Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Epic and Mozilla Bring HTML5 OpenGL Demo To the Browser

Soulskill posted about a year ago | from the still-working-on-crysis dept.

Firefox 77

sl4shd0rk writes "Mozilla and Epic (of Epic Megagames fame) have engineered an impressive First Person OpenGL demo which runs on HTML5 and a subset of JavaScript. Emscripten, the tool used, converts C and C++ code into 'low level' JavaScript. According to Epic, The Citadel demo runs 'within 2x of native speeds' and supports features commonly found in native OpenGL games such as dynamic specular lighting and global illumination. This concept was previously covered on Slashdot, however the Citadel demo has just been released this week."

cancel ×


Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Plain Crap (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43624223)

It's telling me the current version of Chrome is unsupported? And when I click 'Try Anyway' it immediately grabs 1.5GB of RAM?

Thanks, but I already know that Firefox disrespects RAM. I don't need another example.

Re:Plain Crap (3, Informative)

robmv (855035) | about a year ago | (#43624429)

This requieres Mozilla JS enhancements (asm.js) currently on nightly builds, It can work on other browsers but without the performance tuning made for the JS subset that is asm.js it will run slow. Chromium bug proposing to add support for asm.js []

Re:Plain Crap (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43625559)

So it's a ‘subset’ of JavaScript but for it to be useful (or in this case, work at all) you need to have extensions in your browser so it actually isn't even a superset - it's a completely different language. Also on the surface it looks like the only place where HTML is involved is to provide a place to put the OpenGL graphics. And obviously it won't run near twice native speeds but (if you have a special browser) near half native speeds.
So almost every sentence in the summary is wrong, to create a picture of this wonderful thing that can be done within web standards, whereas almost the complete opposite is true. You need a special browser for this and even then performance is shitty.

Re:Plain Crap (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43626423)

welcome to the open webz

Re:Plain Crap (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43628105)

It performs fine with just JITing, and amazingly (for a C++-to-JS ported codebase) with asm.js.

Re:Plain Crap (4, Informative)

kripkenstein (913150) | about a year ago | (#43627101)

This requieres Mozilla JS enhancements (asm.js) currently on nightly builds, It can work on other browsers but without the performance tuning made for the JS subset that is asm.js it will run slow. Chromium bug proposing to add support for asm.js []

It doesn't require special asm.js optimizations (asm.js is a subset of JavaScript, so it already runs properly in all modern browsers). The demo works fine in the stable release of Firefox for example, which has no special asm.js optimizations. It is faster in Firefox nightly though which does have those optimizations. But how much faster depends on the CPU and GPU, it might matter a lot or it might matter a little. In this demo a lot of time is spent in WebGL, so a fast GPU and good WebGL implementation matters a lot too.

The demo should work in any browser with WebGL and JavaScript support. For example the only reason it currently fails in Chrome is due to a bug [] related to memory use. Hopefully that will be fixed soon.

And now you know that Chrome disrespects (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43625999)

standards [] .

Useless until it's not just Failfox-ware (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43624229)

And don't you dare to moderate this as flamebait or trolling, you icky quick draw Firefox fans. The world of web browsers is thankfully bigger than just Firefox. Period.

Re:Useless until it's not just Failfox-ware (1)

stewsters (1406737) | about a year ago | (#43624277)

They need to get it working one browser first. They chose Firefox. Its not my preference of Chromium or your preference of IE6, but its a start.

Re:Useless until it's not just Failfox-ware (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43624371)

c'mon. you can't blame people and assume they are ie6 users when you yourself don't even know the difference between "it's" and "its". we might as well assume you're illiterate, having had to ask your mom to write this post for you.

Re:Useless until it's not just Failfox-ware (1)

carlhaagen (1021273) | about a year ago | (#43624391)

Dunno. I think Chrome, Chromium, Safari and a few others could've been done in one throw of a stone.

