Re:Why you should use OpenGL and not DirectX
by kayoone on Thursday December 05, 2013 @04:46AM
(#6853474)
Well i was referring to ASM.JS/PNaCL ports as we have already seen possible with Unreal Engine. Its a matter of cross compiling today, not porting to JS.
Of course there will still be usecases for Three.js and the likes, for more lightweight WebGL integrations. But full blown HTML5 games will pretty soon be possible through these engines. Unity3D already had a pretty feature complete Flash export and i am very sure they are already working hard on a html5 target option.
Re:Why you should use OpenGL and not DirectX
by cLeEOGPw on Thursday December 05, 2013 @04:46AM
(#6853475)
> You wanna port all that to JS? Go right ahead!
It is already done. https://github.com/kripken/emscripten/wiki
Re:Why you should use OpenGL and not DirectX
by fulafel on Thursday December 05, 2013 @06:05AM
(#6853774)
It's going to be an interesting race between the Web-native engines and the emulated C++ ones. Some of the WebGL based platforms have come pretty far already, eg. Turbulenz.
The Emscripten based competition only have a few tech demos so far and the possible coming of PNaCl outside Chrome doesn't look that probable at this point.
Uh, most of those have their core runtime engine written in C++ and are probably not itching to port their CPU-side code to JavaScript.. Porting to WebGL is only trivial for the GLSL shaders, nothing else. If anything, these companies are waiting and holding out for either PNaCl/ASM.js/Emscripten to be able to generate fast fully-working web-compatible engine code.
And those engines aren't just loading 3D models and blit them to the screen, at least that's not their selling point. They have their occlusion culling system .. particle systems .. animations .. hardware audio .. fake wind simulation .. rudimentary pathfinding .. a reasonably fast terrain renderer .. some physics engine intimately integrated into the whole thing.
You wanna port all that to JS? Go right ahead!