Performance

Chat about anything not covered in these forums, but keep it civil!

Post » Thu Nov 21, 2013 12:35 pm

Excuse me if the topic is too irregular, or it may seem silly.

I like your product (Construct 2) so much, guys, but the performance of C2 is very low. What I mean? I've tested a few game engines with one simple test: spawning 300 physics bodies (boxes), only 300 boxes on the layout - nothing else. Construct 2 has the worst result. The perfomance is not so bad when using WebGl, but outside the HTML5 it's terrible (on desktop and mobile devices).
I used Multimedia Fusion 2 before I met C2 and I remember MF2 has the same problem.
This is the only reason why I still don't have the license. Are there plans to improve the performance of the engine in the future?

Thanks in advance!
B
8
S
1
Posts: 9
Reputation: 595

Post » Thu Nov 21, 2013 12:42 pm

Please provide your test .capx so we can also test the performance.
If your vision so exceeds your ability, then look to something closer.
Moderator
B
134
S
30
G
86
Posts: 5,422
Reputation: 59,530

Post » Thu Nov 21, 2013 7:08 pm

The physics engine isn't the fastest right now since Javascript isn't ideal for such computationally intensive code. It should work fine for games with relatively low physics body counts, though. Also don't forget it's just one feature. Other parts of the engine such as the WebGL renderer are comparable to native engines. CocoonJS also provides a native-powered physics engine which is a lot faster (although only a subset of the physics behavior is supported...) and we've been experimenting with an asm.js compiled version of the physics engine, which allows it to perform at close to native speed even in a browser. However there are some tricky technical issues around doing that, but it's probably solvable, so we might have a solution in future.Ashley2013-11-21 19:10:38
Scirra Founder
B
398
S
236
G
88
Posts: 24,441
Reputation: 194,661

Post » Thu Nov 21, 2013 8:52 pm

300 Physic objects! I think that even Angry Birds developers avoid this number
B
57
S
19
G
10
Posts: 191
Reputation: 9,626

Post » Wed Nov 27, 2013 3:17 pm

Unity 3D with new 2d features can handle it with excellent fps, Game maker can handle even more than 300 physics bodies with great FPS. As potencial buyer of Construct 2 I like almost everything in this product (C2) but so called native perfomance is not so good.

How could I post my file if I have not permission for psoting URLs?!
B
8
S
1
Posts: 9
Reputation: 595

Post » Wed Nov 27, 2013 5:20 pm

300 bodies is more than you probably think - on some mobile devices even using native physics (via CocoonJS) it can only handle about that many. I think most physics games realistically use under 100 bodies.

I've been doing some more work on asm.js powered physics and it's around 3x faster in some cases - that should make a big difference if we can sort out some last issues.
Scirra Founder
B
398
S
236
G
88
Posts: 24,441
Reputation: 194,661

Post » Wed Nov 27, 2013 8:26 pm

"If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to see it, does it need to modelled?" -- Way of the Game Dev
B
14
S
5
G
1
Posts: 60
Reputation: 1,052

Post » Fri Nov 29, 2013 5:51 pm

Thank you for the official answer. I'm so glad that my question has been seen. It's so good that Construct 2 is growing up and upgrading.

P.S. English is not my native languag so I might be incorrect in grammar ascpect.

The topic is closed.
B
8
S
1
Posts: 9
Reputation: 595

Post » Sat Nov 30, 2013 4:20 am

Ashley, I am excited to hear about upcoming physics speedups, as I have a few physics based games that run very slow on intel GPU(HD3000/HD4000) based laptops.

Are there any other areas of C2 that can potentially benefit from asm.js, such as collision detection?
B
11
S
2
G
1
Posts: 108
Reputation: 1,899


Return to Open Topic

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Ariana Marie and 2 guests