I created a sketch which draws 100s of thousands of lines. As expected, it is quite slow. So, I tried the same sketch with WEBGL mode. But this turned out to be slower than the default mode.
My understanding was that WEBGL leverages GPU for fast rendering. Is it not true?
Thank you.
createCanvas(windowWidth, windowHeight, WEBGL)
Side note: I coded this sketch first in Processing (java), where the WEBGL mode was 100 times faster than the default mode. So, I expected the same with P5js.
Drawing numerous stroked shapes in p5.js with WEBGL is notoriously slow. See: Sketch runs slow in P5.js WEBGL on the processing.org Discourse forum. If you specifically want to draw lines and/or curves and you don't need 3d perspective then a 2d canvas will actually perform better (and in most browsers it will still utilize the GPU). If you are actually utilizing 3d perspective and other WEBGL rendering capabilities then the key thing is to reduce the number of drawing instructions, and if possible avoid relying on p5.js to draw strokes. In order to give you more specific advice on how to do that you are going to have to post a minimal reproducible example of what you are trying to do.
Related
This may be a bit of a naive question so please go easy on me. But I was looking at shaders at shadertoy.com and I'm amazed at how small the glsl code is for the 3d scenes. Digging deeper I noticed how most of the shaders use a technique called ray marching.
This technique makes it possible to avoid using vertices/triangles altogether and just employ the pixel shader and some math to create some pretty complex scenes.
So I was wondering why is it that 3d scenes often use triangle meshes with webgl instead of just using pixel shaders. Can't we just render the entire scene with glsl and pixel shaders (aka fragment shaders)?
The simple answer is because the techniques on shadertoy are probably 10,100,1000 times slower than using vertices and triangles.
Compare this shadertoy forest that runs at 1fps at best fullscreen on my laptop
https://www.shadertoy.com/view/4ttSWf
To this Skyrim forest which runs at 30 to 60fps
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PjqsYzBrP-M
Compare this Shadertoy city which runs at 5fps on my laptop
https://www.shadertoy.com/view/XtsSWs
To this Cities:Skylines city which runs at 60fps
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0gI2N10QyRA
Compare this Shadertoy Journey clone which runs 1fps fullscreen on my laptop
https://www.shadertoy.com/view/ldlcRf
to the actual Journey game on PS3, a machine with an arguably slower GPU than my laptop given the PS3 came out in 2006, and yet runs at 60fps
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=61DZC-60x20#t=0m46s
There's plenty of other reasons. A typical 3D world uses gigabytes of data for textures, characters, animations, collisions etc, none of that is available in just GLSL. Another is often they use fractal techniques so there's no easy way to actually design anything. Instead they just search the math for something interesting. That would not be a good way to design game levels for example. In other words using data of vertices makes things far more flexible and editable.
Compare the Journey examples above. The Shadertoy example is a single scene vs the game which is a vast designed world with buildings and ruins and puzzles etc...
There's a reason it's called ShaderTOY. It's a meant as a fun challenge. Given a single function who's only input is which pixel is currently being drawn, write code to draw something. As such the images people have managed to draw given that limit are amazing!
But, they aren't generally the techniques used to write real apps. If you want your app to run fast and be flexible you use the more traditional techniques of vertices and triangles. The techniques used by GTA5, Red Dead Redemption 2, Call of Duty, Apex Legends, Fortnite, etc....
These days, I need to draw many images on a canvas. The canvas size is 800x600px, and I have many images of 256x256px(some is smaller) to draw on it, these small images will compose a complete image on the canvas. I have two ways to implement this.
First, if I use canvas 2D context, that is context = canvas.getContext('2d'), then I can just use context.drawimage() method to put every image on the proper location of the canvas.
Another way, I use WebGL to draw these images on the canvas. On this way, for every small image, I need to draw a rectangle. The size of the rectangle is the same as this small image. Besides, the rectangle is on the proper location of the canvas. Then I use the image as texture to fill it.
Then, I compare the performance of these two methods. Both of their fps will reach 60, and the animation(When I click or move by the mouse, canvas will redraw many times) looks very smooth. So I compare their CPU usage. I expect that when I use WebGL, the CPU will use less because GPU will assure many work of drawing. But the result is, the CPU usage looks almost the same. I try to optimize my WebGL code, and I think it's good enough. By google, I found that browser such as Chrome, Firefox will enable Hardware acceleration by default. So I try to close the hardware acceleration. Then the CPU usage of the first method becomes much higher. So, my question is, since canvas 2D use GPU to accelerate, is it necessary for me to use WebGL just for 2D rendering? What is different between canvas 2D GPU acceleration and WebGL? They both use GPU. Maybe there is any other method to lower the CPU usage of the second method? Any answer will be appreciate!
Canvas 2D is still supported more places than WebGL so if you don't need any other functionality then going with Canvas 2D would mean your page will work on those browsers that have canvas but not WebGL (like old android devices). Of course it will be slow on those devices and might fail for other reasons like running out of memory if you have a lot of images.
