3 ms·
No idea what you mean. It's just as fast, if not faster, for me. I don't know what that one does (haven't looked at the code), but it's cloth interaction is mor
by jlongster 14y ago
No idea what you mean. It's just as fast, if not faster, for me. I don't know what that one does (haven't looked at the code), but it's cloth interaction is more powerful so it's probably just an interaction difference. I liked a softer interaction, but moving the mouse fast if you want to blow it up.
EDIT: I shouldn't have said "no idea". There is one reason I can think of -- this uses WebGL, so if you have a bad card or drivers this might be slower. My algorithms might be more precise too, I don't know the other code.
EDIT2: A coworker just mentioned that I should turn off antialiasing (it's on by default) and that should help a lot of machines. Also optimized WebGL a few other ways.
- niggler 14y agoThis is relatively new (early 2013 retina macbook pro 15", MacBookPro10,1, 2.7 Ghz, 16GB Memory), so I would think WebGL would work in both places ...
- jlgreco 14y agoI don't think WebGL is used with the original, since it was working just fine on my eeepc with linux (which does not do WebGL, last I checked). This new one barely works in chrome on windows on this T420 though. I don't know what the cause is in my case, maybe WebGL on this thinkpad is really slower than CPU rendering on an Atom?
- jlongster 14y agoI'm using the exact same rig and testing same version of Chrome, and they seem the same. We're really just comparing WebGL to canvas. Note that I had to use WebGL because with asm.js, the cloth gets so dense that canvas couldn't handle it.
- ajacksified 14y agoNot having any issues in latest FireFox nightly / OSX / Retina MBP, am running at 225x110 or something like that. Nice job!