Related Discussions
...
Misaki puso la chincheta a la discusión.

Love this update! I'm still in the process of deciding which web runtime to use. What are some pros and cons of using spine-pixi over spine-webgl or the other web options? My use case is a mix of your Chibi example and mix and match, but at a larger scale (users have hundreds of traits and poses to choose from on a web page, so we ideally dynamically load in the traits as they select it).

    joo

    spine-pixi is an extension to the famous PixiJS library to load and render Spine animations. You usually choose it if you need PixiJS capabilities for your app. For example, you're developing a game or a very dynamic web app. It uses a canvas with WebGL to render your graphics.

    spine-webgl is a library with zero dependencies (apart from the spine-core that is the ts render-agnostic runtime) that simply allows you to render your Spine animation into your webpage. As the name suggests, it uses a canvas with WebGL like PixiJS.

    This implies that spine-webgl is an essential kit to render your animations into a webpage, while spine-pixi is an extension to render your animations for a full kit to develop a game or a complex web app.

    I'd say, if you need Pixi capabilities, it's better to use spine-pixi. Otherwise, I'd keep it simple and use spine-webgl.

    We're also testing a spine-webgl-overlay version to render everything in a single canvas to be used as the single WebGL context to overcome the number of context limitations on browsers for WebGL.

    24 días más tarde
    4 días más tarde
    un mes más tarde
    un mes más tarde
    Davide quitó la chincheta a la discusión.