| Micro Nova by Ribbon [web] | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|||||||
|
popularity : 60% |
|||||||
alltime top: #6454 |
|
|||||||
|
||||||||
added on the 2012-05-30 00:33:04 by p01  |
||||||||
popularity helper
comments
great one! webgl in 512b :)
(=
Well done p01! (once again)
ps: with about 200b for header+bootstrap,
sure PNG trick leaves little room to code :)
ps: with about 200b for header+bootstrap,
sure PNG trick leaves little room to code :)
Yay for small size, but damn if it's an ugly one...
Nice
webgl in low size + a nice effect = thumbs up
i'm with preacher on this one
Oy! It's super smooth on lower-end machines, but, yes, it does look a bit crazy-bat-shit-fugly-fast on hi-end machines :\
Let's see if I can squeeze a real timer in there
Let's see if I can squeeze a real timer in there
nice proof of concept but ugly indeed
nice prod
nice effort
For the size and smoothness
for the size and I don't find it ugly
where is *Nova*?
next 512b should be a black hole, beware :p
Quote:
next 512b should be a black hole, beware :p
i have someone 256b incomplete
I'm poor, actually my forces do not allow me to create such a thing. I'm tired mentally.
not bad for size
ugly and great at same time :D
What is it that you guys find ugly ?
The colors, the movement/speed, the horizontal stripe of moiré effect, ... don't let me repeat the same mistakes.
The colors, the movement/speed, the horizontal stripe of moiré effect, ... don't let me repeat the same mistakes.
I'm mainly bothered by the saturated bright colors.
It's a bit bright, but hey, it's 512b.
Luv it for the proof.
p01: colours mainly. And the speed - it kind of 'spasms'. Spasm is generally not a good animation technique :D But it's 512b, and it's webGL, so no way I can thumb it down :)
Pr0n!
+1 for the spasm (= ugly), the colors are fine for me
.
Here are two versions without the "spasm":
same ugly colors though
You can't have it all :p
cb: Yup. Counting the bootstraping, %PNG header and IHDR chunk that brings us close to 200b.
A usable WebGL setup alone takes a good 300-350 bytes.
PNG bootstraping is really not suitable for sub 1k WebGL prods. For 1k WebGL prods, it's most likely a tie with conventional JS packers.
cb: Yup. Counting the bootstraping, %PNG header and IHDR chunk that brings us close to 200b.
A usable WebGL setup alone takes a good 300-350 bytes.
PNG bootstraping is really not suitable for sub 1k WebGL prods. For 1k WebGL prods, it's most likely a tie with conventional JS packers.
p01> That's funny, I was just looking into your demo !
As you might know already I think you can improve your function name optimizer. More specifically I searched a better pattern for function name replacing. Extracting two characters from the function name instead using a regexp seem to give better results. By using the following initializer I reduced your demo size from 512 bytes to 473 bytes !
Here is a fully functional version of your script :
As you might know already I think you can improve your function name optimizer. More specifically I searched a better pattern for function name replacing. Extracting two characters from the function name instead using a regexp seem to give better results. By using the following initializer I reduced your demo size from 512 bytes to 473 bytes !
Code:
for(x in g=d.getContext('experimental-webgl'))
g[x[0]+x[6]]=g[x];Here is a fully functional version of your script :
Code:
<canvas id=d width=999 height=470><script>for(x in g=d.getContext('experimental-webgl'))g[x[t=0]+x[6]]=g[x];with(g){for(p=cP(q=' p;void main(){');s=cS(t+35632);ce(s),aS(p,s))sS(s,t++?'attribute vec4'+q+'gl_Position=p;}':'uniform lowp float'+q+'lowp vec4 l=3.-gl_FragCoord/99.;gl_FragColor=cos(l*tan(l-p)+l/l.y*l.x);}');setInterval('g.dr(4,g.uniform1f(g.gf(p,"p"),t+=44),3)',vA(eV(bf(k=34962,cB())),2,5126,lo(p),ug(p),bD(k,new Float32Array([1,1,1,-3,-3,1]),k+82)))}</script>You're not the first one to suggest that hashing. Alas AFAIK it is NOT cross browser. The order the methods and properties are enumerated is not standardized, so it varies from one browser to another. :\
See this jsfiddle in several browsers.
See this jsfiddle in several browsers.
Select the prod "GL1K Cotton Candy sans uniform" and fiddle with the hashing methods. I've not found a hash in the vein of x[0]+x[6] that does not collide in some browser.
You're right but the above script works with latests versions of FF & Chrome, and I'm not sure full cross-browser compatibility is a problem in the demoscene. Nobody complains when IE9 isn't supported :) Also we cannot be sure that the regexp hash will work with next versions of WebGL.
But OK, let's assume that we need uniqueness and cross browser compatibility :)
There is the x[6]+x[1] hash which makes collisions but without using non-unique function names we still have a gain of 4 bytes.
A better one : x[1]+x[7]+x[x.length-1]. No collide and it saves 15 bytes in Micro Nova.
I'm sure we can still find better hashes.
But OK, let's assume that we need uniqueness and cross browser compatibility :)
There is the x[6]+x[1] hash which makes collisions but without using non-unique function names we still have a gain of 4 bytes.
A better one : x[1]+x[7]+x[x.length-1]. No collide and it saves 15 bytes in Micro Nova.
I'm sure we can still find better hashes.
yes... small.... but, what else ?
Pandafox: It's shiny, and the first WebGL prod to reach the milestone size on 512b. It's not long ago, that doing a WebGL prod in 1k was considered a feat.
cb: Silly me. I overlooked that the 0+6 hash luckily collides with the methods we need last in all browsers supporting WebGL today. Well done sir! Your 473b version works in Firefox Aurora, Chrome Canary and Opera Next. That'll teach me to open my eyes when I write a test.
About compatibility: regardless of the platforms/APIs, hashing methods are not forward compatible. We can't have it all. As for cross browser compatibility, it rarely takes much to get a JS demo working in all browsers ( supporting the standards you use ). For all we know, even IE 10 does not support WebGL so IE 9 and 10 are completely out of this game.
cb: Silly me. I overlooked that the 0+6 hash luckily collides with the methods we need last in all browsers supporting WebGL today. Well done sir! Your 473b version works in Firefox Aurora, Chrome Canary and Opera Next. That'll teach me to open my eyes when I write a test.
About compatibility: regardless of the platforms/APIs, hashing methods are not forward compatible. We can't have it all. As for cross browser compatibility, it rarely takes much to get a JS demo working in all browsers ( supporting the standards you use ). For all we know, even IE 10 does not support WebGL so IE 9 and 10 are completely out of this game.
Reminds me something I did with glsl http://glsl.heroku.com/e#2665.1
for the size
Sweet.
nice one
Crashed my NVIDIA GeForce 9100M G in Google Chrome 25.0.1337.0.
Cool.
ok
submit changes
if this prod is a fake, some info is false or the download link is broken,
do not post about it in the comments, it will get lost.
instead, click here !
PNG bootstraping is NOT suitable for 512b, but good ole hand minification + hashing of verbose method names did the job pretty quickly.
Enjoy.