Re:Useless until it's not just Failfox-ware (2)

robmv (855035) | about a year ago | (#43624449)

This demo is plain Javascript, but only uses as subset of it (asm.js), the VM needs performance enhancement to run (asm.js) efficiently so it is not an easy task to support other browser, unless you call "supported"to run it very slow []

Re:Useless until (2)

kripkenstein (913150) | about a year ago | (#43627129)

The difference between asm.js with and without special optimizations is not necessarily that big. See benchmarks here [] , showing it can be anywhere from 1x (almost no change) to 5x. It depends a lot on the benchmark. And in a demo like this, the GPU matters a lot too, which makes asm.js matter less.
So all modern browsers should already work on this demo. But this is a very large codebase (over 1M lines of C++ compiled to JS), and it pushes the limit of what browsers have tested on. Now that this demo is public, that should make it easier for other browsers to fix what they need so the demo can work on them.

Re:Useless until (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43629545)

So all modern browsers should already work on this demo.

Except for IE10 of course. IE11 might have WebGL.

Re:Useless until it's not just Failfox-ware (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43624519)

They wrote the demo according to web standards, and it only worked in Firefox. Now they need to fix bugs in the other browsers, not in the demo.

Re:Useless until it's not just Failfox-ware (1)

caspy7 (117545) | about a year ago | (#43627669)

Mozilla & Epic worked together on this together.
They used Emscripten, which Mozilla developed, to compile to asm.js, which Mozilla developed and put an optimized module in Firefox's Javascript engine.
So I'd say it's little more than Epic choosing Firefox.

Re:Useless until it's not just Failfox-ware (0, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43624603)

I won't mod you down, but I will call you out for being a massive dickhead. You massive dickhead.

Re:Useless until it's not just Failfox-ware (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43625897)

Were you also ranting against Chrome Experiments during the one or two months it ran exclusively on Chrome?

Firefox only? (-1, Flamebait)

ArcadeMan (2766669) | about a year ago | (#43624237)

Are we back to the "Best viewed on Internet Explorer" days?

Re:Firefox only? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43624279)

This comment shows an amazing understanding of the article and it's contents, clearly a Slashdotter for the ages.

Re:Firefox only? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43624335)

With the exception that even the "best view" lags like hell.

Re:Firefox only? (1)

The MAZZTer (911996) | about a year ago | (#43624403)

Well you can try it in Chrome, but right now Chrome crashes when you do.

They also don't prevent you from trying it in any browser (AFAIK) except pre-23 versions of Firefox.

Re:Firefox only? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43625125)

Oh God no!

We've finally reached the "Best NOT viewed on Internet Explorer" days, and it's about time.

Re:Firefox only? (1)

CritterNYC (190163) | about a year ago | (#43625215)

If you'd read the links, you'd know that this is new technology being created by the Mozilla folks and being debuted in Firefox first. It's open source (as would be expected from Mozilla) and available to every other browser maker. It uses a subset of JavaScript that's specially compiled to run very fast in the optimized Firefox engine. It's still valid JavaScript, though, so it will run in other browsers, just slower. Some browsers like Chrome can't handle it and crash at the moment. There's already a feature request to add this into Chrome/Chromium. And, since it is in Firefox, it'll be in Firefox OS as well, making gaming on Firefox OS cell phones more of a possibility than it was before.

Re:Firefox only? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43625269)

Nope, because these are just experiments, not final code.
These are experiments by groups of people that may or may not reach a final standard for the web.
Experimentation drives creation and standardization.

And now that most have agreed to, browser prefixes are going the way of the dodo so you don't see website developers adding prefixes all over their websites that end up breaking when they get removed.
People will now, again, need to directly enable experiments in the expert pages of their respective browsers.
Prefixes were a nice experiment, but it just resulted in a mess because people implemented them as if they were standard.

Browser Not Supported (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43624253)

Using Firefox 20 on Linux, I get browser not supported.

Cross platform compatibility at its finest. Not that I really wanted to peg my i7 cores with Javascript, but...

