Create a Worker + Web Assembly + three.js version to understand if gives enhancements

[nicolocarpignoli]

We have to set a 'definitive' version of the NFT.

Currently, we have found that the best performances version, both on desktop and mobile devices, is the one that uses Web Workers.

We have to check if the version using web workers + WASM (web assembly) gives performances boost, in library loading and/or tracking.

If so, and the performance boost is significant, we can decide to set the 'wasm + workers' as default, NFT version of artoolkit. If not, and worker performances in respect of worker+wasm is pretty much the same, in my opinion, we should not use the WASM one as it adds another variable and complexity.

[nicolocarpignoli]

Both version have an example using them, under the nft_improved_worker folder.

We can start on testing them on both desktop and mobile and see differences.

[franbrennan]

Apologies for failing to keep up but I'm having trouble discerning exactly what content needs to be checked and where to access it (probably just due to me overlooking the obvious!).

If you could provide links, that would be brilliant. I'm happy, willing and able to test across multiple devices and platforms :)

[kalwalt]

@pepperface the two links to test:

1. NFT + Wasm + Worker https://kalwalt.github.io/jsartoolkit5/examples/nft_improved_worker/main_threejs_wasm_worker.html
2. NFT + Worker
   https://kalwalt.github.io/jsartoolkit5/examples/nft_improved_worker/main_threejs_worker.html

Thank you!

[franbrennan]

Great, cheers. I'll give everything a thorough check and report back here :)

[kalwalt]

For now ii did this tests about resources loading time:
no wasm version:

with wasm:

Tested on a WIko View model Android 7.1.2 Smartphone with latest Chrome.
har files:
kalwalt.github.io_wasm.zip
kalwalt.github.io_no_wasm.zip

[kalwalt]

You can see that artoolkit.min.js ( no wasm ! asm code...) load in 1.42s
instead the wasm version:
artoolkit_wasm.js 151 ms (milliseconds!)
artoolkit_wasm.wasm 405 ms.
You can see also a little difference in the NFT marker loading ( a bit faster in wasm) but should be verified...

[franbrennan]

Okay, here's a zip of a series of screen recordings from differing devices, platforms and browsers.

NFT_wasm_worker_tests.zip

Each test used a standard (as opposed to mobile broadband) WIFI connection and an A4-sized printout of the pinball NFT image. None of the screen recordings were edited in any way other than to trim their length shortly after the loads were successful.

The following is a list of the devices tested (the screen recordings are in separate folders for each device):-

1). Huawei Pro20 Lite (running Android 9.1.0 and using Chrome v 79.0.3945.116)

2). Huawei MediaPad (running Android 9.1.0 and using Chrome v 79.0.3945.116)

3). iPad (running iOS 13.3 and using Safari)

4). Desktop iMac i7 (running OS 10.15.2 and using Chrome Canary v 81.0.4026.0)

Old Phone Wildcard!
It's not in the zip as I didn't have the facility to record its screen but I ran a test on a Moto E (2nd gen running Android v 6.0 and using Chrome v 69.0.3497.100). Result: NFT+wasm+worker - load was about the same as the Huawei P20 Lite (the frame rate was good as well). 2). NFT+worker - I gave up waiting for something to happen 😉.

Hope some of this helps 🙂

[kalwalt]

Thank you, @pepperface for your time! i looked at your videos but unfortunately for some of the examples tested it'is difficult to see the fps or the ms. But in your opinion from this point of view which version is better?
Also maybe if i change ms to fps for a better comparison. it would be also nice to develop an output log with the final test (max. fps, min. fps and total time). I admit it's a bit difficult to make comparison in this sense.

[nicolocarpignoli]

Yes at least they should have the same meter of comparison, fps for both will be good

[kalwalt]

@nicolocarpignoli i will change it now!

[kalwalt]

i pushed and gh-pages is updated, everybody can test again. 😄