I've seen a couple of questions asking about this, but they're all over three years old and usually end by saying theres not much of a way around it yet, so im wondering if anything's changed.
I'm currently working on a game that draws onto a canvas using an interval that happens 60 times a second. It works great on my iphone and PC, which has a faily decent graphics card, but I'm now trying it on a Thinkcentre with intel i3 graphics, and I notice some huge screen tearing:
http://s21.postimg.org/h6c42hic7/tear.jpg - it's a little harder to notice as a still.
I was just wondering if there's any way to reduce that, or to easily enable vertical sync. If there isnt, is there somethingthat I could do in my windows 8 app port of the game?
Are you using requestAnimationFrame (RAF)? RAF will v-sync but setTimeout/setInterval will not.
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/windows/apps/hh920765
Also, since 30fps is adequate for your users to see smooth motion, how about splitting your 60fps into 2 alternating parts:
"calculate/update" during one frame (no drawing)
and then do all the drawing in the next frame.
And, get to know Chrome's Timeline tool. This great little tool lets you analyze your code to discover where your code is taking the most time. Then refactor that part of your code for high performance.
[ Addition: More useful details about requestAnimationFrame ]
Canvas does not paint directly to the display screen. Instead, canvas "renders" to a temporary offscreen buffer. “Rendering” means the process of executing canvas commands to draw on the offscreen buffer. This offscreen buffer will be quickly drawn to the actual display screen when the next screen refresh occurs.
Tearing occurs when the offscreen rendering process is only partially complete when the offscreen buffer is drawn on the actual display screen during refresh.
setInterval does not attempt to coordinate rendering with screen refresh. So, using setInterval to control animation frames will occasionally produce tearing .
requestAnimationFrame (RAF) attempts to fix tearing by generating frames only between screen refreshes (a process called vertical synching). The typical display refreshes about 60 times per second (that’s every 16 milliseconds).
With requestAnimationFrame (RAF):
If the current frame is not fully rendered before the next refresh,
RAF will delay the painting of the current frame until the next screen refresh.
This delay reduces tearing.
So for you, RAF will likely help your tearing problem, but it also introduces another problem.
You must decide how to handle your physics processing:
Keep it in a separate process—like setInterval.
Move it into requestAnimationFrame.
Move it into web-workers (the work is done on a background thread separate from the UI thread).
Keep physics in a separate setInterval.
This is a bit like riding 2 trains with 1 leg on each—very difficult! You must be sure that all aspects of the physics are always in a valid state because you never know when RAF will read the physics to do rendering. You will probably have to create a “buffer” of your physics variables so they always are in a valid state.
Move physics into RAF:
If you can both calculate physics and render within the 16ms between refreshes, this solution is ideal. If not, your frame may be delayed until the next refresh cycle. This results in 30fps which is not terrible since the eye still perceives lucid motion at 30fps. Worst case is that the delay sometimes occurs and sometimes not—then your animation may appear jerky. So the key here is to spread the calculations as evenly as possible between refresh cycles.
Move physics into web workers
Javascript is single-threaded. Both the UI and calculations must run on this single thread. But you can use web workers which run physics on a separate thread. This frees up the UI thread to concentrate on rendering and painting. But you must coordinate the background physics with the foreground UI.
Good luck with your game :)
Related
I'm making a small online multiplayer game with JavaScript and the native Canvas API (WebGL). I want to find the color of pixels on the screen as a form of collision detection, I figure it'd save resources to not have to process every shape every frame, but rather to simply check if the color of a pixel at a certain position is such that it is contacting a shape. (I hope that makes sense)
I ran some tests and I have an average frame delay of about 4-5 milliseconds without collision detection, and then when I make a single call to my canvas context's .getImageData() method, suddenly that frame delay shoots up to 19-20 milliseconds...
As far as I can find online getImageData() is the only means of checking the color of a given pixel, but I have to think there's some other way that doesn't introduce such a huge amount of lag.