Re:Browser Not Supported (1)

maxwell demon (590494) | about a year ago | (#43624305)

I just got the RAM filling up and the computer going to a crawl until I forcefully killed firefox.

Re:Browser Not Supported (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43624409)

Just got the latest Nightly and works smooth here. 5 year old computer running Win 7

Re:Browser Not Supported (2)

donaldm (919619) | about a year ago | (#43627505)

I have a HP dv7 (2.5 years old with 8GB RAM) running Fedora 18 with the latest updates as per a week ago and my Firefox is version 20. The demo definitely does run under Firefox although I did have to do two refreshes before the demo started.

I ran the performance test and I got about 17 frames a second in full screen mode which is not that good but it is still viewable although a bit jerky at time. I did like the refection on the tiles in the church and the water effects although I have seen similar and better in other games of this type. The thing that has me worried when viewing my performance monitor is that the CPU temperature showed about 95 deg C which considering that boiling water is 100 deg C means that I will be sending my dv7 in for repair before my warranty runs out.

Still for something like this to run on a browser under Linux IMHO is quite good and may level the playing field between desktop OS's since basically if you are a PC gamer you have to run your "Games for Windows" under a Microsoft OS (I do know about WINE but IMHO it is a kludge for a kludge anyway). Still I actually prefer console gaming to PC gaming and no amount of arguments can convince me otherwise.

On a lighter note where are all the NPC's and there has to be a dragon somewhere or at least some Orc's (maybe they were doing their washing) :)

Re:Browser Not Supported (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43624321)

It says you need Firefox 23 nightly in big red letters. Try that.

Re:Browser Not Supported (1)

MrBandersnatch (544818) | about a year ago | (#43624355) (win 8) worked fine for me.

Re:Browser Not Supported (1)

Lehk228 (705449) | about a year ago | (#43624803)

firefox 21 ran it pretty well, stuttery and about 16 fps but it looked great and was very impressive as a web game engine tech demo.

Re:Browser Not Supported (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43625561)

Why is the nightly at version 23 when the latest available on the website is 20? Are you telling me the stable release is THREE fucking versions behind? Or is Mozilla a Microsoft dick-sucking organisation?

Re:Browser Not Supported (4, Insightful)

steelfood (895457) | about a year ago | (#43624441)

HTML5 is trying to be the next Java, substituting the browser in place of the JVM. This is a logical extension to the past decade of offloading all the heavy processing to the web browser.

Yes, the client is much faster and more powerful than what the server could provide for each individual connected client. But at the same time, the implementation differences between browsers, platforms, and even browser versions will still result in the same or worse incompatiblities than before.

Re:Browser Not Supported (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43624659)

I'm having trouble getting too worked up about a tech demo showing off a 10x performance improvement in the nightly over the stable version not working in the stable version.

Yes, new ideas will get implemented differently and at different rates, but Mozilla and Google are working hard to make sure the final versions of things get standardized and work cross-browser as it is in both of their interests (Apple and Microsoft both have some amount of interest in the web working poorly so people use native apps instead). Most importantly, Mozilla and Google have recently moved to disabling non-standardized features by default, so there is less temptation for developers to try to use non-standard features (e.g. not doing the CSS-prefixing thing anymore in favor of making it a configuration option that's disabled by default).

Re:Browser Not Supported (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43625973)

Most importantly, Mozilla and Google have recently moved to disabling non-standardized features by default

and in Google's case, they're disabling standardised features like MathML [] .

Re: Browser Not Supported (1)

cerberusss (660701) | about a year ago | (#43628183)

After kicking off Flash from OS X, I feel getting 3D acceleration in the browser is also advantageous for Apple. Maybe only Microsoft is the one that does not particularly feel inclined to invest in this tech. But on the other hand, they also have their version of a tablet for sale.

