HTML5 Posts

GPU State Preserving Particle Systems with WebGL & HaXe

GPU State Preserving Particle Systems with WebGL & HaXe

Well this is the post I didnt think was going to happen. I have been struggling for weeks with this little bit of tech, ill explain more about why it has been so difficult in another post. For now however, ill just talk about this sample.

5,000,000 Chrome Crawlers? Why not [haXe & WebGL]

Following on from my previous experiments into the world of haXe and HTML5 I have been playing around again with trying to get as many 2D sprites on screen as I can.

More HTML5 & HaXe Speed Tests

Ive spent a little more time this weekend looking at some more  HTML5 with HaXe. Following on from my previous experiments with WebGL I decided to give HTML5’s Canvas a a look as it was supposed to be designed specifically for the purpose of doing 2D.

I had heard from the HaXe mailing list that the Jeash project was a common way of interacting with the canvas in HaXe. Jeash is a remapping of the Flash API into JS so in effect I should beable to take any of my usual flash code, Sprite’s,  BitmapData’s, etc and it should run on the canvas no problems. Nice!

So I coded up a quick blitting example to see what sort of performance I would get:

http://mikecann.co.uk/projects/HTML5SpeedTests/HaXeJeash/bin/

The results were okay (I get about 11FPS with 5,000 crawlers) however I was interested to know what sort of cost HaXe adds. So I decided to code up a second example, this time using pure JS:

http://mikecann.co.uk/projects/HTML5SpeedTests/JSCanvas/

The results this time were better (14FPS with 5,000 crawlers) so I now wondered what happens if I do without Jeash and just code up the example using pure HaXe. I was expecting to see the same sort of performance hit as Jeash:

http://mikecann.co.uk/projects/HTML5SpeedTests/HaXeCanvas/bin/

Surprisingly it actually runs faster (17FPS with 5,000 crawlers) ! This is quite a surprise and totally contradicts my notion that going from HaXe -> JS would incur a cost. I was expecting some cost, but a performance increase?! I can only speculate that behind the scenes the JS engine in the browser is able to JIT compile the HaXe JS much better than the hand-crafted JS and hence more speed.

If you are interested in the source then I have uploaded it here: http://mikecann.co.uk/projects/HTML5SpeedTests/HTML5SpeedTests_1.zip

P.S. All the test were run on Windows 7 x64 in Chrome 14 (dev)