what seems funny is how someone posted a non scirra made stencyl version that performed better shortly after, plus it is not using the new flash stage thing which would probably be much better than WebGL anyway. It seems bias in my opinion, in fact most of the blog so far just seems like a big marketing plan. Ashley sums it up best in the other performance blog post: We think performance in games can be important (but not all the time!) as it can be a limitation on creativity. We've put a lot of effort into optimising Construct 2 for performance and it's perhaps one of its less known features which is why we did the blog post. But as there is no independent source to refer to we had to do it ourselves. Of course we knew that when we did it we would receive criticism for bias. Our full methodology is explained along with project files to download as mentioned above. Tom from Scirra here, this is all we're trying to say! There are currently no benchmarks out there comparing products so we thought we would do one, and we invite other benchmarks from independent sources as well! We'd love to see other benchmarks in this area. Guys they posted their entire design methodology with links to the tests they used to measure each application, why not try to see if there are flaws in that instead of dismissing it based on "bias" or "credibility" or w/e I'm not too versed in performance testing stuff myself but is creating as many sprites onscreen as possible before it starts lagging really the best way to go about this? It's probably a good test for just pure rendering but in the end for most applications each sprite will have to be executing some game logic, the majority of them won't be sitting there just displaying.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |