Develop Reference

Full width video background: A non-HTML5, purely jQuery solution...maybe

Long time Stack Overflow creeper. This community has come up with some incredibly elegant solutions to rather perplexing questions.
I'm more of a CSS3 or PHP kinda guy when it comes to handling dynamically displayed content. Ideally someone with a solid knowledge base of jQuery and/or Javascript would be able to answer this one best. Here is the idea, along with the thought process behind it:
Create a Full Screen (width:100%; height:auto; background:cover;) Video background. But instead of going about using HTML5's video tag, a flash fallback, iFrame, or even .GIF, create a series of images, much like the animation render output of say Cinema4D, that if put together in sequential order create a seamless pseudo-video experience.
In Before "THAT's JUST A .GIF, YOU'RE AN IDIOT" Guy.
I believe jQuery/Javascript could solve this. Would it or would it not be possible to write a script that essentially recognizes (or even adds) the div class of an image, then sets that image to display for say .0334ms (29.7 frame rate) then sets this image back in z space while at the same time firing in the next image within the sequential class order to display for another .0336ms; and so on and so forth until all of the images (or "frames") play out seamlessly fluid, so the user would assume he/she is actually seeing a video. Not a knowing it's actually a .GIF on steroids.
Here's a more verbose way of explaining the intended result:
You have a 1 second super awesome 1080p video clip (video format doesn't matter for helping to answer this question, just assume its lossless and really pretty k?). It's recorded at 29.97 frames per second. Break each frame into it's own massive image file, leaving you with essentially 30 images. 24 frames a second would mean you'd have 24 images, 60 frames per second would mean you'd have 60 images, etc., etc., excedera.
If you have ever used Cinema4D, the output I am looking to recreate is reflexive to that of an animation render, where you are left with a .TIFF per frame, placed side by side so that when uploaded into Photoshop or viewed in Quicktime you get a "slideshow" of images displaying so fast it look likes a video.
HTML would look something like this:
<div id="incredible-video">
<div class="image-1">
<img source=url('../movie/scene-one.tiff');/>
</div>
<div class="image-2">
<img source=url('../movie/scene-two.tiff');/>
</div>
<div class="image-3">
<img source=url('../movie/scene-three.tiff');/>
</div>
<div class="image-4">
<img source=url('../movie/scene-four.tiff');/>
</div>
<div class="image-5">
<img source=url('../movie/scene-five.tiff');/>
</div>
....etc.....
....etc.....
....etc.....
</div>
jQuery/Javascript could handle appending the sequential image classes instead of writting it all out by hand for each "frame".
CSS would look like:
#incredible-video img {
position:absolute;
width:100%;
height:auto;
background:cover;
}
But what would the jQuery/Javascript need to be to pull the off/can it be done? It would need to happen right after window load, and run on an infinite loop. Ofcourse audio is not happening in this example, but say we don't need it. Say we just want our End User to have a visually appealing page, with a minimal design implemented in the UI.
I love video animation, and really love sites built with Full Screen Backgrounds. But a site out with this visual setup and keeping it responsive is proving to strenuous a challenge. HTML5 will only get you so far, and makes mobile compatibility null and void (data usage protection). .GIF files are MASSIVE compared to calling in a .mp4, .Webm, or .OGG so that option is out.
I've actually recently played around with Adobe Edge Animate. Using the Edge Hero .js library I was able to reproduce a similar project to this: http://www.edgehero.com/tutorials/starwars-crawl-tutorial
I found it worked on ALL devices. Very cool. Made me think that maybe it's possibly to use this program or hit jQuery/Javascript directly to achieve the desired effect.
Thanks for taking a look at this one guys.
-Cheers,
Branden Dane

