4 ms·

http://blog.alternativaplatform.com/ru/files/2008/04/bunker.swf http://blog.alternativaplatform.com/ru/files/2008/04/bunker.... and http://blog.alternativapla

• swombat 17y ago
  The hero example is a lot better than the one you posted.
• drKarl 17y ago
  With HTML5 http://www.benjoffe.com/code/demos/canvascape/textures http://www.benjoffe.com/code/demos/canvascape/textures
  • jm4 17y ago
    Neat. This example is nowhere near as pretty as the Flash examples, but it's interesting that my CPU is barely doing anything even when walking around. In the Flash version my CPU is pegged just sitting there doing nothing.
    • est 17y ago
      I am pretty sure if HTML5 implement the same scene as bunker.swf it would hog much much more CPU. http://www.ponticstar.com/projects/burning-words/ http://www.ponticstar.com/projects/burning-words/ Try set the font to 100, and see if it's still as smooth as you thought.
      • not_an_alien 17y ago
        Canvas is by all means a CPU hog and much slower than software-mode Flash. http://vimeo.com/10553088 http://vimeo.com/10553088 But hey, Flash is dying, etc
        • Shorel 17y ago
          Flash Games, demos, and webcomics are nice. However: No matter the codec or operating system, we should not NEED Flash to view video on the Web.
          • est 17y ago
            i completely agree however, suppose you are about to design a video site for the common public back in 2005, what technology would you choose? quicktime? realplayer? windows media player? i dont think flash video is unneeded any soon, even if html5 has a 70% adoption rate, people would still need flash for h.264 fallback
      • Shorel 17y ago
        150 in Opera runs smooth
  • BillGoatse 17y ago
    http://www.kongregate.com/games/mike_id/doom-1 http://www.kongregate.com/games/mike_id/doom-1 Wolfenstein, meet Doom. I'd say the bunker example above is pushing Quake 2 levels. I agree that Adobe have dropped the ball with Flash, but "HTML 5" is no where near where it should be...