>> Plenty of examples on shadertoy.com of real-time GI in the browser ;-)
>
> Uh.. Just don't expect Firefox to hand that site well. Something about
> the way Firefox threads its content causes it to slog to a total crawl,
> until all the shaders fully load. They work, they just.. lag the shit
> out of it, while loading up. I presume this is still true in the latest
> release, since I haven't been stupid enough to try going there recently.
> lol

It's similar in Chrome here, the first time I open the main page it 
takes about 4-5 seconds to fully load, and if I go "back" to the main 
page after that it still takes a second or two to populate all the 
shader previews.

But the most impressive thing is that while watching a shader run, you 
can modify the code on the right and hit play to run it.

Post a reply to this message

On 21/08/2014 01:12 AM, Patrick Elliott wrote:
> Uh.. Just don't expect Firefox to hand that site well.

Does anybody remember when Firefox was the browser of choice, because it 
was so much faster than everything else? These days, Firefox seems to 
take *forever* to do anything...

Post a reply to this message

On 21-8-2014 9:43, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
> On 21/08/2014 01:12 AM, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> Uh.. Just don't expect Firefox to hand that site well.
>
> Does anybody remember when Firefox was the browser of choice, because it
> was so much faster than everything else? These days, Firefox seems to
> take *forever* to do anything...

What is /forever/ though? from above I understand 4-5 seconds to be 
/unacceptable/ ;-) To tell the truth, I have no complains about firefox.

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

On 8/21/2014 12:08 AM, scott wrote:
>>> Plenty of examples on shadertoy.com of real-time GI in the browser ;-)
>>
>> Uh.. Just don't expect Firefox to hand that site well. Something about
>> the way Firefox threads its content causes it to slog to a total crawl,
>> until all the shaders fully load. They work, they just.. lag the shit
>> out of it, while loading up. I presume this is still true in the latest
>> release, since I haven't been stupid enough to try going there recently.
>> lol
>
> It's similar in Chrome here, the first time I open the main page it
> takes about 4-5 seconds to fully load, and if I go "back" to the main
> page after that it still takes a second or two to populate all the
> shader previews.
>
> But the most impressive thing is that while watching a shader run, you
> can modify the code on the right and hit play to run it.
>
Umm. No, when I try it in Firefox its more like 4-5 minutes. There is a 
lot trying to load through that page, and.. Chrome takes a bit of time 
to do it, but even loading just "one" shader, on its own page, in 
Firefox lags like hell. Figure.. 20-40 second "per" shader, and the main 
page has like 12 on it (just checked), so, at minimum it ends up taking 
2 minutes minutes, or worse. But, no Chrome handles the page **way** 
better than Firefox does.

-- 
Commander Vimes: "You take a bunch of people who don't seem any 
different from you and me, but when you add them all together you get 
this sort of huge raving maniac with national borders and an anthem."

Post a reply to this message

On 8/21/2014 4:08 AM, Thomas de Groot wrote:
> On 21-8-2014 9:43, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
>> On 21/08/2014 01:12 AM, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>>> Uh.. Just don't expect Firefox to hand that site well.
>>
>> Does anybody remember when Firefox was the browser of choice, because it
>> was so much faster than everything else? These days, Firefox seems to
>> take *forever* to do anything...
>
> What is /forever/ though? from above I understand 4-5 seconds to be
> /unacceptable/ ;-) To tell the truth, I have no complains about firefox.
>
> Thomas
He said that the page takes that in Chrome, it takes minutes, not 
seconds, in Firefox. But, really, for any other page it seems to work 
fine. It only really has issues with shadertoy.com, due to what its 
loading, and a similar issue with pages with large scale animated gif. 
Its something to do with how it doesn't properly load those things in 
parallel right. Its a known problem, and one they, supposedly, would 
have to completely rework large sections of code to fix. But, since it 
effects less than maybe 100th of a percent of sites, in any noticeable 
way...

-- 
Commander Vimes: "You take a bunch of people who don't seem any 
different from you and me, but when you add them all together you get 
this sort of huge raving maniac with national borders and an anthem."

Post a reply to this message

> Umm. No, when I try it in Firefox its more like 4-5 minutes.

:-O

I don't remember the last time I had FF installed and it sounds like I 
won't be installing it again anytime soon.

Post a reply to this message

On 22-8-2014 5:20, Patrick Elliott wrote:
> He said that the page takes that in Chrome, it takes minutes, not
> seconds, in Firefox.

Ah ok. I misread that it seems.

> But, really, for any other page it seems to work
> fine. It only really has issues with shadertoy.com, due to what its
> loading, and a similar issue with pages with large scale animated gif.
> Its something to do with how it doesn't properly load those things in
> parallel right. Its a known problem, and one they, supposedly, would
> have to completely rework large sections of code to fix. But, since it
> effects less than maybe 100th of a percent of sites, in any noticeable
> way...
>
I suppose that all browsers would be more or less affected by these 
issues, although some browsers might be better equipped to cope with them.

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

On 8/21/2014 11:47 PM, scott wrote:
>> Umm. No, when I try it in Firefox its more like 4-5 minutes.
>
> :-O
>
> I don't remember the last time I had FF installed and it sounds like I
> won't be installing it again anytime soon.
>
Personally, I hate the lack of customizability in Chrome, and the basic 
lack of certain in-built features in it. Otherwise, it has some features 
for html5 that are not yet implemented any place else, which, if you 
wanted to use them, means they won't work in FF, and, some shaders 
depend on them too. But, really, as I said in another post, the problem 
generally only happens when large images/files that need to transfer, on 
the same page, like.. large animate gifs, or, shaders, which seem to 
thread badly, somehow, and probably for the same reasons. For 99.999% of 
the pages out there, they work more or less equally well. And, I won't 
give up the plugins I use in it, just for some stuff I rarely visit. lol

-- 
Commander Vimes: "You take a bunch of people who don't seem any 
different from you and me, but when you add them all together you get 
this sort of huge raving maniac with national borders and an anthem."

Post a reply to this message

> One surprising thing is that the rippling water doesn't cast caustics on
> the sea floor. Then again, I guess the entire sky is more or less
> uniformly bright, so...

I noticed that.  I was also going to complain that when the beads get 
splashed by waves, they don't become wet.

;)

-- 
/*Francois Labreque*/#local a=x+y;#local b=x+a;#local c=a+b;#macro P(F//
/*    flabreque    */L)polygon{5,F,F+z,L+z,L,F pigment{rgb 9}}#end union
/*        @        */{P(0,a)P(a,b)P(b,c)P(2*a,2*b)P(2*b,b+c)P(b+c,<2,3>)
/*   gmail.com     */}camera{orthographic location<6,1.25,-6>look_at a }

Post a reply to this message

On 25/08/2014 02:06 PM, Francois Labreque wrote:

>> One surprising thing is that the rippling water doesn't cast caustics on
>> the sea floor. Then again, I guess the entire sky is more or less
>> uniformly bright, so...
>
> I noticed that. I was also going to complain that when the beads get
> splashed by waves, they don't become wet.
>
> ;)

I did start a render a while back where a rock was partially submerged 
in water, and the waves actually reflect off the sides of it. You can 
write a closed-form equation for that if you're careful. But the render 
times were trans-sane...

Post a reply to this message