I found a viable solution to what I was looking to do. It's actually rather interesting. The answer it's introduces many interesting ideas on how we can display any kind of content dynamically on a site, in an app, or even a a full fledged software application.
The answer came about while diving hard into WebGl, canvas animation (both 2d and 3d), 2D video games techniques, and 3D video game techniques. Instead of looking for that "perfect" workflow, if you are someone interested in creating visually effective design and really seeing what the bleeding edge can do for your thoughts on development, skip the GUI's. Ignore the ads with software promising to make things doable in 5 min. It's not. However we are getting there. 3 major events we have to look forward too in just a few months are
1.) the universal agreement to implment WebGL natively in Opera, Chrome and Firefox (ofcourse), Safari will move to ship with webGL enabled, compered to the user having to enable it manually, and even IE is going to try and give her a go (in IE 12).
2.) Unity 3D, an industry standard in game development, has announced that next month it will release version 5, and with it a complete, intuitive workflow from start to exporting in Javascript (not JSON actual JavaScript). The Three.JS library more specifically as it is one of the most popular of the seemingly endless games engines out today.
How does this answer my initial question?:
Though WebGL has been around for about 3 years now, we are only now starting to see it shine. It's far more than a simple video game engine. With ThreeJS We have a full working JavaScript library, capable of rendering in WebGL, to the Canvas, or EVEN with a few CSS3 magic. Can't use your great movie as a mobile background? It ruining the overall UI? Cheer up. ThreeJS can working with both 2D and 3D javascript draw function, though not at the same time. Hover other libraries exist that allow you to bypass this rule.
AND DRUM ROLL. It is, or can be very easily made in a responsive or adaptive way.
The answer to my question came from looking at custom preloaders. Realizing I can create incredible looping animations in AE, and export them as GIFs offered the quality I wanted, but not control, no optimization, now sound. However, PNG Sequences CAN be exported. Then the epiphany hit. Before I just say what I am using to solve my problem, I'd like to leave a list of material anyone looking to move beyond easy development and challenge limits can use as a reference guide. This will be in order with what I began to where I am now. I hope it helps someone. The time to find it all out would be very much worth it.
1.) WebGL-Three.JS
WebGL opened my eyes to a new world. It's a technology quickly evolving and is here to stay. In a nutshell, all live applications you create now have access to more than just a CPU, but also the Graphics card as well. With GPU's getting more and more powerful, and not so unreasonably priced, the possibilities are endless. The idea we could be playing Crysis 3 "in-browser" without the need of a 3rd party client is no fiction. It's the future. Apply that to websites. Mind blown.
2.) First Cinema4D, then start working around with Verold.com & PlayCanvas.com
C4D is just my personal favorite because if it's easy integration with AE. You will find that with exporting your 3D models, Textures, Mesh's, anything to Three.JS (or any game engine period) that it is Blender that is the most widely supported. As of writing this, their are 2 separate C4D workflows to ThreeJS. Both are tedious, not always going to work, and actually just unnecessary. PlayCanvas was also a bit of a let down. Verold, however is an EXCELLENT browser based 3D editor in which you can import a variety of files (even FBX with Baked animations!) and when you are satisfied you can export into a standalone client or an iframe. The standalone client is superb. It is a bit glitchy, so have patience. You shouldn't get comfortable with it any way. Go back to your roots.
3.) iPhone app development, Android app dev (to an impressive extent), Web Sites, Web Apps, and more all function in a way that an application need only be made using JavaScript, HTML/5 and CSS/3. Once this is understood, and the truth hits you as to how much control you may not have known you had, then the day becomes good indeed. Learn the code. With a million untested and horrible "GUI's" out there that claim to do what you want, avoid the useless search. Learn the code. You can never go wrong at that point.
4.)What code do I need to learn?
JavaScript is the most essential. More on that in a moment. Seriously dive into creating apps of any kind with ThreeJS. Mr. Doob (co-creator of the library) has an EXCELLENT, well-documented website with tons of examples, tuts, and source code for you to dive into. Chrome Experiments is your next awesome option to see how people are really taking this kind of development to a new level. In the process of learning ThreeJS, you'll become more proficient with JavaScript. You will also start to play with things you maybe never had to, like JSON, or XML files for packaging data. You'll also learn how simple it is to implement Three.JS as a WebGL render, or even fallbacks to Canvas and even CSS3D if and when possible.
Before going on, I will make a caveat. I believe that once Unity 3D drops ThreeJS fro pro and free users, we will see much much more 3D in the web. In that case, it can't hurt to Download the software and play around a bit. It also serves an an excellent visual editor. There are exporters from Unity 3D to ThreeJS, but again they are still pre alpha stage.
