4 ms·
More detail on browser limitations would be nice. I know the article states you can ship builds in 32-bit browsers, but are there any significant limitations in
by rl3 12y ago
More detail on browser limitations would be nice. I know the article states you can ship builds in 32-bit browsers, but are there any significant limitations involved? This would be problematic since, for example, Chrome 64-bit isn't yet the default release build.
I really wish there was more comprehensive documentation relating to UE4's limitations in a WebGL context. For example, lighting, shading, post-process effects, anti-aliasing, how they all behave relative to a full-featured desktop environment. The same thing for mobile compile targets wouldn't be a bad idea, either.
Also, it seems some otherwise popular third party plugins aren't supported in UE4 WebGL projects:
https://forums.coherent-labs.com/index.php?topic=691.0 https://forums.coherent-labs.com/index.php?topic=691.0
I understand Coherent's reasoning, but I imagine developers who built their UE4 projects with Coherent UI aren't very happy that their prospects of easily compiling to WebGL are non-existent due to the total headache involved. Plus, webkit.js for UE4 would be really cool, and that's essentially what CUI running in a UE4 web-exported context would be.
Despite all this I'm really happy for this release, and ultimately it's a huge step in the right direction.
- desdiv 12y agoThis is problematic since, for example, Chrome 64-bit isn't yet the default release build. Surprisingly enough, there isn't even an official supported build of Firefox 64-bit for Windows. Coupled with the Chrome issue you mentioned, I'll bet that at least 80% of users out there aren't using a 64-bit browser.
- TazeTSchnitzel 12y agoThere used to be a 64-bit Firefox, I think it was short-sighted of Mozilla to drop it. Oh well.
- Fr0styMatt4 12y agoThis is insane in 2015. I understand the difficulties of porting, but at the same time, I've had a 64-bit CPU since 2009 and I was late to the party :)
- smooc 12y agoDid you check the article? In the pictures they actually launch 32bit firefox.
- rl3 12y agoDespite looking at that very section, I somehow totally missed that. Edited my original post accordingly, thanks!
- TazeTSchnitzel 12y ago> I know the article states you can ship builds in 32-bit browsers, but are there any significant limitations involved There shouldn't be any. asm.js is actually a 32-bit target (probably by sheer coincidence since JS only has 32-bit integers).
- rl3 12y agoThis is from October 2014, so some of it may be outdated: https://forums.unrealengine.com/showthread.php?48463-HTML5-Capabilites https://forums.unrealengine.com/showthread.php?48463-HTML5-C... >5. My Game doesn't run. That section outlines the memory concerns that I failed to articulate earlier. Assuming it's still true, then it seems half a gigabyte is the upper bound. This would then preclude precomputed lighting in most cases, but it seems like a moot point since you'd have to send the (baked) textures over the network anyways. --- As an aside to my earlier questions about rendering (past the edit window on my other post): >HTML5 builds uses the Mobile OpenGL ES 2 rendering code path and use WebGL internally and should be at feature parity with Android/IOS as a thumb rule. Given that, the following seems to give a good idea of what the WebGL compile target is capable of as far as rendering features: https://docs.unrealengine.com/latest/INT/Platforms/Mobile/index.html https://docs.unrealengine.com/latest/INT/Platforms/Mobile/in... I'd say there still remains some ambiguity in certain areas, though. While mobile and WebGL compile targets both share the OpenGL ES 2.0 limitation, mobile seems far more performance-bound and that appears to influence its feature set accordingly.