Path: chuka.playstation.co.uk!news From: "CRAIG GRAHAM" Newsgroups: scea.yaroze.programming.2d_graphics,scee.yaroze.programming.2d_graphics Subject: Re: high-res? Date: 8 Dec 1997 15:17:20 GMT Organization: Intelligent Research Ltd Lines: 37 Message-ID: <01bd03ed$65a53420$6c0b0a0a@newcastle.twowaytv.co.uk> References: <63vuoq$852@scea> <34638347.16036238@205.149.189.29> <3464C9CB.F465379D@msu.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: 194.131.235.3 X-Newsreader: Microsoft Internet News 4.70.1161 Xref: chuka.playstation.co.uk scea.yaroze.programming.2d_graphics:296 scee.yaroze.programming.2d_graphics:197 Charles Henrich wrote in article <3464C9CB.F465379D@msu.edu>... > Mario Perdue wrote: > > > Yes, this is true. > > > > > Would it be hard to keep a *simple* 2d game at 60fps? > > > > It's not to hard as long as you keep the sprite count down. > > I really dont know why exactly people arent using Hi-Res more often, the only > thing I can think of is to conserve frame buffer space so that more > sprite-data can be present. Just for grins I took the demo bouncing-balls w/ > midi music thats on the Yaroze CD and Hi-Res'd it (640x480). I could up the > ball count to 1200 before I the code was taking more than 1/60th of a second Using Hi-res, you don't get a 1/60th sec to draw a screen - that's the whole problem. What you actually get is solely the vertical retrace time. If you were double buffering you could have the whole 1/60th sec to draw your screen (that's the point, you can be drawing as the screen is displaying). Without the double buffer there is a much smaller time to generate a screen in (amount's to approx. 1500 gourard polys on 50Hz PAL). > Charles Henrich Michigan State University henrich@msu.edu Craig.