2D or not 2D. that is the question
After getting a little dirty with 3D I moved into drawing in the 2D realm using the canvas. Flash still seems like a viable tool, but again, it's all about the code. Learn how to do it and you may find Flash is actually costing you time. I found 2D more difficult than 3D because the nature of 2D has yet to radically change, at least in my lifetime. You'll need to start learning Spritesheet creation tutorials. Nothing incredible hard if you know where to look. Use A photoshop, or an equivalent application. Create as many "movement" frames that if were put together in a GIF would be enough to seamlessly loop the sprite. OR render a master image out and cut around the elements naturally distinct pats. Ex: You want to make the guy you have standing on a street corner you created, stays. Cut that character up in as many separate PNG files as you believe you need. The second method is all about using the same sprite sheet we brought in the first try. The first scenario meant writing CSS selector and have javascript written for the regular user would become increasingly difficult.
First solution: Using CSS and Javascript to plot "frames" meticulously put together in the sprite sheet. This really can become a pain if not done correctly all the way through.
Second solution: We lose the frame by frame effect if we need it, but our overall 2D animations will look incredible. Also, building in this way creates more efficient games when implementing physics engines and setting up collision detectors. We will still use the same sprite sheet, however we only need to choose the frames we really actually need. The idea is to use dynamic tweening between frames that are called together via Javascript. In the end you have a fully animated Sprite, but could have done so with just one frame. Ex: You have a Stickman you want to show walking in a straight line. Solution one would jump frame by frame, creating a mild chop, to illustrate an animated walk. In solution 2, we take the Stick man and chop his dynamic bits apart so we can call them through JavaScript, then build our sprite from JavaScript directly. To create the walking effect, we cut apart stickmans legs and have those separate in the sprite sheet from the rest of his body (unless you need to animate another body part as well). We map out where the coordinates are for each piece of stickman. Free software like DarkFunctionEditor is one of many programs that will instantly take care of generating for you a reliable sprite sheet, printing out the coordinates of your sprite sheet after you bake it. With this knowledge, head into JavaScript and call in your variables that you wish to associate to the pieces of Stick Man and their corresponding coordinates. Then use Javascript to "build" all the pieces together. The walking animation is accomplished by the Tween we talked about earlier. Each leg essentially runs on a beautifully fluid path you set in JavaScript. No chop. Very easy to customize and control. If you want to make it even easier for yourself, try using one of the many libraries for Sprite animation. My favorite at the moment being CreateJS.
If you are looking to include collision detection or create particle systems then you will need a physics engine. For 2D I am torn between 2 at the moment. Right now I would put PhysicsJS over KineticJS. Both are fantastic. I believe PhysicsJS integrates with CaccoonJS and other mobile scripts easier.
My last words of advice are=, after reading this, understand you will be working will JavaScript. You will have a bit of jQuery to make it easy, but you will encounter things that are difficult on the way. My HUGE recommendation is to move into learning how to build using NodeJS. It's an Asynchronous Javascript Server-side and client-side development space. The documentation is wonderful. Your first stop should be learing about npm, and bower. Then understand how to effectively implement Grunt into the workflow. Try out NodeJS assets like Yeoman to give you "boilerplate" Node setups from which to start with. After you start understanding NodeJS mechanics and feel comfortable with setting up your initial package.json, you'll find that all this JavaScript will almost feel like it's writing itself after a certain point.
And that's all you need to know to get into 2D and 3D design and development. My initial question could have been answered using say a 3D rendered fullscreen. However my final conclusion came in a different method entirely.
After learning about 2D sprites and framing, then noticing the encoding process of gifs. I had the idea to try and create PNG Sprite Animations. Not PNG Gifs, per say. But rather creating a 2D scene and using a PNG sequence that I would then animate via JavaScript. I found a few great libraries on Github, both for my idea and cool ideas for GIF manipulation.
My final choices was with the Github Repo "jquery.animateSprite" Instead of mulling through sprite sheets, you take your individual PNG's and this library gives you an incredible amount of control in how you can store variables for later use, but also the animations you can pull off in general. For a full screen, responsive background that works on any device (and can even be animated to sound....) I'd recommend this technique. It works much like a flip book animation works, except much much more effectively.
I hope this helps someone along the way. If you have a question on anything I have mentioned here, or know of an area that needs further detail, then by all means please let me know.
-Cheers

