| View previous topic - View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Mandrake
elementry school minded asshole
Joined: 28 May 2002
Posts: 1341
Location: GNARR!
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Guest
|
 Posted: Sat Feb 15, 2003 3:59 am Post subject: |
[quote] |
|
|
That link appears to be 404. Could you double-check it, or give the title of the thread?
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Barok
Stephen Hawking
Joined: 26 Nov 2002
Posts: 248
Location: Bushland of Canada
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 15, 2003 1:49 pm Post subject: |
[quote] |
|
yep. broken link
_________________
Adosorken: I always liked slutty 10th graders...
Rhiannon: *Slap!*
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Barok
Stephen Hawking
Joined: 26 Nov 2002
Posts: 248
Location: Bushland of Canada
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 15, 2003 1:53 pm Post subject: |
[quote] |
|
btw, not bad. not everyone's first book gets rated that high!
_________________
Adosorken: I always liked slutty 10th graders...
Rhiannon: *Slap!*
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mandrake@lalala
Guest
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rainer Deyke
Demon Hunter
Joined: 05 Jun 2002
Posts: 672
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 15, 2003 6:36 pm Post subject: |
[quote] |
|
I have no intention of posting to an Allegro forum (since I'm a SDL-using heretic), so I'll just give my 2 cents here.
1. Drawing one tile at a time, even animated, is clearly fast enough. Download the Feyna's Quest demo. Run it in compatibility mode to turn off OpenGL acceleration. It has multiple layers (for parallex scrolling). It has animated tiles. It runs at 640x480x16. It runs fine on a Pentium 200. You do the math.
2. The overhead of animated tiles is trivial. 'bitmap[current_frane % num_frames].draw(x, y)'. Irrelevant compared to the overhead of actually drawing the tile.
3. High resolution is necessary for smooth parallex scrolling. Again, download the Feyna's Quest demo and view the intro in compatibility mode. It will look jerky. That's 640x480 scrolling one pixel at a time. If you don't run in compatibility mode, it'll use OpenGL acceleration for smooth sub-pixel scrolling.
4. Despite what I said above, I am considering a compromise system for my next game. I'll divide the tile map into sections of 8x8 tiles (256x256 pixels). I'll prerender those sections that are currently displayed into display memory. Animated tiles will be left out of these sections and rendered separately. It remains to be seen if this will actually buy me anything. At best, it'll give a slight framerate boost to low-end computers in areas with many layers.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DrunkenCoder
Demon Hunter
Joined: 29 May 2002
Posts: 559
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 16, 2003 12:27 pm Post subject: |
[quote] |
|
both camps seems to be homeblind in that discussion, they both clearly sport a slew of advantages, but also each have their disvantages and none seems to even thing about not interleaving the tile structure with the collision detection, heck why not use quadtrees, well I would bet my money on mandrake anyhow...
_________________
If there's life after death there is no death, if there's no death we never live. | ENTP
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sirocco
Mage
Joined: 01 Jun 2002
Posts: 345
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 16, 2003 5:37 pm Post subject: Do we need a parallax tutorial? |
[quote] |
|
| Quote: |
High resolution is necessary for smooth parallex scrolling
|
This is not entirely true. Think of all the SNES games we've played with perfectly smooth parallax layers. Think of all the Amiga games that did the same -- especially some of the old Psygnosis games like Obitus and Agony that used upwards of ten layers (albeit small ones) at once.
Smooth parallax is all about the RATIO of scrolling between the foreground and background. In all honesty higher resolutions offer you more viable scrolling ratios, but that's it.
.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rainer Deyke
Demon Hunter
Joined: 05 Jun 2002
Posts: 672
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 17, 2003 2:03 am Post subject: Re: Do we need a parallax tutorial? |
[quote] |
|
| Sirocco wrote: | | Quote: |
High resolution is necessary for smooth parallex scrolling
|
This is not entirely true. Think of all the SNES games we've played with perfectly smooth parallax layers. Think of all the Amiga games that did the same -- especially some of the old Psygnosis games like Obitus and Agony that used upwards of ten layers (albeit small ones) at once.
Smooth parallax is all about the RATIO of scrolling between the foreground and background. In all honesty higher resolutions offer you more viable scrolling ratios, but that's it.
. |
Granted, the ratio of scroll speeds can have a significant effect on smoothness. However, resolution clearly has a significant effect on the smoothness of scrolling, at least when there is no sub-pixel accuracy. As for the SNES: TVs have hardware antialiasing (i.e. "blurry pixels"), which can make things look smoother than they actually are.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mandrake@work
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 17, 2003 1:38 pm Post subject: |
[quote] |
|
|
Well, if you had ever played that demo of the OLD rtq I had running around, I think I had smooth scrolling in a lower res in it. It does look smooth.....unless bvy smooth you mean the actual pixel sizes which have no bearing on parrallax scrolling at all.....
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nodtveidt
Demon Hunter
Joined: 11 Nov 2002
Posts: 786
Location: Camuy, PR
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 20, 2003 11:56 am Post subject: hahaha |
[quote] |
|
| Quote: | | TVs have hardware antialiasing (i.e. "blurry pixels") |
Umm...not exactly true. A TV CRT just isn't as accurate as a computer monitor's, hence the vast difference in price. HDTV's are just as clear as computer monitors, some argue moreso. HDTV's have been a long time coming.
-nek
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
