micrio

The default viewer does have that. Rijksmuseum's website where this is implemented chose to disable it.

A follow-up on this one. Now textures are downloaded by WebWorkers using the transferable buffers.

Over multiple benchmark runs this results in another 32% CPU performance gain (WebWorkers vs single thread texture downloads)!

Thank you for point this out to me!

Thank you for your points!

As I said in the article about the benchmarking-- I definitely did it the "quick and dirty" way, testing the whole application 2.9 vs 3.0 on just my device-- not testing specifically for difference in power usage, GPU usage, etc. I would love to have time/resources enough to more microtests as you describe.

Micrio used OffscreenCanvas for a long time. Turns out (apart from occasional flickering screens in Safari) while it did great for Canvas2D operations, it didn't seem to make a difference for WebGL. It actually adds more rendering steps, since you're basically rendering to a framebuffer first.

As someone else pointed out below, with loading the textures using WebWorkers, I indeed didn't use the transferable objects, so it was basically copying a lot of buffers, explaining the performance hits. I'll definitely be experimenting with that.

About the gzipping solution; I've just run a benchmark. It takes 14ms to gunzip & parse the JS base64 to ES6 string, and 59ms to run it inside the `new Function()`-parser. Comparing that to 65% CPU saved per frame drawn (not to mention the general V8 ES6 optimizations compared to the previous ES5 JS-version), I think the cost is worth it :)

I have to admit that I didn't dive 100% into what made this difference exactly. It just worked better without webworkers.

I just dived into the git history, and it turns out I didn't use the buffers as transferable. Perhaps that was it! I'll definitely check that out later, thank you for pointing this out!

I wholeheartedly agree with this. V8 is definitely incredible impressive and keeps improving. However Micrio uses a lot of low level Matrix4 maths, which is substantially faster in Wasm.

The second point is also great; having the base Micrio engine as a Wasm module now really makes me itch to use it in different environments. Perhaps I can use it in a serverside rendering flow, or even on an embedded device with a touch screen? Perhaps even as a native mobile app component in the future.

Also from the developer point of view it offers improvements over JS. Type/memory wise it gives more control. It's great to be able to use (u)int, f32 and f64 types, whereas with JS this is impossible from a coding perspective. The buffers passed from Wasm to WebGL are all Float32Arrays and are casted from f64's to f32's manually; giving me that 100% control instead of the black box that V8 gives.

Yeah, I still encounter IE10 and older sometimes -- looking at the wide audiences Micrio projects are used for, this ranges from grandparent's Windows XP machines to OS-locked government IE10-PCs.

Can't be helped, so an automatic fallback to the previous Micrio version is the least I can do.

I do really hope that there could be a _final_ update from MS to IE10 to at least support ES6. That would also make such a big difference.

One can wish..

Thank you very much!

Really interesting question. Whereas I don't have power-specific benchmarks, the general rule of thumb for power consumption is indeed the amount of CPU + GPU usage. It's an eternal battle to stay feature rich and keep smooth texture downloads, but use as little power as possible. And ofcourse don't draw any unnecessary frames.

What I managed to do with the entire Wasm rewrite operation, is definitely get the number of CPU cycles down by a lot, and shortening the pathways between raw CPU and GPU operations.

Since this article I was already able to do a lot more optimizations, because of the resulting new code architecture being so much clearer than before. Funny how more minimal structures allow for better optimizing.

Thank you!

Someone else in this post asked the same question and I answered briefly there. Indeed the engine rewrite itself from general purpose to specific usage probably made the biggest difference performance-wise.

However, I do use matrix4 calculations for the 360 viewer, for which Wasm definitely is better.

Interesting idea to do a followup benchmark using the AssemblyScript as TS! I might actually have to do that :D

Launched using this JS platform. Using custom markers, tours, camera controls. All done very greatly, much respect to the content people.

Ofcourse the huge volume is great, it's awesome! But by only offering single high-res .jpg files instead of image tilesets just makes the viewing experience less than pleasant.. Downloads are slow, the pages are unresponsive, and I can imagine it's going to cost them tons of unneeded bandwidth.

Yeah, I've heard that more. I guess I still have to optimize that (the demo part of it is cool, the scrolljacking isn't). Thanks for your feedback, I appreciate it.