More tile based junk

SDL Development
1

I rewrote the scrolling engine to my afforementioned “super metroid” engine, it now
updates only what is needed; in 8bit color I could probably get away with redrawing the
whole screen everytime, but I’m in 16 bit. Any how, I have a question…

What do you guys think would be faster? Blitting 12 64x64 tiles onto the screen, or
blitting 24 32x32 tiles on the screen? Or would it be about the same?

Thanks. I’ll be putting the source code to what I have so far on my site in a few days so
you all can take a looksee.

-= aaron p. matthews
-= rival entertainment
-= http://www.Nayzak.com/~jerryma/rival

2

That’s true, but here’s the situation I was thinking of: The screen scrolls to the
right until it hits the next tile column, and a new column is drawn off screen to
the very right, that’s why I needed only 2x as many tiles, because I’m only drawing
1 column or 1 row.

Thanks!

-= aaron p. matthews
-= rival entertainment
-= http://www.Nayzak.com/~jerryma/rival

Warren Downs wrote:> Don’t you mean 48 32x32 tiles? Since the tiles are half the size in

 both dimensions, that would require four times as many tiles to cover
 the same area.

 Blitting 12 larger tiles should be much faster, in any case.
3

Don’t you mean 48 32x32 tiles? Since the tiles are half the size in
both dimensions, that would require four times as many tiles to cover
the same area.

 Blitting 12 larger tiles should be much faster, in any case.
 
 Warren

______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________Subject: [SDL] More tile based junk
Author: at internet-mail
Date: 8/18/99 5:58 PM

I rewrote the scrolling engine to my afforementioned “super metroid” engine, it
now
updates only what is needed; in 8bit color I could probably get away with
redrawing the
whole screen everytime, but I’m in 16 bit. Any how, I have a question…

What do you guys think would be faster? Blitting 12 64x64 tiles onto the screen,
or
blitting 24 32x32 tiles on the screen? Or would it be about the same?

Thanks. I’ll be putting the source code to what I have so far on my site in a
few days so
you all can take a looksee.

-= aaron p. matthews
-= rival entertainment
-= http://www.Nayzak.com/~jerryma/rival

4

I agree, 32x32 size tiles in 640x480 would give me a more flexible look than 64x64
size tiles (the 32x32 also fit evenly on the screen) But there are games that can get
that more aesthetic look with the larger tiles, ratio-wise, 64x64 tiles in 640x480 is
equivilent to the “Sonic the Hedgehog” look. Hmm… maybe I will switch to 32x32…

-= aaron p. matthews
-= rival entertainment
-= http://www.Nayzak.com/~jerryma/rival> Don’t forget though that bigger tiles also mean a more “blocky” appearance. When

I was writing a tile-based game for DOS a couple years back I switched to a tile
have the size and the graphics looked alot better, they looked less tile-based, if
that makes any since.
So speed isn’t the only issue.

5

Warren Downs wrote:

 Don't you mean 48 32x32 tiles?  Since the tiles are half the size in
 both dimensions, that would require four times as many tiles to cover
 the same area.

 Blitting 12 larger tiles should be much faster, in any case.

 Warren

Don’t forget though that bigger tiles also mean a more “blocky” appearance. When
I was writing a tile-based game for DOS a couple years back I switched to a tile
have the size and the graphics looked alot better, they looked less tile-based, if
that makes any since.
So speed isn’t the only issue.