I am deciding which engine should use to make my new games so I did some performance tests.
Simple rotating sprites on Samsung Galaxy Note 2 (Android 4.4)
Could you explain this?
Now I see pros and cons of these cocos2d branches:
Cocos2d-x pros:
only 2.8MB size of clean app
better support for IAP, AdMob and other 3rd party libs
better performance (I thought)
more platforms
Cocos2d-x cons:
slower debugging
cpp is less friendly language
Cocos2d-js pros:
better and faster debugging
javascript is more friendly language
run on browsers
Cocos2d-js cons:
around 6.5MB size of clean app
poor support for IAP, AdMob and other 3rd party libs
Could you tell me guys which âbranchâ is better for professional development with all features including IAP, physics engine, best performance and low app size?
Best regards,
Hi, i think this is an good idea to compare performance between cocos2d-x c++/js/lua. Evidently, c++ is better in performance, but if it only ~20% better, which can only be regconized easily in some big game, then lua/js is another good option when there is now a cocos IDE
What I was getting at is that a straight test of rendering 100 sprites doesnât take into account that, in a real game, there will be processing going on to move those sprites around, detect collisions, update scores, - the game logic is what âdrivesâ the game.
Yeah, right, but my simple tests get us some point of view on performance differences between cpp and js branches. Could anyone of you make your tests too to compare with mine?
cpp does not have garbage collection, which often hampers the performance in a real application where you dynamically allocate memory at runtime.
Anyway, if you are wondering about which branch to use for professional development, if cocos2d-x-js is lagging already 2 versions behind, the choice should be simple, given that you are familiar with c++.
I think you should compile you project in release mode and disable both lua binding and physics from âccConfig.hâ file, and you will see a HUGE difference between the first test and the secondâŚ