asynchronous / variable framerate in javascript game

This may be a stupid/previously answered question, but it is something that has been stumping me and my friends for a little while, and I have been unable to find a good answer.
Right now, i make all my JS Canvas games run in ticks. For example:
function tick(){
//calculate character position
//clear canvas
//draw sprites to canvas
if(gameOn == true)
t = setTimeout(tick(), timeout)
}
This works fine for CPU-cheep games on high-end systems, but when i try to draw a little more every tick, it starts to run in slow motion. So my question is, how can i keep the x,y position and hit-detection calculations going at full speed while allowing a variable framerate?
Side Note: I have tried to use the requestAnimationFrame API, but to be honest it was a little confusing (not all that many good tutorials on it) and, while it might speed up your processing, it doesn't entirely fix the problem.
Thanks guys -- any help is appreciated.

RequestAnimationFrame makes a big difference. It's probably the solution to your problem. There are two more things you could do: set up a second tick system which handles the model side of it, e.g. hit detection. A good example of this is how PhysiJS does it. It goes one step further, and uses a feature of some new browsers called a web worker. It allows you to utilise a second CPU core. John Resig has a good tutorial. But be warned, it's complicated, is not very well supported (and hence buggy, it tends to crash a lot).
Really, request animation frame is very simple, it's just a couple of lines which once you've set up you can forget about it. It shouldn't change any of your existing code. It is a bit of a challenge to understand what the code does but you can pretty much cut-and-replace your setTimeout code for the examples out there. If you ask me, setTimeout is just as complicated! They do virtually the same thing, except setTimeout has a delay time, whereas requestAnimationFrame doesn't - it just calls your function when it's ready, rather than after a set period of time.

You're not actually using the ticks. What's hapenning is that you are repeatedly calling tick() over and over and over again. You need to remove the () and just leave setTimeout(tick,timeout); Personally I like to use arguments.callee to explicitly state that a function calls itself (and thereby removing the dependency of knowing the function name).
With that being said, what I like to do when implementing a variable frame rate is to simplify the underlying engine as much as possible. For instance, to make a ball bounce against a wall, I check if the line from the ball's previous position to the next one hits the wall and, if so, when.
That being said you need to be careful because some browsers halt all JavaScript execution when a contaxt menu (or any other menu) is opened, so you could end up with a gap of several seconds or even minutes between two "frames". Personally I think frame-based timing is the way to go in most cases.

As Kolink mentioned. The setTimeout looks like a bug. Assuming it's only a typo and not actually a bug I'd say that it is unlikely that it's the animation itself (that is to say, DOM updates) that's really slowing down your code.
How much is a little more? I've animated hundreds of elements on screen at once with good results on IE7 in VMWare on a 1.2GHz Atom netbook (slowest browser I have on the slowest machine I have, the VMWare is because I use Linux).
In my experience, hit detection if not done properly causes the most slowdown when the number of elements you're animating increases. That's because a naive implementation is essentially exponential (it will try to do n^n compares). The way around this is to filter out the comparisons to avoid unnecessary comparisons.
One of the most common ways of doing this in game engines (regardless of language) is to segment your world map into a larger set of grids. Then you only do hit detection of items in the same grid (and adjacent grids if you want to be more accurate). This greatly reduces the number of comparisons you need to make especially if you have lots of characters.

What's the best solution for rendering a javascript game in Browser (complete viewport)

I think there are two diffrent solutions for the problem:
1) First the solution shown by aves Engine, which renders the whole game with html elements and external stylesheets e.g. CSS3 transfomations. Pro's are that the event-handling is much easier when working with div's than by rendering on canvas.
2) Like isogenicengine.com shows you could render the game on html5 canvas element. Mabye that's the better solution, because rendering on canvas is the way that millions of 2D-games were written before and in future the industry will optimize the drawing methods e.g. with hardware acceleration. At the moment the contra is that rendering on canvas is slow if you would like to render in fullscreen. If you would like to render only in a specific area of 200x200px that's okay, but in fullscreen you get stuck with a framerate of 10fps.
What do you think is the better way to create a game for the web?
Thanks for your opinion!
PS: If you have some articles about the topic please paste some links

I don't think it's a clear one size fits all kind of thing. I really think it depends on what you want to do with your game.
If you are doing a lot of vector graphic manipulation, perhaps canvas is a better choice vs engine like aves. For tiled based, maybe aves will work better.

You can render fast on fullscreen canvas if you're clever about only re-rendering dirty regions. But if your whole canvas needs to change every frame this obviously isn't going to help much.

I've spent alot of time recently looking into this issue and my conclusion is pretty simple.
Use HTML Elements, lets say that HTML5 actually makes progress and in one year the major browser support it. How long does it then take to get the general user base of the web on the latest browser (IE6 still has a choke hold in some sectors). So making the game available to as many people as possible is key! (In my mind anyways)
If however, your looking to learn and develop, go with canvas.

What's the speed difference between drawing with html5 canvas and html and javascript?

I'm interested in making a game using html and javascript. I was wondering if it really is that much faster drawing in html5 and javascript than it is with images and div's in html and javascript.
Example of a game using html and javascript that works nicely:
http://scrabb.ly/
Example of a game using html5 and javascript that works nicely:
http://htmlchess.sourceforge.net/demo/example.html