Re:Browser Not Supported (1)

MikeBabcock (65886) | about a year ago | (#43626105)

HTML5 has been the next Java since WebOS ... a slow but portable app environment that's best replaced with native code when possible but still functional.

Re:Browser Not Supported (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43629173)

I'd hesitate to say "slow" in light of the demos they've provided of late for Emscripten. It's not anywhere near as fast as native code, but it's definitely fast enough to do a Drakensang Online map viewer with LOADS of 3D sprites in motion and able to mostly handle a Cube3D engine in a playable manner. Not quite as fast as Java might be, but if they don't screw up things, it will be a boon for many vendors. Not a panacea, but something that could allow them to field real cross-platform games and the like as services. Many of the casual games would benefit over this rather than being implemented in Flash or Silverlight.

Re:Browser Not Supported (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43628067)

Given that I just enjoyed the demo on a 6 years old hardware running Gentoo and Firefox 20, I'd say I find these "same or worse incompatiblities" very compatible for a change.

Re:Browser Not Supported (1)

Tr3vin (1220548) | about a year ago | (#43624493)

And they did that without DRM!

Re:Browser Not Supported (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43625107)

You think that you don't have trouble understanding things, don't you?

Re:Browser Not Supported (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43624559)

And I got "High Performance" with FX20+Ubuntu. Strange description for 19FPS at 1440x900 resolution.

Re:Browser Not Supported (1)

Mordok-DestroyerOfWo (1000167) | about a year ago | (#43624619)

20.0 on vanilla Debian (XFCE) and it was choppy until I went to full screen...then smooth as butter. Very impressive.

Crashed Firefox (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43624437)

It died. RIP little instance.

Is it so hard? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43624615)

For some reason the people here don't understand immediately what this is: A tech demo.

asm.js is experimental. html5 is very new. WebGL is not that widely used yet. emscripten. This is just demonstrating what is possible with what we have today.

I tried it on linux with intel 4000 with mesa git master and firefox nightly.

I haven't looked into why the rendering in the default settings is bad. Maybe they still blacklist it.

To get decent performance I had to go to about:config and set layers.acceleration.force-enabled to true.

Then the rendering is really smooth. And with really smooth I would be happy with this performance in any game. At 1920x1080. With intel integrated graphics on a mobile cpu.

For some reason disabling vsync is not so easy. I have tried setting layout.frame_rate to 500 (was -1, so maybe auto or off) like they say in the faq and started firefox-nightly with vblank_mode=1 but still didn't get much more fps. Maybe I also need to disable kwin vsync? Or maybe it just was the maximum perfomance, but I find it hard to believe that the maximum is by chance so close to 60 fps.

This is what "benchmark" says:

And yes, this was without anti aliasing and didn't look too good because of that. It also had some tearing issues but that was maybe because I tried to disable vsync.

Re:Is it so hard? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43624651)

One thing I forgot: Yes, firefox used ~1000 megabyte of RES memory. I can imagine that this can still be optimized greatly. Remember that this is a nightly build with an experimental javascript (subset) accelerator.

Re:Is it so hard? (1)

Osgeld (1900440) | about a year ago | (#43627655)

"This is just demonstrating what is possible with what we have today."

so ... how does one demonstrate something not possible today without demonstrating it today

blah blah bla , no input


Impressive (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43624663)

A 3D environment running in my browser, without Flash or some proprietary plugin not available on Linux? And all on fully free software stack*? I'm impressed. It runs smoothly in full screen as well.

* Excluding the game assets obviously.

Rube Goldberg (1)

Tobia Conforto (2818827) | about a year ago | (#43625263)

Let me get this straight.

They (the asm.js [] nutjobs and the vendors who trot along) are proposing to take programs written in C or C++, "compile" them to the fascist brother of Javascript (I won't call it a "subset" of the language because it actually works by adding boilerplate code) so that supported implementations can recognize that the Javascript source has all the boilerplate cruft in place and try to compile the damn thing back to machine code.

Rube Goldberg would be proud.

