4 ms·
Fur ball in WebGL
- anvaka 14y agoPorted this guy from Flash (http://wonderfl.net/c/7au5 http://wonderfl.net/c/7au5 ) to JavaScript. Microsoft is really missing out with WebGL support, but I know why people are saying that plugins are dying...
- mistercow 14y agoI'm pretty impressed that in Chrome, the WebGL version has a considerably better framerate than the Flash version.
- azakai 14y agoSame in Firefox. The Flash version is stuttery, the WebGL one is smooth.
- pan69 14y agoThat's because the WebGL version is using your GPU and the Flash version isn't. The Flash version is done through the 2D drawing API which is equivalent to HTML5 canvas (i.e. CPU bound). So, in that respect, the Flash version is actually doing a pretty amazing job.
- kleiba 14y agoInterestingly, my Firefox (13.0 on Ubuntu 11.04) consistently freezes for any WebGL example. The CPU load will just go full whack and nothing is every displayed. Eventually, I have to kill the process and restart the browser. Does anyone experience the same effect?
- delinka 14y agoVery impressive compared to the Flash version. Minor nit: resizing the window make Furball do strange things. Google Chrome 19.0.1084.54 on Mac OS X 10.7.4
- Rickasaurus 14y agoAhh, but can you comb it? :)
- novalis 14y agoThe Flash version is not antialiased correctly for the number of steps it transverses though the masses move at a consistent frameratem, stuttery does not apply in correlation to the WebGL example. Change the FPS setting and it works smoother, AA aside. The WebGL one has the distinct Javascrip cyclic micro pause in Firefox depending on number of browser tabs opened. It plays perfect on the latest Chrome. Congrats.
- zeen 14y agoNice! To be fair to the Flash version, it appears to be using the 2D drawing API (equivalent to HTML5 canvas). If the Flash version used Stage3D, performance would probably be equivalent to WebGL for this demo, since most of the work would be offloaded to the GPU.