When comparing Pixi.js vs ImpactJS, the Slant community recommends Pixi.js for most people. In the question“What are the best 2D game engines?” Pixi.js is ranked 56th while ImpactJS is ranked 57th. The most important reason people chose Pixi.js is:
Pixi is a WebGL renderer, but can fall back to canvas if WebGL is not supported or turned off.
Ranked in these QuestionsQuestion Ranking
Pros
Pro Supports WebGL w/ canvas fallback
Pixi is a WebGL renderer, but can fall back to canvas if WebGL is not supported or turned off.
Pro Will be familiar to ActionScript developers
Pixi.js uses a code structure that's very similar to ActionScript.
Pro Extensive documentation available to support development
ImpactJS has an active user community that busily produces tremendous resources including videos, books, tutorials, walkthroughs and more. There are also comprehensive class documentation available.
Pro Excellent collision detection system
Impact provides 2 types of collision detection; static and dynamic collisions. Both of which are easily integrated into game development.
Pro Extendable
Many plugins are available, including one called Impact++ which adds features like pathfinding and dynamic lighting.
Pro Level editor
Built-in map editor with support for tiling, collision layers, and actors.
Pro Optimized
Works with Box2d physics library, comes with all worthwhile elements for actors built in.
Pro Truly cross-platform allowing developers to build for anything
Extending the reach of a game developed with ImpactJS is easy due to the cross-platform nature the framework. There are Considerations around performance, resolution and audio, however all can be appropriately addressed when in development. Works in the browser via Canvas, even on mobile. Easily translatable into a packaged app.
Cons
Con Not a complete solution
Pixi only provides the renderer.
Con Inactive
The last update was in 2014.
Con Cost of $99
While most HTML5 frameworks are offered as free open source projects, ImpactJS has a one time cost and no free option.