Besides, I can see the security chasms opening as we speak

Re:Rube Goldberg (1)

idbeholda (2405958) | about a year ago | (#43627311)

I wouldn't so much as call it a security chasm, as a slow descent into the fissure that is known to some ancient civilizations as The Crack Of Oblivion.

Re:Rube Goldberg (1)

icebraining (1313345) | about a year ago | (#43630557)

All JavaScript engines compile to machine code; it's not something specific of asm.js.

'within 2x of native speeds' (1)

phoenix_rizzen (256998) | about a year ago | (#43625487)

What the hell does "within 2x of native speed" mean? Is it 2x faster? Is it 2x slower? Is it 200% faster/slower? Is it 50% slower?

If only there were a marketing-to-English dictionary, or perhaps a school we could send people to ...

Re: 'within 2x of native speeds' (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43626073)

Multiply native speeds by two. It's within that range. Or, if you're STILL having trouble understanding the obvious, that means it's up to twice as slow.

Re: 'within 2x of native speeds' (1)

ardor (673957) | about a year ago | (#43627847)

Multiply native speeds by two

Actually, it would be "divide native speed by two" ;)

Re: 'within 2x of native speeds' (1)

phoenix_rizzen (256998) | about a year ago | (#43721639)

Considering everyone who's replied to my post has gotten it wrong, my point stands. ;)

Re: 'within 2x of native speeds' (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43626107)

What the hell does "within 2x of native speed" mean? Is it 2x faster? Is it 2x slower? Is it 200% faster/slower? Is it 50% slower?

If only there were a marketing-to-English dictionary, or perhaps a school we could send people to ...

If only there was a maths-to-English dictionary, or perhaps a school we could send you to ...
2x = 100% faster (original 100% + extra 100%)
200% faster would be 3x faster (original 100% + extra 200%)

If you read the clumsy expression "within 2x of native speed" carefully, it means native speed is greater than zero but less than twice the native speed.
Of course this means absolutely nothing, even drawing Citadel on paper would be "within 2x of native speed".

Re: 'within 2x of native speeds' (1)

phoenix_rizzen (256998) | about a year ago | (#43721651)

I understand math, I understand 2x=100% faster, etc.

But "within 2x native speed" is nonsensical and non-mathematical.

Considering even you got it wrong ... I wonder who needs to go to school now ...

Re: 'within 2x of native speeds' (1)

Svartalf (2997) | about a year ago | (#43629361)

Heh... The English isn't the best (It's proper and valid- but I wouldn't have put it in the somewhat confusing manner that they did...), but they're talking about being about half as fast as native, based on what I've been able to ascertain playing with the demos and a bit with emscripten. Considering what I know about's not half bad.

It's a clever hack- but it's still a hack. It'll let vendors make casual games and light MMOGs easily playable with more than just one platform- no Flash or Silverlight needed. Just a modern browser- the demos even work on the later versions of the Chrome browser on Android (It's slow on my tablet, but that may be implementation and/or SoC speed...). I certainly wouldn't make UT with it- but it's good enough to reach for something more like Q3:A Live without needing any special anything to pull it off with. I can see the appeal, so long as they don't screw it up.

Godamnit (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43625505)

Is there any way to invert the mouse controls? You know, up/down? Stupid kids and their non-inverted controls...

Wow (1)

Joseph1337 (1146047) | about a year ago | (#43625827)

If this really takes off (it's now only in it's early stages and still is only 2x slower than C/C++!) then we could really see the YOTLD for real (+Steam gaining more GNU/Linux games). Also now with Android more devs are ditching DirectX and Windows specific engines. The C/C++ -> JScript seems like a quite amazing hack, hope it isn't as riddled with potential exploitation's as i fear. Great work Mozilla!

