6 ms·

For comparison, what Flash can do now: http://www.badsectoracula.com/peponi/rayfaster2/ http://www.badsectoracula.com/peponi/rayfaster2/

dtf 17y ago
Incredible stuff. Do you know if this is using anything intrinsically Flash-only, other than a fast VM? It looks like a software rasterizer - is there anything preventing a port to some kind of Javascript/HTML setup?
- actually 17y ago
  It is software rasterizing, written in haXe. I know the author from his posts on the haXe compiler ML, so I have a few details about the engine. haXe itself compiles to JS/C++/PHP/etc., however the only way that engine could possibly be fast enough is to make use of haXe's Flash-specific "Memory" API, which uses opcodes from Adobe Alchemy to manipulate a flat memory space at the byte-level. While it could definitely be ported, you'd have to change the part of the implementation that makes it fast to do so. If JS got a similar ability to do byte-level manipulations, it wouldn't be out of reach, but right now it looks like JS implementations are avoiding these kinds of proprietary extensions.
  - badsectoracula 17y ago
    I think this version doesn't use the "Memory" API. I have two versions, one that uses it and one that doesn't and the difference is very minimal - not worth to drop the Flash 9 support at least. I'm not sure if RF2 can be done in regular JavaScript though. Maybe in Chrome 3, which about twice as fast in my 3D canvas benchmark test (this one: http://gimme.badsectoracula.com/canvas3dbenchtest.html http://gimme.badsectoracula.com/canvas3dbenchtest.html ). But Flash works 'equally' in almost all browsers while JS+Canvas is very browser specific when it comes to performance.
andreyf 17y ago
For comparison, here's what computers could do outside the browser, two years ago: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ACQW8iVCbhY http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ACQW8iVCbhY Why do our expectations drop so drastically just because something is downloaded from the web and run in a browser? Not that there's anything wrong with that, but accessing something via web and running things naively aren't necessarily mutually exclusive.
- 10ren 17y ago
  Anyone know what specs are needed to run Crysis at the performance as in the video? My impression is that you still can't do it with mainstream hardware. I was thinking pedantically that there are more powerful "computers" available than a high-end PC and they would be able to do even better than this example, but then it occurred me that it's also possible that game engines are the most sophisticated physics/graphics engines... worldwide, they probably have more attention and money focussed on them than even the US military could afford (guessing).
  - Retric 17y ago
    You can play Crysis just fine on a at 1600 x 1200 on a 700$ gaming system today. 90% of what you see is done by the graphics card, and for $180 you can get a GTX 260 which plays crisis just fine. Leaving 500$ for the rest of the system which is still ok. (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814150398 http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814150...) http://www.gamespot.com/pages/forums/show_msgs.php?topic_id=26589439 http://www.gamespot.com/pages/forums/show_msgs.php?topic_id=... for an actual gamers review w GTX 260.
    - 10ren 17y ago
      thanks, but most of those gamers are noting low frame rates, less than 50 fps... while still playable, it's not as smooth as the '07 demo.
      - Retric 17y ago
fungi 17y ago
For comparison http://www.quakelive.com/ http://www.quakelive.com/ I really hope that id release an sdk.
halo 17y ago
If you're going into plugin route, then Java applets can already do OpenGL without any hacks, and will blow away anything that Flash can do. Quake 2 has already been ported, for example (http://download.java.net/javadesktop/plugin2/jake2/ http://download.java.net/javadesktop/plugin2/jake2/). But that's not really the point, is it?
pjvandehaar 17y ago
That doesn't work on my 64-bit Linux :(
- deleted 17y ago
  [deleted]

dtf 17y ago

Incredible stuff. Do you know if this is using anything intrinsically Flash-only, other than a fast VM? It looks like a software rasterizer - is there anything preventing a port to some kind of Javascript/HTML setup?

actually 17y ago
It is software rasterizing, written in haXe. I know the author from his posts on the haXe compiler ML, so I have a few details about the engine. haXe itself compiles to JS/C++/PHP/etc., however the only way that engine could possibly be fast enough is to make use of haXe's Flash-specific "Memory" API, which uses opcodes from Adobe Alchemy to manipulate a flat memory space at the byte-level. While it could definitely be ported, you'd have to change the part of the implementation that makes it fast to do so. If JS got a similar ability to do byte-level manipulations, it wouldn't be out of reach, but right now it looks like JS implementations are avoiding these kinds of proprietary extensions.
- badsectoracula 17y ago
  I think this version doesn't use the "Memory" API. I have two versions, one that uses it and one that doesn't and the difference is very minimal - not worth to drop the Flash 9 support at least. I'm not sure if RF2 can be done in regular JavaScript though. Maybe in Chrome 3, which about twice as fast in my 3D canvas benchmark test (this one: http://gimme.badsectoracula.com/canvas3dbenchtest.html http://gimme.badsectoracula.com/canvas3dbenchtest.html ). But Flash works 'equally' in almost all browsers while JS+Canvas is very browser specific when it comes to performance.

andreyf 17y ago

For comparison, here's what computers could do outside the browser, two years ago: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ACQW8iVCbhY http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ACQW8iVCbhY Why do our expectations drop so drastically just because something is downloaded from the web and run in a browser? Not that there's anything wrong with that, but accessing something via web and running things naively aren't necessarily mutually exclusive.

10ren 17y ago
Anyone know what specs are needed to run Crysis at the performance as in the video? My impression is that you still can't do it with mainstream hardware. I was thinking pedantically that there are more powerful "computers" available than a high-end PC and they would be able to do even better than this example, but then it occurred me that it's also possible that game engines are the most sophisticated physics/graphics engines... worldwide, they probably have more attention and money focussed on them than even the US military could afford (guessing).
- Retric 17y ago
  You can play Crysis just fine on a at 1600 x 1200 on a 700$ gaming system today. 90% of what you see is done by the graphics card, and for $180 you can get a GTX 260 which plays crisis just fine. Leaving 500$ for the rest of the system which is still ok. (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814150398 http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814150...) http://www.gamespot.com/pages/forums/show_msgs.php?topic_id=26589439 http://www.gamespot.com/pages/forums/show_msgs.php?topic_id=... for an actual gamers review w GTX 260.
  - 10ren 17y ago
    thanks, but most of those gamers are noting low frame rates, less than 50 fps... while still playable, it's not as smooth as the '07 demo.
    - Retric 17y ago

fungi 17y ago

For comparison http://www.quakelive.com/ http://www.quakelive.com/ I really hope that id release an sdk.

halo 17y ago

If you're going into plugin route, then Java applets can already do OpenGL without any hacks, and will blow away anything that Flash can do. Quake 2 has already been ported, for example (http://download.java.net/javadesktop/plugin2/jake2/ http://download.java.net/javadesktop/plugin2/jake2/). But that's not really the point, is it?

pjvandehaar 17y ago

That doesn't work on my 64-bit Linux :(

deleted 17y ago
[deleted]