copyPixels, MovieClip.play(), Tilemap load CPU&GPU to much in html5 target

Haxe
#1

Hi,

I’d want to propose to discuss this bug report I’ve created today. I believe that problem is wider that just about Tilemap. Tilemap is just a simplest way to describe it.

I noticed that playing very simple MovieClip exported from swf asset loads CPU&GPU to much. I thought the key could be in some swf export procedures or something like that and I started to find a different approach to play the animation.

I rasterized MovieClip frame by frame and tried copyPixels approach on each ENTER_FRAME. Nothing has been changed. I tried to use Tileset with Tilemap and again nothing has been changed. CPU& GPU load were so high for such simple operations with bitmap of 200x50 with 1:1 scale.

So I’ve created the empty project. And tried to put an empty 1x1 Tilemap on the stage. The result was the same: CPU&GPU load was inadequately high.

What is that and is the any approach or workaround to solve it? Thank you for your cooperation.

#2

Is this consistent behaviour when using different browsers?

#3

Absolutely. Every time.

#4

How does the performance compare if you remove the Tilemap, or you just add a single Bitmap? Does the performance still seem too high for you or is it more specific to Tilemap?

#5

After removing Tilemap, CPU&GPU load drops to zero. After adding, rise again. To demonstrate this behavior I’ve created a sample project in the github bug report.

If I add/remove Bitmap nothing happens. CPU&GPU load stays still.

#6

What version of OpenFL?

#7

Screenshots

CPU&GPU load with Tilemap on the stage:
image

CPU&GPU load without Tilemap
image

OpenFL Versions
8.9.7 & 9.0.2

OpenFL Targets
html5

#8

Here this should help:

2 Likes
#9

Thanks you. But I think this patch is such an ad-hoc thing. Moreover, using empty tilemaps is pointless.

Tilemap is not the only thing. I mentioned it here only for demonstration purpose. Please, see initial post. What I want to tell is pure window.requestAnimationFrame loads cpu&gpu relatively at least twice less. It points me to conclusion that a lot of work is done in openfl/lime routines on each frame. And some of that work seems unnecessary. What do you think about it?

1 Like
#10

Which part seems unnecessary?

#11

I didn’t do a research of that kind. And I’m not familiar with framework on that low level. But take a look at this screenshot:

image
image1920×1156 110 KB

#12

Scripting, rendering, painting and system combined is costing 1.3 milliseconds per frame. This doesn’t seem alarming to me?

#13

empty tilemap may be not that “descridable” for this kind of problems. It surely has structured cost just to prepare anything to render - even 1 pixel should be packed, sent on GPU, etc.

what happen with CPU load if you use your original tilemap instead of empty? will it stay at 4% or it will scale significantly according to tilemap “heaviness”?

#14

If you read the initial post, you see that it’s not about tilemaps only. I thought that empty tilemap is an ideal way to show that enter_frame cycle takes to much even for nothing. In comparison, take a look at this javascript code and cpu&gpu load. It’s spends ~35% less of cpu time and ~55% less of gpu. BTW, it updates every pixel of all the scene on every frame: ctx.fillRect(0, 0, canvas.width, canvas.height);

<!DOCTYPE html>
<html lang="en">
<head></head>
<body>
	
<canvas id="myCanvas" width="984" height="630"/>

<script>
	let canvas = document.getElementById("myCanvas");
	let ctx = canvas.getContext("2d");
	let counter = 0;
	
	function onEnterFrame() {
		ctx.fillStyle = '#fff';
		ctx.fillRect(0, 0, canvas.width, canvas.height);
		ctx.fillStyle = '#000000';
		ctx.font = '20px sans-serif';
		ctx.fillText(counter++, 20, 20);

		requestAnimationFrame(onEnterFrame);
	}
	
	requestAnimationFrame(onEnterFrame);
</script>
	
</body>
</html>

image
This result is very close in other browsers.



I don’t have heavy animations to compare. I noticed that heavy load behavior on my simple looped not scaled animation of 176 frames of 63x27px on 60fps. Answering your question, the load is rising a bit with my animation, no matter packed as movieclip or rasterized and tiled.

Although Joshua says that he has 1.3ms per frame I still believe that cpu load of 6.5% and gpu of 21% for that kind of operations is inadequate. BTW, if we count straightforward, 1.3ms is around 7.8% of cpu time with 60fps.

#15

at ~6.3% actually for the Firefox processes, see screenshots in my post above.