Worked great for me (1)

ebrandsberg (75344) | about a year ago | (#43626427)

I just tried, and I was able to "play" the demo, walking around the environment, etc. I ran the benchmark, and got 57fps, and although I have 120hz monitors, I suspect something is limiting most of the rendering to 60hz. TBH, this is amazing to me. I tested under windows 7 with firefox 20.0.1 however, so I'll have to try booted into Ubuntu and see how it works there.

Re:Worked great for me (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43628035)

From the FAQ on the linked demo page:

Q: I’m using Nightly Firefox, but when I benchmark, I am locked at 60 frames per second. Is there any way to unlock frame rate?

A: There is an option in Firefox that will unlock the frame rate, allowing Epic Citadel to run faster than 60 frames per second.

To set this option:
- In a new browser tab, type “about:config”
- In the Search box, type “frame”
- Double-click on layout.frame_rate
- Enter 500 (this will be the new max frame rate)
- Click OK and restart the browser for the change to take effect!

All we ever wanted... (1)

VortexCortex (1117377) | about a year ago | (#43627177)

All we've ever really wanted was a unibiquitous software development platform that wasn't bloated as hell and allowed optional access to the local file system (for save data / load data). Java could have been this, but they didn't make Applets be trimmed down lean and mean for the web, and included the kitchen sink so the attack surface was too large. HTML+JS is becoming what we want, if it wasn't for the horribly designed scripting language -- Its design had no concern for speed since all the heavy lifting was to be handled by Java, hence "JavaScript"... Unfortunately since Sun dropped the Java ball, JavaScript is left to take up the reigns. Instead of redesigning it, or giving us a new language to use in all common browsers that could be compiled to bytecode -- Lua w/ LuaJIT? (well, one that is more friendly, perhaps).

Anyway, as a game developer I've experimented in HTML5+JS+WebGL, but you know what's holding me back? Two things: IE support for WebGL, and HTML5 Audio: Look, It takes just as long to code the thing in OpenGL and C than WebGL and JS, and afterwards I can reach the whole market, not just the FF / Chrome market, and I can control the damn audio pipeline properly -- By whole market I mean my code runs on Linux, Mac, Windows, natively. With a bit of meta programming and some purpose built "platform abstraction layer / runtime" I can create programs that deploy to iOS and Android as well as the desktop OSs... I can add Firefox and Chrome as a target platform, if only AUDIO wasn't screwed. Play a sound, then play it again while it's still playing. There's noticeable lag even if you remember to seek to the beginning so your sound actually plays. To combat this I create 10 or so of the same exact same audio tag for one sound effect and loop through them so that I'm not re-using the same audio tag... And it still stutters and pops and lags -- This time because we've got 100s of audio tags to maintain, and the scripting host is too damn slow to keep buffers full, apparently. Notice how the Citadel demo is lacking any sound effects except a single looped sound playing fades out at either end? And even then it cuts out in the middle instead of transitioning smoothly to the next area -- Shit, even I can pull off a dynamic audio fade transition, with just two audio tags (WTF are you even doing Epic? It's unreal you'd make this newb mistake). Yeah, there's a reason for the lack of interactive audio effects, and that reason sucks -- I guess I'm wearing pillows on my feet?

I think the web is an interesting platform -- browsers can provide access to machine features through OSs (add another abstraction layer: meta programming, ugh), but the only reason the web is interesting at all is because of the huge adoption rate of web browsers which we can leverage. Everything else about them sucks. JS is used because it's there, not because it's any good. Hell, I could say the same thing about HTML -- It's not any good. Come up with a low level bytecode interactive glyph and shape rendering system and allow us to compile sites down into that, then we can have freedom to escape the 1.5 decade long march it takes to get from one version of HTML to the next by creating better markups that compile down to efficient cross platform display and animation bytecode. Yeah, like Flash, but browsers could compile HTML, CSS and JS, or support faster pre-compiled stuff. Otherwise, screw the web, Apps will eat you alive. Text can be embedded there for search spiders, and they'd have an even easier time lexing past bytecode to get at text rather than We can't afford to keep tweaking crap just because a browser changes the way it renders some tags -- Even some designs on CSS Zen Garden are broken in FF now. Ugh. Give us a binary SVG already, with pixel perfect definition for rendering, it's not rocket science.

