8 ms·

Hey, Kevin from the Mozilla VR team here. Perhaps targeting mobile is a different story, mobile browsers are constrained. We built A-Frame on top of three.js,

Hey, Kevin from the Mozilla VR team here. Perhaps targeting mobile is a different story, mobile browsers are constrained. We built A-Frame on top of three.js, and we're able to build compelling 90 FPS room scale VR experiences running with the Vive in the browser. Perhaps it could be optimized, but it's worked wonderfully for our use cases. https://blog.mozvr.com/a-painter/ https://blog.mozvr.com/a-painter/

jeremiep 10y ago
That matches our experience as well; desktop computers have no problems running VR in the browser. We couldn't get above 50FPS for the mobile devices we targeted (the servicing contract we had was for a mobile experience only.) This is when we decided to write a custom engine tailored specifically for our needs based on my experience working with AAA game engines (I even shipped a title on the PSVita so had intimate knowledge of PowerVR and ARM architectures). And as I said in my original post, it is definitely not beginner friendly - while three and babylon both are. It took about two weeks to write the core tech and it can only do what this specific project required. If not for performance issues on last-gen mobiles we'd never have rolled our own. Desktop computers are incredibly fast - they can easily waste 90% of their CPU and still yield a lighting fast VR experience (for small scenes at least - less than a hundred draw calls). Mobile not so much.