Skip to main content

Checking performance in EaselJS apps

So one of the great things about EaselJS is the fact that you can create Flash like games in JavaScript. I have been doing so on www.activememory.com for the last couple of years.

Unfortunately, it came to our attention that on some systems, the games ran rather slowly. According to their own docs, they admit that the time between ticks might be greater than specified because of CPU load (http://www.createjs.com/Docs/EaselJS/classes/Ticker.html#method_setInterval).

So, is there any way we can track the actual time between ticks on a real system?

Fortunately, yes, we can.

On each element that uses the ticker, you can set up an addEventListener and set the method you want to fire on that interval.

createjs.Ticker.addEventListener('tick', tickListener);

In the method itself you will want a few instance (or global) variables

this.previousFrameTime
this.totalFrames
this.totalFrameTimes

as well as a local variable

currentFrameTime

On each tick, we get the current timestamp (new Date() in JavaScript) and compare it to the previous.

We can then store the total number of ticks in the game, and then compare it to the total amount of time between frames.

This will give you the average frame time.

But enough of my yakking, here is a code sample (adapted from my code)

createjs.Ticker.setFPS(50);

Theatre = function() {
  var me = this; //set scope to this object
  var canvas = $('#canvas').get(0); // get the canvas object
  me.stage = new createjs.Stage(me.canvas); // create a stage object

  me.previousFrameTime = null; // initially null
  me.totalFrames = 0;
  me.totalFrameTimes = 0;

  createjs.Ticker.addEventListener('tick', me.tickListener);
}

Theatre.prototype.tickListener = function(event) {
  var me = this;
  var currentFrameTime = new Date();
  
  // skip the first frame because we haven't set a previousFrameTime yet
  if (me.previousFrameTime) {
    me.totalFrames++;
    me.totalFrameTimes += currentFrameTime - me.previousFrameTime;
  }

  me.previousFrameTime = currentFrameTime; // save this for the next tick
  me.stage.update(); // update the stage with each tick
}

// something else calls this when the game ends
Theatre.prototype.finish = function() {
  var me = this;
  console.log("average frame time in milliseconds:" + (me.totalFrameTimes / me.totalFrames);
}

So when you subtract 2 dates in JavaScript, it returns the difference in milliseconds.

If your FPS is 50, then you should have values that are round about 20 (1000 / 50 = 20). Anything much larger is an indication that your game is running much more slowly than it should be.


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Freezing Gems

What is a gem and why would you want to freeze it? In Ruby, there are times when you want to access pieces of functionality that other people of written (3rd party libraries) and you normally have 2 options. You can install a plug in or install a gem. Normally the method you use is determined by which ever is made available by the author. Gems are installed on the host machine and are pretty handy when you want to run things in the command line or else across lots of projects, but their downside is that if you use a gem in a Rails project there is no automatic publishing mechanism when you deploy your site. You will need to log onto the remote host machine and install the gem manually. Plugins are specific to Rails and are similar to gems in that they are also 3rd party libraries. However they are associated with your Rails project as opposed to your machine so they will get posted to the server on a regular deploy. Freezing a gem is the process of transforming a gem into a plug in

Unit/Functional Testing RubyAMF

One of my current projects is using RubyAMF to communicate with Flash (http://rubyforge.org/projects/rubyamf/). On the whole this is really nice because it allows you to transfer Ruby objects directly to ActionScript ones (as opposed to translating the object into XML, sending the XML and then recreating the object in ActionScript). However, Rails does not provide a built in transport mechanism for AMF, so we cannot run functional testing directly on the data call (as we could for an XML or HTML transport layer). This is a show stopper for a lot of people (Rails w/o Unit testing = a big mess of trouble when something goes wrong). We can though serve both the HTML and the AMF formats depending on the request format. This means that we can test the object instantiation logic and make sure there are no errors in the controllers (though we cannot check the actual format of the data being served). In the controller, instead of rendering AMF alone, do the following respond_to do |format|

Responsive Web Design

I wanted to go over Responsive Web Design using CSS. In the old days of web development, we had to code to common screen sizes (i.e. 800 X 600, 1024 X 768) and we patiently waited for people to upgrade their computers to have a decent amount of screen real estate so we could design things the way we really wanted. We also took on semi stretchy web layouts etc to expand and contract appropriately. Then about 2 or 3 years ago, Apple released this little device called an iPhone with a 320 X 480 resolution which took the world by storm and suddenly a lot of people were viewing your website on a tiny screen again... Anyways, as it can be difficult to design a site which looks good on 320 X 480 AND 1680 X 1050, we need to come up with some kind of solution. One way is to sniff the client and then use an appropriate stylesheet, but then you are mixing CSS with either JavaScript or server side programming and also potentially maintaining a list of appropriate clients and stylesheets. Also,