JavaFX performance for complex visualisations

[Claus Luethje]

I'm interested in JavaFX in the enterprise, so a 3D game is 



Am 07.12.2012 um 00:26 schrieb "Daniel Zwolenski" <zonski at gmail.com>:

> 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.=
>>