Backgrounds, little tiles or BIG pictures
by Warren Johnston · in Torque Game Builder · 09/06/2006 (9:15 am) · 4 replies
Folks,
Is it going to cause us problems if we used a series of big pictures in a scroller or platformer instead of building up environments using tiles.
Is there any limitations we should bear in mind.
We can do stunning backgrounds (and fore grounds) if we are able to produce them as one or a series of large images.
Cheers!
Is it going to cause us problems if we used a series of big pictures in a scroller or platformer instead of building up environments using tiles.
Is there any limitations we should bear in mind.
We can do stunning backgrounds (and fore grounds) if we are able to produce them as one or a series of large images.
Cheers!
About the author
#2
I guess it comes down to what you have going on and how many of those large images are different.
If you can, always try to tile repeat graphics like sky,sidewalks,water, etc and keep your graphic sizes small. Don't be afraid to layer
besides that, just be careful of the physical picture size in bites and you should be alright.
09/06/2006 (9:56 pm)
I haven't really put it to the test since release but in the past I noticed that larger tiles gave some rough results.I guess it comes down to what you have going on and how many of those large images are different.
If you can, always try to tile repeat graphics like sky,sidewalks,water, etc and keep your graphic sizes small. Don't be afraid to layer
besides that, just be careful of the physical picture size in bites and you should be alright.
#3
Thanks again!!!!
09/07/2006 (3:42 am)
Guys thanks for the replys, Andrew your article is excellent matey and should hopefully help us avoid some of the pain.Thanks again!!!!
#4
Then go through your graphics, and calculate how much VRAM they'll take up. Let's say you have a series of 20 64x64 pixel frames, stored in 32-bit. You calculate it like this:
20x64x64x4 = 327680
The x4 is for 32-bit. You'd use x2 for 16-bit, or x1 for 8-bit.
The 327680 is in bytes. But you want kilobytes. So divide by 1000.
We get 327.68 K.
So if these 20 frames are for one enemy, and you want to have 20 similar creatures, your total graphics requirements would be 6553 K, or 6.5 MB. That's already a good chunk of a 32MB card, and that's not counting tiles, background pictures, etc.
If you want to use large pictures, calculate the memory requirement for those too. But round them up to the nearest power of 2 first. Then you'll have a good idea what you're dealing with.
09/08/2006 (12:33 pm)
I would just be thinking about your target system's video card. How much VRAM will it have? Older cards had low amounts, like 32MB or lower. What is your target?Then go through your graphics, and calculate how much VRAM they'll take up. Let's say you have a series of 20 64x64 pixel frames, stored in 32-bit. You calculate it like this:
20x64x64x4 = 327680
The x4 is for 32-bit. You'd use x2 for 16-bit, or x1 for 8-bit.
The 327680 is in bytes. But you want kilobytes. So divide by 1000.
We get 327.68 K.
So if these 20 frames are for one enemy, and you want to have 20 similar creatures, your total graphics requirements would be 6553 K, or 6.5 MB. That's already a good chunk of a 32MB card, and that's not counting tiles, background pictures, etc.
If you want to use large pictures, calculate the memory requirement for those too. But round them up to the nearest power of 2 first. Then you'll have a good idea what you're dealing with.
Torque Owner Andrew Douglas
I don't think there's a write or wrong answer here. If your game benefits greatly from non-repeating backgrounds and you can fit them into your memory requirements then go for it. I don't think you can tell the guys who did Myst that they really should have used more tiles ... but at the same time using tiles is the only feasible way to do some games as the maps are just too big for it to be feasible.
I hope that's helpful.
-Andrew