I tried running getImageData() on a small section of the screen vs larger sections, and a 1x1 pixel request introduces 10ms latency, where a 600x600 pixel request is about 15ms... So the issue isn't the amount/size of the request, but rather just the request itself is extremely slow, so there's no potential for optimization here, I NEED another way.
Also, caching the image data is also not an option. I need to poll these pixels every single frame, I can't cache it (because the player and the object it needs to collide with are all constantly moving, and they're being controlled over the internet so there's also no way of predicting where they'll be at any given time... I NEED to poll every frame with no exceptions)
To be clear, I'm not asking how to write collisions or how to make pixel-perfect collision detection systems... I'm asking ONLY how to get the color of a pixel on the canvas without having to use .toImageData() because .toImageData() is far too slow for my use case.
Standard collision detection may end up being a better option. Pixel-perfect checking works well for perfect collision detection with complex objects but can get expensive with lots of pixels.
What I would probably recommend instead is to use standard collision detection with simple shapes. If done right, it should have good performance, even for a more complex game.
If you really do want to use pixel-perfect collision, you'll want to check the rectangular bounding boxes of the two objects first to ensure they aren't far away from each other. If their bounding boxes intersect, you could then use bitmasks of your sprites to quickly check each pixel for overlap. This question has a bit more info. It's not JS, but the concept would be the same.
I've got a WebGL scene, and a set of parameters I can use to balance render quality versus speed. I'd like to display the scene to the user in as high as I can make the quality, as long as the frame rate doesn't drop below some threshold due to this. To achieve this, I have to somehow measure “current” frame rate in response to changes in quality.
But the scene is static as long as the user doesn't interact with it (like rotating camera using the mouse). I don't want to have a loop re-rendering the same scene all the time even if nothing changes. I want to stop rendering if the scene stops moving. Which means I can't simply average the time between successive frames, since I can't distinguish between the renderer being slow and the user just moving his mouse more slowly.
I thought about rendering the scene a number of times at start up, and judge the frame rate from this. But the complexity of the scene might change over time, due to the portion of the scene visible from the current camera position, or due to user interaction outside the canvas. So I have to adapt the quality as the scene changes complexity. Running a calibration loop after every mouse release would perhaps be an option.
I also thought about using the finish call instead of the flush call to accurately measure render time. But while I wait for GL to finish rendering, my application will essentially be unresponsive, in particular won't be able to queue mouse events. Since I envision the rendering to ideally take up all the time between two frames at the target threshold frame rate, that would probably be rather bad. I might get away with using finish instead of flush only on some occasions, like after a mouse release.
What's the best way to achieve a desired frame rate in a WebGL application, or to measure render time on a regular basis?
Why can't you use the average render time?
Just because you render less often, does not mean you cannot average the render times. It will just take a bit longer to get an accurate average.
Once the user starts moving their mouse you'll get an influx of data, and that should quickly give you an average render rate anyway.
For educational purposes I need to compare the performance of WebGL with OpenGL. I have two equivalent programs written in WebGL and OpenGL, now I need to take the frame rate of them and compare them.
In Javascript I use requestAnimationFrame to animate, and I noticed that it causes the frame rate to be always at 60 FPS, and it goes down only if I switch tab or window. On the other hand if I always call the render function recursively, the window freezes for obvious reasons.
This is how I am taking the FPS:
var stats = new Stats();
stats.domElement.style.position = 'absolute';
stats.domElement.style.left = '450px';
stats.domElement.style.top = '750px';
document.body.appendChild( stats.domElement );
setInterval( function () {
stats.begin();
stats.end();
}, 1000 / 60 );
var render= function() {
requestAnimationFrame(render);
renderer.render(scene,camera);
}
render();
Now the problem if having always the scene at 60 FPS is that I cannot actually compare it with the frame rate of OpenGL, since OpenGL redraws the scene only when it is somehow modified (for example if I rotate the object) and glutPostRedisplay() gets called.
So I guess if there is a way in WebGL to redraw the scene only when it is necessary, for example when the object is rotated or if some attributes in the shaders are changed.
