5 ms·
Super impressive! I'd love to see a write up on how it was done. Do you think this is more performant that webgl?
by jonny_eh 6y ago
Super impressive! I'd love to see a write up on how it was done. Do you think this is more performant that webgl?
- pantelisk 6y agoPerformance for simple things is adequate, but relying on 2-point rectangles (origin(x,y), dimensions(width,height)) for geometry is extremely cumbersome. Also everything is hack piled on top of hack (for example there is no concept of a camera, the whole world moves around you instead to simulate the camera effect!). So... webgl is still the way! This is meant to be an experiment to show what css/html is capable of!
- cylon13 6y agoTo be fair, hack on top of hack sounds exactly like regular graphics programming!
- Jasper_ 6y ago> for example there is no concept of a camera, the whole world moves around you instead to simulate the camera effect Wait until you learn what a camera is :)
- andrewmcwatters 6y ago> for example there is no concept of a camera, the whole world moves around you instead to simulate the camera effect In reality, this is how the concept of the transform stack works in most game engines, too.
- randtrain34 6y agoI think it's pretty hard to get more performant than webgl, especially as the number of vertices increases/geometry complexity increases.
- pcwalton 6y agoIt won't be faster than WebGL in most cases. Browser CSS rendering stacks have gotten pretty fast but are not really optimized for this. In practice WebGL gives you more chances for optimization, because CSS rendering has to handle lots of edge cases that games don't. For example, a CSS renderer must split self-intersecting partially-transparent 3D polygons on CPU to render correctly, whereas a game engine just tells the artists "don't do that".