Path: chuka.playstation.co.uk!news
From: "Ben James" <meep42@clara.co.uk>
Newsgroups: scee.yaroze.freetalk.english
Subject: Re: Main Game Loop Technique
Date: Sun, 14 Jul 2002 18:53:45 +0100
Organization: PlayStation Net Yaroze (SCEE)
Lines: 80
Message-ID: <agse4p$d9k27@www.netyaroze-europe.com>
References: <agrf9f$d9k24@www.netyaroze-europe.com> <agse0k$d9k26@www.netyaroze-europe.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: du-035-0023.claranet.co.uk
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000

Blasted Outlook!!
Using a state system, I find, keeps things nice and tidy.
I'll try again... i.e.

  switch (state)
  {
   case STATE_FRONTEND:
   FrameStart(1);
   FrontendLoop();
   break;

   case STATE_GAME:
   FrameStart(0);
   UpdateGame(); // update and draw are kept seperate to allow the game to
be paused
   DrawGame();
   break;

   case STATE_INTRO:
   FrameStart(1);
   IntroLoop();
   break;

   default:
   break;
  }

  FrameEnd();



"Ben James" <meep42@clara.co.uk> wrote in message
news:agse0k$d9k26@www.netyaroze-europe.com...
> It's not really worth worrying about to be honest. The checks are only
done
> once per frame and will take up a tiny fraction of 1% of the CPU time.  I
> tend to use a case statement but the results the same. i.e:
>
>
> "Rikki Prince" <rprince@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:agrf9f$d9k24@www.netyaroze-europe.com...
> > Before I would do the following:
> > main loop {
> > Prepare screen drawing stuff
> > if(TITLE_SCREEN) {
> >     GsSort Title Screen stuff
> > }
> > elseif(GAME_SCREEN) {
> >     GsSort Game stuff
> > }
> > etc
> >
> > if(ONE_PLAYER) {
> >     Proccess for 1 player
> > }
> > elseif(TWO_PLAYER) {
> >     Process for 2 player
> > }
> > etc
> >
> > } end of loop
> >
> > However, I'm wondering whether it's better to get rid of these checks
> > every loop by checking what screen it is first, then going into a
> > special loop for that screen, and doing similar for the number of
> > players. Do those checks cause much of a performance hit - is it worth
> > worrying about? Or is it better to keep the amount of code down (due
> > to the 2MB limit), rather than duplicating it? I suppose I could use
> > pointers to functions, so the main loop would be the same code, but
> > somewhere else changes which function is pointed to, which does the
> > specific proccessing. Could this be a good method?
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Rikki
> >
> >
>
>