| Comments: |
The fill rate of this texture processor leaves something to be desired.
![[User Picture]](http://l-userpic.livejournal.com/54541970/2) | From: brad 2008-11-30 12:30 am (UTC)
| (Link)
|
In The Web's defense, in some browsers it's tolerable. But the 286 from 16 years ago still beats them all in framerate.
From: (Anonymous) 2008-11-30 12:55 am (UTC)
| (Link)
|
But 2006 <canvas> gets closer to 1996 (http://canvex.lazyilluminati.com/83/play.xhtml), so it's not quite that bad really.
(Disclaimer: I wrote that demo, so I reserve the right to ignore the obvious point that it still demonstrates the web is a decade behind the underlying platform.)
![[User Picture]](http://l-userpic.livejournal.com/34474992/3171) | From: mart 2008-11-30 10:55 am (UTC)
| (Link)
|
You get my respect for making a Doom-style engine run with a higher framerate than a Wolfenstein-style engine, even if both of them are depressingly slow. :)
This demo maxes out one of my cores at 99% while it's running. Go go browser tech! | |