JavaFX performance for complex visualisations

[Daniel Zwolenski]

In theory the same basic engine for tower defender is that of Warcraft or Command & Conquer, etc. And this could be 2D or 3D once we get the base in place.  

Ie you can make your maps, sprites and explosions as complex as you like with lots of shapes, sub animations, textures, shadings, etc. 

First we walk, then we run, then we flap our arms, jump off a cliff and see what happens. 



On 07/12/2012, at 9:52 AM, "John C. Turnbull" <ozemale at ozemail.com.au> wrote:

> Yes, whilst a 3D stress test is vital in the longer term, what we need right
> now is something that shows off the true capabilities of 2D JavaFX.
> 
> Again though, I agree with Pedro in that we should be aiming for something
> as complex as possible.
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: openjfx-dev-bounces at openjdk.java.net
> [mailto:openjfx-dev-bounces at openjdk.java.net] On Behalf Of Richard Bair
> Sent: Friday, 7 December 2012 09:39
> To: Pedro Duque Vieira
> Cc: OpenJFX Mailing List
> Subject: Re: JavaFX performance for complex visualisations
> 
>> I think if you're into doing games than you should go with something 
>> 3D, it won't require that much of engineering to do something 3D that 
>> could make people impressed. Javafx 8 brings bump mapping, a lightning 
>> system, etc, all stuff that could wonder the user with not much of an
> effort.
> 
> The problem with 3D is that it exercises *completely* different code paths
> from 2D rendering. So it would be good to do a 3D stress test as well,
> although that code is not yet available, and it doesn't tell us anything
> about the performance of the platform when doing Path, Line, Region, or any
> of the other 2D building blocks.=
>