From a marketing standpoint, I'm not sure demos like this that draw comparisons between JavaScript frameworks and 3D game engines are a great idea. The author describes updating 2000 cubes every frame as an "impossible amount of load", and claims that React will soon "run circles around even the best performing manual WebGL apps".
Here's Unity maintaining a smooth framerate while updating three times that many cubes: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qVMfKJfsHQg
Unlike the React demo, all of the cubes actually move each frame (it's not "rescheduling" updates to later frames like React Concurrent Mode does), and it's doing a complex physics simulation to decide where the cubes should go.
Yeah, maintaining state for 2000 elements is not a hard problem. I've written CPU particle systems which handle ~10k particles per frame, some of which even run entirely in the browser.
This shot from Super Mario Galaxy simulates around 3,000 particles, on top of all the other bone/joint animations that are happening. Performance like this is possible in a web browser, but you wouldn't think so given how popular React and ThreeJS are.
https://noclip.website/#smg/AstroGalaxy;AAI4t49Qk^u9Ld&YUm,m...
Very cool website! I just noticed you're the one behind it[1]! Just curious: when people contribute textures toy our project, do they have to get permission from the video game publisher first?
Also, how hard is the process of extracting the textures of a video game? Is there effort involved in stitching multiple DDS/other texture files together, so that it can presentable on your website?