You can't compare framerates directly across GPUs in WebGL by pushing frames. Rather you need to figure out how much work you can get done within a single frame.
So, basically pick some target framerate and then keep doing more and more work until you go over your target. When you've hit your target that's how much work you can do. You can compare that to some other machine or GPU using the same technique.
Some people will suggest using glFinish to check timing. Unfortunately that doesn't actually work because it stalls the graphics pipeline and that stalling itself is not something that normally happens in a real app. It would be like timing how fast a car can go from point A to point B but instead of starting long before A and ending long after B you slam on the brakes before you get to B and measure the time when you get to B. That time includes all the time it took to slow down which is different on every GPU and different between WebGL and OpenGL and even different for each browser. You have no way of knowing how much of the time spent is time spent slowing down and how much of it was spent doing the thing you actually wanted to measure.
So instead, you need to go full speed the entire time. Just like a car you'd accelerate to top speed before you got to point A and keep going top speed until after you pass B. The same way they time cars on qualifying laps.
You don't normally stall a GPU by slamming on the breaks (glFinish) so adding the stopping time to your timing measurements is irrelevant and doesn't give you useful info. Using glFinish you'd be timing drawing + stopping. If one GPU draws in 1 second and stops in 2 and another GPU draws in 2 seconds and stops in 1, your timing will say 3 seconds for both GPUs. But if you ran them without stopping one GPU would draw 3 things a second, the other GPU would only draw 1.5 things a second. One GPU is clearly faster but using glFinish you'd never know that.
Instead you run full speed by drawing as much as possible and then measure how much you were able to get done and maintain full speed.
Here's one example:
http://webglsamples.org/lots-o-objects/lots-o-objects-draw-elements.html
It basically draws each frame. If the frame rate was 60fps it draws 10 more objects the next frame. If the frame rate was less than 60fps it draws less.
Because browser timing is not perfect you might be to choose a slightly lower target like 57fps to find how fast it can go.
On top of that, WebGL and OpenGL really just talk to the GPU and the GPU does the real work. The work done by the GPU will take the exact same amount of time regardless of if WebGL asks the GPU to do it or OpenGL. The only difference is in the overhead of setting up the GPU. That means you really don't want to draw anything heavy. Ideally you'd draw almost nothing. Make your canvas 1x1 pixel, draw a single triangle, and check the timing (as in how many single triangles can you draw one triangle at a time in WebGL vs OpenGL at 60fps).
It gets even worse though. A real app will switch shaders, switch buffers, switch textures, update attributes and uniforms often. So, what are you timing? How many times you can call gl.drawBuffers at 60fps? How many times you can call gl.enable or gl.vertexAttribPointer or gl.uniform4fv at 60fps? Some combination? What's a reasonable combination? 10% calls to gl.verterAttribPointer + 5% calls to gl.bindBuffer + 10% calls to gl.uniform. The timing of those calls are the only things different between WebGL and OpenGL since ultimately they're talking to the same GPU and that GPU will run the same speed regardless.
You actually do not want to use framerate to compare these things because as you just mentioned you are artificially capped to 60 FPS due to VSYNC.
The number of frames presented will be capped by the swap buffer operation when VSYNC is employed and you want to factor that mess out of your performance measurement. What you should do is start a timer at the beginning of your frame, then at the end of the frame (just prior to your buffer swap) issue glFinish (...) and end the timer. Compare the number of milliseconds to draw (or whatever resolution your timer measures) instead of the number of frames drawn.
The correct solution is to use the ANGLE_timer_query extension when available.
Quoting from the specification:
OpenGL implementations have historically provided little to no useful
timing information. Applications can get some idea of timing by
reading timers on the CPU, but these timers are not synchronized with
the graphics rendering pipeline. Reading a CPU timer does not
guarantee the completion of a potentially large amount of graphics
work accumulated before the timer is read, and will thus produce
wildly inaccurate results. glFinish() can be used to determine when
previous rendering commands have been completed, but will idle the
graphics pipeline and adversely affect application performance.