I've run a bunch of numbers on HTML-made drawing versus Canvas-made drawing. I could make a huge post about the benefits of each, but I will give some of the relevant results of my tests to consider for your specific application:
I made Canvas and HTML test pages, both had movable "nodes." Canvas nodes were objects I created and kept track of in Javascript. HTML nodes were <div>s, though they could be <image> or <video> too.
I added 100,000 nodes to each of my two tests. They performed quite differently:
The HTML test tab took forever to load (timed at slightly under 5 minutes, chrome asked to kill the page the first time). Chrome's task manager says that tab is taking up 168MB. It takes up 12-13% CPU time when I am looking at it, 0% when I am not looking.
The Canvas tab loaded in one second and takes up 30MB. It also takes up 13% of CPU time all of the time, regardless of whether or not one is looking at it.
Dragging on the HTML page is smoother, which I suppose is expected, since the current setup is to redraw EVERYTHING every 30 milliseconds in the Canvas test. There are plenty of optimizations to be had for Canvas for this. (canvas invalidation being the easiest, also clipping regions, selective redrawing, etc.. just depends on how much you feel like implementing)
Video on the HTML page, while I am not moving objects, is actually perfectly smooth.
On canvas the video is always slow, since I am redrawing constantly because I turned off my drawing canvas invalidation. There is of course plenty of room for improvement.
Drawing/loading alone is far faster in Canvas and has far more room for optimizations, too (ie, excluding things that are off-screen is very easy).

Fast as in faster rendering or faster development? I would say the answer to both is HTML5 canvas. Although it is a fairly new technology, and not even supported by all mainstream browsers yet, it already has much more functionality than you would have using DIVs with normal HTML. I've done drawing with divs before and it was incredibly frustrating just getting something to work. With canvas you already have a framework in place to do most basic drawing. Furthermore, html5 is new. Even if it is relatively slower than drawing with divs right now (which it probably isn't), that performance will increase as development and adoption increases. I can't say the same for drawing with divs.
Pros to using HTML5 Canvas:
Similar to other drawing frameworks (OpenGL, DirectX)
Will continue to increase in performance and functionality
May become hardware accelerated in the future
Possible 3D framework in the future

Neither of those games requires HTML 5. scrabb.ly does everything with rectangular objects, which divs handle just fine, and the chess game doesn't even use animation. If that's the kind of game you're thinking of building, then what you use should be decided on the grounds of familiarity and compatibility rather than performance.

Anyone knows the algorithm for this kind of rubbery effect?

I'm doing some animations and I want to implement something like this on the web. I was thinking that the HTML canvas can do this kind of job. Because I can scale part of an image. I just need the algorithm to actually make it work.
The effect is elastic, if the window is small, the greater the elasticity of the window when you restore it. I was thinking that I can make this work in web images.. if the user click the image it will scale with this kind of effect, not the boring way of scaling.
This is ubuntu, I know that we can look at the source code maybe to see how it actually implements the animation. But I dont know where to find it. Or i don't even understand codes written in linux because I just understand php, javascript. Basically I'm not a software developer, My core expertise is in web development.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hgQP-aFragQ

I believe your best bet is having a look at John Resig's Processing.js.
Processing is a animation language for Java; John has ported it to the browser using canvas.

Your not going to find a web based solution that is going to do this for you. If you need something like this done it will have to be in flash or some other application (Lenni mentioned Java) that runs in a separate media box embedded in a web page.
People don't want big flashy animations, seeing something that is 'boring' is much better if it becomes more usable.

First up - I don't know the actual algorithm they use here.
However, I'd attack this by creating a grid of points (say 10x10), each point attached to it's neighbors by damped springs. It might be worth anchoring the edge/corner points to the screen with springs too.
By deforming the grid (stretching and compressing the springs) and then modeling the spring responses, you'd get some interesting effects like those shown. You might then be able to record the patterns so that the points can follow a pre-computed path for faster animation if your animations are predictable.
Then you need to work out how to split the image and map it onto the grid. The splitting may be better done once on the server, but the client can do it if you use canvas.
svg & vml is a possibility - they'll work without plugins and are similar enough to code for, but I don't think you'll get correct enough image deformation. However, you can scale and rotate with impunity (and quickly) so if you just anchor 2 cell image points to the grid rather than all 4, you'll get an interesting animation - not quite like the video, but pretty good.
As for how to model damped springs, you'll need to keep track of the mass of each point (how heavy it is), how much force the spring is exerting on each point (scalar of how compressed/stretched it is and it's vector) and a damping force on the points (resistive force to the square of the velocity of the point).
It's physics modeling, to be sure, but quite possible.
The response may well be slow. Especially on IE. Canvas needs a plug-in on IE, so if you use canvas, IE folk wont see it. SVG works on almost everything except IE, but it does have VML which is similar. http://raphaeljs.com/ is a library that uses whatever's available. This will be a challenge to tune up :)
However you do this, it will always look best in chrome, the V8 javascript engine outstrips everything else for this kind of work. IE has the slowest javascript engine.