Horizontal comparison of various physical projection performance in unity

Test Engineering:

Http://files.cnblogs.com/files/hont/RaycastTestProj.rar

Test method:

A random number of cubes within a radius, then a variety of projections are emitted at the center point for testing

Use the Unity5.3.4 version and test with Profiler and stopwatch to compare performance and GC differences

As the capsules and other projections are too slow, I use 1000 calls to test, Nonalloc cache array length of 20

Some projections are limited by distance.

usingUnityengine;usingSystem.Collections;usingSystem.Diagnostics; Public classboxcastalltest:monobehaviour{voidUpdate () {varStopWatch =NewStopwatch ();        Stopwatch.start (); Profiler.beginsample ("boxcastalltest");  for(inti =0; I < +; i++) {Physics.boxcastall (transform.position, Vector3.one*2f, Vector3.forward);        } profiler.endsample ();        Stopwatch.stop (); UnityEngine.Debug.Log ("StopWatch:"+stopwatch.elapsedmilliseconds); }}

Test results:

Name	Speed	GC Alloc
Raycast	1ms	0
Raycastall	2ms	273.4KB
Raycastnonalloc	1ms	0
Boxcast	18ms	0
Boxcastall	38ms	3.2MB
Boxcastnonalloc	36ms	0
Spherecast	86ms	0
Spherecastall	192ms	8.8MB
Spherecastnonalloc	183ms	0
Capsulecast	139ms	-
Capsulecastall	449ms	19.6MB
Capsulenonalloc	263ms	0

The overhead of spherical projection and capsule projection is relatively large, and the overhead of various projections is much higher than that of direct emission rays.

Visible, if the first choice of Ray to judge, it will be a lot of game optimization help

Horizontal comparison of various physical projection performance in unity