Theoretically WebGL can be faster because the default for canvas 2d is that the drawingbuffer is preserved whereas for WebGL it's not. That means if you turn anti-aliasing off on WebGL the browser has the option to double buffer. Something it can't do with canvas2d. Another optimization is in WebGL you can turn off alpha which means the browser has the option to turn off blending when compositing your WebGL with the page, again something it doesn't have the option to do with canvas 2d. (there are plans to be able to turn off alpha for canvas 2d but as of 2017/6 it's not widely supported)
But, by option I mean just that. It's up to the browser to decide whether or not to make those optimizations.
Otherwise if you don't pick those optimizations it's possible the 2 will be the same speed. I haven't personally found that to be the case. I've tried to do some drawImage only things with canvas 2d and didn't get a smooth framerate were as I did with WebGL. It made no sense to be but I assumed there was something going on inside the browser I was un-aware off.
I guess that brings up the final difference. WebGL is low-level and well known. There's not much the browser can do to mess it up. Or to put it another way you're 100% in control.
With Canvas2D on the other hand it's up to the browser what to do and which optimizations to make. They might changes on each release. I know for Chrome at one point any canvas under 256x256 was NOT hardware accelerated. Another example would be what the canvas does when drawing an image. In WebGL you make the texture. You decide how complicated your shader is. In Canvas you have no idea what it's doing. Maybe it's using a complicated shader that supports all the various canvas globalCompositeOperation, masking, and other features. Maybe for memory management it splits images into chucks and renders them in pieces. For each browser as well as each version of the same browser what it decides to do is up to that team, where as with WebGL it's pretty much 100% up to you. There's not much they can do in the middle to mess up WebGL.
FYI: Here's an article detailing how to write a WebGL version of the canvas2d drawImage function and it's followed by an article on how to implement the canvas2d matrix stack.
I am writing a web visualization tool which involves displaying a processed image ~30 times a second.
I have been using the standard canvas tag and using functions such as getImageData/putImageData to perform some pixel manipulation along with drawing circles, squares and paths using beginPath() and bezierCurveTo(), stroke(), etc
Everything is working great but I am getting horrible performance even with hardware acceleration.
Is canvas inherently slow at these types of operations?
I have been researching into using WebGL/THREE.JS for performance, but all I need is to do pixel manipulation with some basic shape drawing. Is WebGL overkill for this? Is there a better alternative?
Ideally I believe I want something that wraps the canvas API but displays it using the WebGLRenderer for performance.
I want to build a simple modelviewer. In fact that most 3D Engines for javascript/canvas out there are way too complex for my purpose I'd prefer building a small one on my own. By writing a z-buffer I'd like to check wether canvas API should draw a pixel over the existing image. At the moment I am using the method fill() to draw triangles. I do so because I'd like to avoid writing my own anti-aliasing stuff. Are there any callbacks or is there any other way I can implement my check into the native script?
In fact that's going to be in Adobe AIR, are there any native ressources I could use to speed up(molehill/Stage3D WebGL? Dunno). Or are there any ways in combination of Flash? Actually I'd prefer Javascript but if there are native solutions I'd also like to check them as long as I can implemenet them into my HTML mock-up.
EDIT: A more simply question: Is it possible to implement a check for each pixel the canvas API should draw to abort drawing the pixel if it doesn't fit some conditions? I don't think that the chance is high that the question becomes affirmed but its really woth it.
I'm currently reading up on the canvas, but I'm finding it hard to find practical benefits of using canvas, when a lot can be done using simple css overlays/JavaScript (+ jquery lib).
This is probably because I don't know the FULL practicalities of using canvas.
Looking at this game:
http://www.pirateslovedaisies.com/
Could someone help explain how and why canvas is being used as opposed to just css?
This is a 4k js/canvas demo I wrote to experiment with the 2d context (here is a video if your browser doesn't work). I tested it only on chrome, opera, firefox, safari and nexus one browser.
Note that no external resources are loaded (i.e. the texture and the raytraced envmap are built dynamically), so this is just a single self-contained 4096 bytes HTML file.
You can do something like that with DIVs?
But indeed I agree that the game you linked IMO could be done also with DIVs; apparently there are no transformations - not even in the falling daisy loading scene - and the action areas for the pirates are just circles. Not sure but could be that even shooting only happens at fixed angles.
Canvas could have been used instead for:
Drawing general sloped lines and polygons (the map could be created dinamically from a compact description or could have been generated randomly). Shooting could be done at any angle...
Procedural image creation (e.g. textures or special pixel effects)
Gradients, texture mapping
General 2d matrix transforms
Of course a game using an image+DIVs approach is probably way easier to make (a lot of photoshop and simple xy animation).
Creating tons of HTML elements is extremely slow and memory-hungry. The canvas object is made for graphics operations and thus optimized for it. Besides that.. how would you draw a curve with plain HTML/CSS? ;)
Using <canvas> you have a per-pixel control of what's shown on the screen. You don't have to deal with specific browser CSS or DOM compatibility.
Also, that's actually a pretty similar programming model to 2D non-browser games, like those created using SDL o DirectDraw.
Here's a game I wrote in a few hours using Canvas; note that the scaling of the tiles, the anti-aliasing of the lines, is perfect. This would not be the case with image tiles that were being resized by the browser.
Click the tiles to rotate them in an attempt to make all connections. Click the row of buttons at the top for a new board of a different size; click the row of buttons below that for a new board with different numbers of connections.
The game concept is not mine, only the implementation.