This extension provides a query mechanism that can be used to
determine the amount of time it takes to fully complete a set of GL
commands, and without stalling the rendering pipeline. It uses the
query object mechanisms first introduced in the occlusion query
extension, which allow time intervals to be polled asynchronously by
the application.
(emphasis mine)
How can I control the rendering loop frame rate in KineticJS? The docs for Kinetic.Animation show a frame rate being passed to the render callback, and Kinetic.Tween seems to have no frame rate logic, but I don't see anyway to force, say, a 30fps when 60fps is possible.
Loads of context for the curious follows, but the question is that simple. If anyone reads on, other advice is welcome. If you already know the answer, don't waste your time reading on!
I'm developing a music app that combines some DOM-based GUI controls (current iteration using jQuery Mobile) and Canvas-based GUI controls (using KineticJS). The latter involve some animation. Because the animated elements are triggered by music playback, I'm using Kinetic.Tween to avoid the complexity of remembering how long a given note has been playing (which Kinetic.Animation would require doing).
This approach works great at 60fps in Chrome (on a fast machine) but is just slow enough on iOS 6.1 Safari (iPad 2) that manipulating controls while animations are happening gets a little janky. I'm not using WebGL (unless KineticJS or Chrome does this by default for canvas?), and that's not an option when I package for native UIWebView.
As I'm getting beyond prototype into wanting to make more committed tech decisions, I see the following options, in order of perceived goodness:
Figure out how to cap the frame rate. Because my animations heavily use alpha fades but do not involve motion, I believe I could get away with 20-30fps and look fine. Could also scale this up on faster devices.
Don't respond immediately to touch inputs, but add them to a queue which I poll at a constant interval and only use the freshest for things like touchmove. This has no impact on my non-interactive animated elements, but tackles the problem from the other direction, trying to reduce the load of user interaction. This would require making Kinetic controls static and manually tracking touch coordinates (not terrible effort if it actually helped).
Rewrite DOM-based GUI to canvas-based (KineticJS); rewrite WebAudio-based engine to HTML5 audio; leverage CocoonJS or Ejecta for GPU-acceleration. This means having to hand-code stuff like file choosers and nav menus and such (bad). Losing WebAudio is pretty serious as it eliminates features like DSP effects and very fine-grained, low-latency timing (which is working just fine on an iPad 2).
Rewrite the app to separate DOM based GUI and WebAudio from Canvas-based elements, leverage CocoonJS. I'm not sure if/how well this works out, but the fact that CocoonJS passes JavaScript code as strings between the 2 components makes me very skittish about how solid this idea is. It's probably doable, but best case I'm very tied to CocoonJS moving forwards. I don't like architecting this way, but maybe it's not as bad as it sounds?
Make animations less juicy. This is least good not because of its design impact but because, as it is, I'm only animating ~20 simple shapes at any time in my central view component, however they include transparency and span an area ~1000x300. Other components like sliders are similarly bare-bones. In other words, it's not very juicy right now.
Overcome severe allergy to Objective-C; forget about the browser, Android, and that other mobile OS. Have a fast app that performs natively and has shiny Apple-approved widgets. My biggest problem with this approach is not wanting to be stuck in Objective-C reality for years, skillset-wise. I just don't like it.
Buy an iPad 3 or later. Since I already am pretending Android doesn't exist (I don't have any devices to test), why not pretend no one still has iPad 2? I think this is passing the buck -- if I can get acceptable performance on iPad 2, I will feel confident about the app's performance as I add more features.
I may be overlooking options or otherwise naive about how to tackle this. Some would say what I'm trying to build is just silly. But it's working pretty well just not ready for prime time on the iPad 2.
Yes, you can control the Kinetic.Animation framerate
The Kinetic.Animation sends in a frame object which has a frame.time property.
That .time is a running timer that you can use to throttle your animation speed.
