I need a scalable world map in my game that the player should be able to zoom into. This, however, requires a very large image or a vector graphic, or else the player is able to see the pixels when zoomed in. Both solutions seriously slow down the performance of the game, especially during rescaling. I guess there isn't a solution, but if there is, please let me know.
I believe you're looking for something like this: http://gamedevelopment.tutsplus.com/tutorials/an-introduction-to-creating-a-tile-map-engine--gamedev-10900
Cheers,
Related
I'm making a manual for a web-based app. I take screenshots and put them into adobe illustrator and they lose their quality extremely fast when zooming in. Is there anyway I can take high resolution or vector based screenshots that don't loose image quality when zoomed in? This seems to be only a problem with illustrator, with photoshop when I zoom in it gets slightly fuzzy but thats it.
There is no exact way to capture as a vector. Because of the capture program, not knowing of any geometry shapes.
Although, you can capture a raster image and convert it to a vector. There are numerous tools out there, that will allow you to do this conversion. Then you will have to do a little bit of tweaking. But in reality you cannot take a capture as a vector, or convert it and have it be "pixel-perfect".
Hope this helps!
Zachary
I've got a problem in actionscript3 with moving large DisplayObject-s. When the size of the DisplayObject is quite large (more than screen size) the movement loses smoothness and it looks like the object starts jumping forward and backward, which overall looks very unpleasant.
Does anybody know the way to fix that? I am trying to make a sort of a race game, where I need to move the background sprite to make the illusion of movement.
Try turning on cacheAsBitmap. That may give you some performance improvements, especially if the object is static (doesn't have any animated bits in it). With AS3 and Flash Player 10 or newer you should be able to get smooth movement even with a large sprite. I've got several games that do it.
Have to agree with Laurent - it is probably better to split the background into small pieces and move them
I have a problem where the images look a little pixelated because they have been scaled down alot, just need a way to make everything appear smoother.
I need the game I'm making to look high quality and also work at different resolutions so when I made all the graphics I made them massive and same for the stage size in flash.
The stage size is 2000*1500 and it's being scaled down to 800*600 which is an exact ratio, I didn't expect to see pixelization when scaling the images DOWN, that's why I made them so large.
If there's no options for smoothing things out, then does anyone know the best option for swapping images at run-time? This way I can have pre-made images for all the most popular resolutions.
If you are using bitmaps, try smoothing and pixelsnapping:
image.smoothing = true;
image.pixelSnapping = "never";
If you have library images (bitmaps), try changing "Allow Smoothing" and "Compression"
If you want to automate this you can use JSFL:
http://mrsteel.wordpress.com/2007/06/12/flash-jsfl-script-allow-smoothing-on-all-bitmaps-in-library/
I hope my English is good enough.
The Problem:
I am developing some canvas game, using context2d. I did a perfomance test to see how well canvas render and stuff.
For painting, the method drawImage was used with some 50x50 jpg preloaded in memory at start.
My test was to instantiate a lot of logic square 50x50 objects moving random in the canvas
with no collission just to see the fps.
main loop was done with interval.
The problem, i noticed low fps when about 3000 random 50x50 on the screen, well i know the more you render, the less framerate. But i wanna ask something.
The question:
Is a good idea render every logic object in the canvas screen alone?
For example, with no collision, if i overlap two 50x50 in the same position, or almost the same position, the visible output is something lesser than (50·50)2 pixels, but i am drawing (50·50)2 pixels using drawimage for each element in the main loop.
Hope you guys understand the problem and the question.
Render alternatives? some logic techniques to archieve this instead of rendering every object alone?
I understand what you are asking, you are asking maybe you should try and rendering the collisions so you don't have to draw twice. Well frankly, I think you'd be better off just drawing the second square on top of the first one, and I'll tell you why:
Your logic will probably take more actions to determine the amount of overlapping and drawing the more complex shape, then actually drawing it.
So in my opinion, you'd be better off not testing for collisions in this one.
People, correct me if I'm wrong.
Definitely just draw. The bitblt (pixel copy) is optimized and will certainly be faster than collision logic between sprites. However, the one exception is possibly testing for off-screen sprites. This is a fast test because you're only checking against the screen bounds, that is, if a sprite is off the screen. If you have 10,000+ sprites, and many are off-screen most of the time - for example when zoomed in - then the test is worth it.. If they're always on screen, then just draw.
I'm working with a few programming buddies to create an AS interface to the kinect and one problem we're running into is image differencing. We need to be able to throw out image data that doesn't change from image to image so we can pin-point only things that are moving(i.e. people).
Anyone have any experience with this or a direction we can go?
I would consider creating a pixel bender shader to find the difference and also do any other math or tracking. Pixel bender gets its own thread outside of the normal flash player so you can get some more horse power for your setup. Pixel Bender shaders can be applied to bitmaps, vectors, or video so I think it is perfect for this project. Good Luck!
http://www.adobe.com/devnet/flash/articles/pixel_bender_basics.html
And is is a full collection of shaders including difference
Take a look at the threshold method on BitmapData.
It'll allow you to do this stuff. Their docs have a simple example so check that out.
It might be a long shot, and this is just me rambling, but in sound theory (strange how I'm relating it to image cancellation, but here goes...) the concept of cancellation is when you take a wave sample and add its inverse. It's how you make acapellas from instrumentals + originals or instrumentals from acapellas + originals.
Perhaps you can invert the new image and "normalize" the two to get your offsets? I.e. the first image is 'black on white' and the second image is 'white on black', and then detect the differences for the bitmap data. I know I did a similar method of finding collisions with AS3 a few years back. This would, in theory, cancel out any 'repeating' pixels and leave you with just the changes from the last frame.
With BitmapData your values are going to be from 0 to 255, so if you can implement a cancellation (because a lot of parts of the image are going to stay the same from frame t frame) then you can easily find the changes from the previous frame.
Just a thought! Whatever your solution is it's going to have to be quick in order to beat the flash runtimes' slow speeds. Your Kinect read FPS rate will be greatly hindered with bad code.
Here is some frame differencing code I wrote awhile back. It uses bitmapData: http://actionsnippet.com/?p=2820
I also used this to capture moving colors in a video feed: http://actionsnippet.com/?p=2736