Path: chuka.playstation.co.uk!news From: "Martin Keates" Newsgroups: scee.yaroze.freetalk.english Subject: Re: Misc NY short questions Date: Sun, 16 Sep 2001 18:07:34 +0100 Organization: PlayStation Net Yaroze (SCEE) Lines: 24 Message-ID: <9o2m1n$d5t9@www.netyaroze-europe.com> References: <01c13c3f$cf776880$LocalHost@pal-s-omnibook> <9nvpch$d5t3@www.netyaroze-europe.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: modem-180.barracuda.dialup.pol.co.uk X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 > Furthemore, drawing all polygons with the same texture in sequence is > advantagous. It's better than that: drawing polygons with textures that don't cause cache conflicts in sequence gets you the best performance. For 4-bit textures this means you could interleave up to 16 16x16 sprites with no performance loss (compared with drawing them one after the other). This probably isn't true if they use different CLUTs though. > As for speeds, it shouldn't be too hard to set up a test program with > textures at different bit levels. Then time how long it takes to display, > say, a thousand of each. Uh huh, that's what I did. I need to vary a few more parameters (number of actual colours in the texture, CLUT cache effects) to get the full story, but at the moment I think 8-bit textures are the fastest (there are other considerations, of course, such as video memory usage, and the number and size of the textures). Martin.