Here's an example that throttles the Kinetic.Animation: http://jsfiddle.net/m1erickson/Hn3cC/
var lastTime;
var frameDelay=1000;
var loop = new Kinetic.Animation(function(frame) {
var time = frame.time
if(!lastTime){lastTime=time;}
var elapsed = time-lastTime;
if(elapsed>=frameDelay){
// frameDelay has expired, so animate stuff now
// set lastTime for the next loop
lastTime=time;
}
}, layer);
loop.start();
Working from #markE's suggestions, I tried a few things and found a solution. It's ultimately not rocket science, but sharing what I figured out:
First, tried the hack of doubling Tween durations and targets, using a timer to stop them at 50%. This kinda sorta worked but was hard to get to look good and was pretty error prone in coding bogus targets like negative opacity or height or whatnot.
Second, having read the source to Tween and looked at docs again for Animation, decided I could locally use Animation instances instead of Tween instances, and allow the closure scope to hang onto the relevant note properties. Eventually got this working smoothly and finally realized a big Duh! which is that throttling the frame rate of several independently animating things does not in any way throttle the overall frame rate.
Lastly, decided to give my component a render() method that calls itself in a loop with requestAnimationFrame, exits immediately if called before my clamp time, and inside render() I update all objects in the Kinetic canvas and call layer.drawScene(). Because there is now only one animation, this drops frame rate to whatever I need and the app is fast on iPad 2 (looks exactly the same to my eyes too).
So Kinetic is still helping for its higher level canvas API, and so far my other control widgets are still easy code using Kinetic to handle user input and dragging, now performing much better as the big beast component is not eating up the CPU.
The short answer to my original question is that no, you can't lock the overall frame rate for very complex animations, but as Mark said, you can for anything that fits in a single Animation instance.
Note that I could have still used Animation without giving it a layer or explicitly calling any draw() methods, but since I'd still have to write all the logic to determine individual element's current visual state, there was no gain to doing this. What would be very useful would be if Tween could accept a parameter to not automatically render. This would simplify code like mine, as I could shorthand the animation on individual objects but still choose when to actually do the heavy lifting of rendering everything. Seeing how much this whole exercise gained in performance on the iPad 2, might be worth adding this option to the framework.
I'm investigating the possibility of producing a game using only HTML's canvas as the display media. To take an example task I need to do, I need to construct the game environment from a number of isometric tiles. Of course, working in 2D means they by necessity come in rectangular packages so there's a large overlap between tiles.
I'm old enough that the natural solution to this problem is to call BitBltMasked. Oh wait, no, an HTML canvas doesn't have something as simple and as pleasing as BitBlt. It seems that the only way to dump pixel data in to a canvas is either with drawImage() which has no useful drawing modes that ignore the alpha channel or to use ImageData objects that have the image data in an array.. to which every. access. is. bounds. checked. and. therefore. dog. slow.
OK, that's more of a rant than a question (things the W3C like tend to provoke that from me), but what I really want to know is how to draw fast to a canvas? I'm finding it very difficult to ditch the feeling that doing 100s of drawImages() a second where every draw respects the alpha channel is inherently sinful and likely to make my application perform like arse in many browsers. On the other hand, the only way to implement BitBlt proper relies heavily on a browser using a hotspot-like execution technique to make it run fast.
Is there any way to draw fast across every possible implementation, or do I just have to forget about performance?
This is a really interesting problem, and there's a few interesting things you can do to solve it.
First, you should know that drawImage can accept a Canvas, not just an image. The "sub-Canvas"es don't even need to be in the DOM. This means that you can do some compositing on one canvas, then draw it to another. This opens a whole world of optimization opportunities, especially in the context of isometric tiles.
Let's say you have an area that's 50 tiles long by 50 tiles wide (I'll say meters for the sake of my own sanity). You might divide the area into 10x10m chunks. Each chunk is represented by its own Canvas. To draw the full scene, you'd simply draw each of the chunks' Canvas objects to the main canvas that's shown to the user. If only four chunks (a 20x20m area), you would only perform four drawImage operations.
