JavaFX performance for complex visualisations

Claus Luethje Claus.Luethje at
Thu Dec 6 23:50:02 PST 2012

My mobile finished this mail early ;-)
What I wanted to say was, that although I see the sexyness of a 3D game for awareness, 2D is more what I see with our customers.
Our customers want consistent speed and a versatile framework, which let's us adopt their wishes quickly (Many got burned with browser apps.) What we saw from JavaFX in the last year, it can handle the latter.
A game is certainly not what our customers care much about, but if it shows speed and the ease of achieving it, we can position our JavaFX offerings.
I'd go with a 2D game first and a tower defense game might be good, although I'd like to see full screen scrolling, with lots of shapes (think complex workflow diagrams).
Just my 0.02$

Am 07.12.2012 um 08:35 schrieb "Claus Luethje" <Claus.Luethje at>:

> I'm interested in JavaFX in the enterprise, so a 3D game is 
> Am 07.12.2012 um 00:26 schrieb "Daniel Zwolenski" <zonski at>:
>> In theory the same basic engine for tower defender is that of Warcraft or Command & Conquer, etc. And this could be 2D or 3D once we get the base in place.  
>> Ie you can make your maps, sprites and explosions as complex as you like with lots of shapes, sub animations, textures, shadings, etc. 
>> First we walk, then we run, then we flap our arms, jump off a cliff and see what happens. 
>> On 07/12/2012, at 9:52 AM, "John C. Turnbull" <ozemale at> wrote:
>>> Yes, whilst a 3D stress test is vital in the longer term, what we need right
>>> now is something that shows off the true capabilities of 2D JavaFX.
>>> Again though, I agree with Pedro in that we should be aiming for something
>>> as complex as possible.
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: openjfx-dev-bounces at
>>> [mailto:openjfx-dev-bounces at] On Behalf Of Richard Bair
>>> Sent: Friday, 7 December 2012 09:39
>>> To: Pedro Duque Vieira
>>> Cc: OpenJFX Mailing List
>>> Subject: Re: JavaFX performance for complex visualisations
>>>> I think if you're into doing games than you should go with something 
>>>> 3D, it won't require that much of engineering to do something 3D that 
>>>> could make people impressed. Javafx 8 brings bump mapping, a lightning 
>>>> system, etc, all stuff that could wonder the user with not much of an
>>> effort.
>>> The problem with 3D is that it exercises *completely* different code paths
>>> from 2D rendering. So it would be good to do a 3D stress test as well,
>>> although that code is not yet available, and it doesn't tell us anything
>>> about the performance of the platform when doing Path, Line, Region, or any
>>> of the other 2D building blocks.=

More information about the openjfx-dev mailing list