93 GHz

[jotapeh]

Usually 60FPS, but I did manage to get it to chunk down to 30FPS when the enemies got stuck on a little tiny bit of wall.

dual 2.8ghz intel core2duo

[joesiv]

Wow fantastic, thank you for so many responses already!

joesiv, I'm very sorry for the crash
Did that happen as soon as you clicked to start, before any graphics were rendered?  If so that's likely due to the wildly inefficient way the rock texture is being generated, which tends to make the Flash plugin - and some browsers - unresponsive whilst it happens.  I'll try to fix that up.

It first hung before graphics were rendered, then the browser would close.  Tried it again today, and it just locked up my browser for several minutes before I gave up. 

It's funny becuase a coworker here tried it on his config which is very similar and it ran fine (quad core 59/60 fps btw).  hmmm

Also the photograph demo worked fine on my browser.

[Sam]

Hrm, that's very odd.

Thank you very much for trying it again though.

[agj]

Holy crap, this is like a Flash miracle. I get a surprising 30 fps. I'm on a laptop with a 1.83 GHz Core2 processor and an nVidia GeForce Go 7400 video card, running Windows XP. Played on Google Chrome.

[Loren Schmidt]

I'm getting around 30 fps when flying around, a bit lower with a few enemies and more projectiles on screen. I'm running an older single core Athlon 3000, 1 GB RAM.

This is neat stuff- I could totally see this sort of lighting being gorgeous applied to tiled, hand-pixelled environments.

[raiten]

Looks awesome, I tried it twice, got around 45fps average first time, 30fps second time (could have a little to do which programs I were running at the time). Oh yeah spawned more enemies second time too.

AMD Turion X2 Dual-Core Mobile RM-70 2.00 Ghz
3 GB ram

Seriously, you should just add a few enemies, a high score mode and then just sell this to some sponsor for $2-3K, and then label the actual game you wanted to make a sequel.

[starsrift]

Wow, whew. Unlike many of the power machines posted here, I'm just running on an older laptop with a gig of ram and dual-core 1.7GHZ CPU. Loaded it up in Firefox(Vista) and I couldn't get it below 45 FPS, even with holding the spawn and shoot buttons down and moving around like a crazy ...glowy thing. Methinks you have nothing to worry 'bout.

[Sos]

Core2Quad @ 2.6G
60fps with around hundred enemies onscreen.

[William Broom]

3ghz, Chrome, 1gb RAM. Average 21 fps. Seems slower than what I should be getting based on other people's results, I wonder why?

Still playable though, and it looks really promising.

[Randomasta]

Core2Duo @2.16 GHz, 2 GB RAM, XP SP3, latest firefox+flash
Average of 16 fps, regardless of how many enemies I spawn

[mike]

Average: 60fps
CPU: Core i5-750 (2.66GHz x4 core)
RAM: 8GB
OS: Win7
Browser: Chrome (v4.1.249.1045)
Flash: 10.0.45.2

Nice tech demo. Don't know how useful my stats will be for you though. ;-)

[Sam]

The results so far.

Within each number of cores category, the points are arranged from lowest to highest clock speed.  Of course there's a lot more to CPU performance than core number and clock speed, but I'm not putting all that on a graph.

Red marks are Linux, light blue Mac OS, dark blue are the various forms of Windows (and anyone that didn't state OS)

Those two low outliers in Dual Core are mjau (which I'm putting down to the unfathomable mysteries of Flash on Linux) and Randomasta (which I don't have a good explanation for at all.)

Again thank you for the delicious data, and thank you for saying nice things about the lighting effect too!

[Randomasta]

Ugh, sorry about that last test. I thought that having 6 other tabs opened won't affect the performance very much. Now with only 2 other tabs open, it runs at 38 fps, down to 34 with thousands of enemies. Lookng forward the game 

[PsySal]

First: Awesome.

Something strange with this, the first time I tried this it worked fine. I don't remember how many FPS but it was certainly playable (I'm using single core Sempron 3000+ or something close, flash player 10, linux)

However, now every time I try to play this it closes the browser! It basically gets to where it's on LOADIN' for a few seconds, and then everything just closes.

Stwaaange! I wonder if flash has cached something that when it loads causes crashing? Sorry I can't be more help, is there some other test I can do for you?

[AndyWiltshireBPA]

60fps
Intel Core 2 Duo @ 2Ghz
4Gb Ram
Windows 7 32-bit
Firefox 3.6.3
Flash Player 10,0,45,2

I was surprised that I could spawn as many enemies as I want and it only dropped to 59fps...

[Triplefox]

EEE 900: Celeron M, 900 MHz, 2GB RAM, Windows 7, Firefox 3.6.3, Flash player 10,0,45,2

17 fps avg, 16 /w lots of enemies, min 14 if I hammer it with shooting action. Took probably 10-14 seconds to load. I cannot fit the entire game onscreen even after making the browser go fullscreen, because you gave it a huge vertical res. A lot of Flash games perform about as well on this computer, simply because they're disgustingly unoptimized. I went out of my way to optimize Deep Sea Descent for this box, and it manages to hover in the 30-45FPS range most of the time(I cap at 45; I used per-frame timing, which I'm regretting a bit) - but it chokes up anyway when I draw huge sprites.

Anyway, it looks really awesome. I'd still hesitate a bit on using this in a finished game - consider that there's going to be more collision tests, AI, particles, sound, HUD elements, and a bunch of stupid cpu-drainer ads running in the background. Also consider that your target audience is a larger audience than TIGS and will probably have more single-core users. I wasn't even sure whether to do the simple static lights in DSD, because they made for long loading times on this machine, while being nearly instant on recent-vintage desktops.

But it's a cool effect and doesn't feel "wrong" like simpler tile-based dynamic lights - which I've considered but rejected, since I'd rather not deal with the ugly artifacts of those systems.

[fuchuzz]

Using chrome 4.1.249.1045,
My i5(quad core) and gtx275 got me 60 fps average after holding space bar for 5 minutes straight. The fps never faltered off of 60, even with all the enemy's and firing at walls.