Interesting, but the web isn't ready for large scale games just yet without plugins because of its flaky audio and inefficient scripting language (even with ASM.js). Sticking to smaller games is fine for the web until the issues are sorted. Oh, there may be hope yet, Firefox has an experimental raw-audio API which is pretty cool, allows dynamic mixing and audio generation on the fly, but loading arrays (tree structures in memory) of integers (emulated by emulated 64bit floats -- not a typo) as the buffer is retarding (literally, in every sense of the word).

Re:All we ever wanted... (1)

roca (43122) | about a year ago | (#43627687)

Leaked IE11 builds support WebGL.

Chrome has some pretty bad bugs with the element in gaming contexts. But the real solution to audio in HTML5 games is the Web Audio API. This is still a work in progress, but we'll get there. The Citadel demo uses it. If you stand on the bridge over the river and turn around 360 degrees, you should get a nice stereo effect.

Re:All we ever wanted... (1)

ardor (673957) | about a year ago | (#43627855)

Lua would be so cool as scripting language. (Well, except for this crap about arrays starting with index 1 by default.) Just by looking at the HUGE amounts of performance optimizations that LuaJIT is able to pull off shows why.

Re:All we ever wanted... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43627915)

A small, fast language is not so difficult when you don't have to worry about backwards compatibility. Lua is perennially an embed once, stick with that version forever language.

Citadel! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43628373)

Can't wait to try this. Citadel [] is one of my all time favourite games!

Pretty cool. (1)

djnforce9 (1481137) | about a year ago | (#43628451)

Tried the demo and it's actually pretty surreal being able to play a game like that in a web browser. I hope the technology improves further as time passes. One issue is that it cannot capture the mouse in fullscreen meaning you have to click in order to turn the camera. This would be a big problem playing windowed of course but in full screen, it's more intuitive just to move the mouse to turn around (like every FPS has implemented).

Slow, little CPU usage, feels like an Android game (1)

loufoque (1400831) | about a year ago | (#43628527)

I tried the demo. It feels extremely slow despite very low CPU usage (15%) and a high-end graphics card.
It might be a problem with latency or responsiveness, but it's definitely not as smooth as an AAA game.

Graphics-wise it also feels like an Android game.
Shitty flash games actually look better than this.

Re:Slow, little CPU usage, feels like an Android g (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43628693)

Then show us a flash game that looks better than this.

News? Yeah. OLD? Definitely. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43629197)

Uh, guys... This is waaay old news (as in several months old...). I was suitably impressed they got the demo working and it IS something to talk about, but March wants it's story back.

Proprietary codec (1)

Dr.Dubious DDQ (11968) | about a year ago | (#43629233)

Apparently this is another proprietary codec. Brendan Eich considers this unimportant because "consumers" won't get sued for using the browser, but it leaves people who want to participate (by encoding their own material) my have the same limitations that h.264 users do - no participating unless you pay the Intellectual Property Poll-Tax.

It sounds like they're still in "discussions" about the licensing of the codec itself. Unfortunately I'm not too confident that Mozilla is concerned much about that these days - they seem to be starting to fall into the same "consume-only" mindset that Microsoft, Apple, and Google seem to these days...

This is not javascript (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43629551)

It is C++ compiled into "javascript" that is basically equivalent to LLVM bitcode, which the browser will compile into machine code.

Neat, but strange... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43629607)

It worked for me using FF20.0 on Lubuntu12.10. Since I have a HP dv6 I have the infamous Optimus tech with a 650m. The first go around I ran FF as usual and got an average of 26 FPS. Then I thought that I would get better perfomance using optirun firefox.... NOpe! Average FPS, 18.... wtf?!

Oh look (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43632325)

It does lens flares ... badly.
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?