Of course, each of those individual chunks will need to render its own Canvas. On game ticks where nothing happens in the chunk, you simply don't do anything: the Canvas will remain unchanged and will be drawn as you'd expect. When something does change, you can do one of a few things depending on your game:
If your tiles extend into the third dimension (i.e.: you have a Z-axis), you can draw each "layer" of the chunk into its own Canvas and only update the layers that need to be updated. For example, if each chunk contains ten layers of depth, you'd have ten Canvas objects. If something on layer 6 was updated, you would only need to re-paint layer 6's Canvas (probably one drawImage per square meter, which would be 100), then perform one drawImage operation per layer in the chunk (ten) to re-draw the chunk's Canvas. Decreasing or increasing the chunk size may increase or decrease performance depending on the number of update you make to the environment in your game. Further optimizations can be made to eliminate drawImage calls for obscured tiles and the like.
If you don't have a third dimension, you can simply perform one drawImage per square meter of a chunk. If two chunks are updated, that's only 200 drawImage calls per tick (plus one call per chunk visible on the screen). If your game involves very few updates, decreasing the chunk size will decrease the number of calls even further.
You can perform updates to the chunks in their own game loop. If you're using requestAnimationFrame (as you should be), you only need to paint the chunk Canvas objects to the screen. Independently, you can perform game logic in a setTimeout loop or the like. Then, each chunk could be updated in its own tick between frames without affecting performance. This can also be done in a web worker using getImageData and putImageData to send the rendered chunk back to the main thread whenever it needs to be updated, though making this work seamlessly will take a good deal of effort.
The other option that you have is to use a library like pixi.js to render the scene using WebGL. Even for 2D, it will increase performance by decreasing the amount of work that the CPU needs to do and shifting that over to the GPU. I'd highly recommend checking it out.
I know that GameJS has blit operations, and I certainly assume any other html5 game libraries do as well (gameQuery, LimeJS, etc etc). I don't know if these packages have addressed the specific array-bounds-checking concern that you had, but in practice their samples seem to work plenty fast on all platforms.
You should not make assumptions about what speedups make sense. For example, the GameJS developer reports that he was going to implement dirty rectangle tracking but it turned out that modern browsers do this automatically---link.
For this reason and others, I suggest to get something working before thinking about the speed. Also, make use of drawing libraries, as the authors have presumably spent some time optimizing performance.
I have no personal knowledge about this, but you can look into the appMobi "direct canvas" HTML element which is allegedly a much faster version of normal canvas, link. I'm confused about whether this works in all browsers or just webkit browsers or just appMobi's own special browser.
Again, you should not make assumptions about what speedups make sense without a very deep knowledge of web browser internal processes. That webpage about "direct canvas" mentions a bunch of things that slow down canvas-drawing: "Reflowing text, mapping hot spots, creating indexes for reference links, on and on." Alpha-blending and array-bounds-checking are not mentioned as prominent causes of slowness!
Unfortunately, there's no way around the alpha composition overhead. Clipping may be one solution, but I doubt there would be much, if any, performance gain. Not to mention how complicated such a route would be to implement on irregular shapes.
When you have to draw the entire display, you're going to have to deal with the performance hit. Although afterwards, you have a whole screen's worth of pre-calculated alpha imagery and you can draw this image data at an offset in one drawImage call. Then, you would only have to individually draw the new tiles that are scrolled into view.
But still, the browser is having to redraw each pixel at a different location in the canvas. Which is quite expensive. It would be nice if there was a method for just scrolling pixels, but no luck there either.
One idea that comes to mind is that you could implement multiple canvases, translating each individual canvas instead of redrawing the pixels. This would allow the browser to decide how to redraw those pixels, in a more native way, at least in theory anyway. Then you could render the newly visible tiles on a new, or used/cached, canvas element. Positioning it to match up with the last screen render.
But that's just my two blits... I mean bits... duh, I mean cents :]