Why would any user want to reduce the frame rate on their machine? I
don't see the point of this option.
And incidentally Joe has stated that there is no performance
difference (on any machine) between a timer set to 0 and a timer set
to around 16.
I guess you are right... it really doesn't matter how often the timer
fires. If it is a slow machine and the timer is set to 0 (or 16),
then it would just fire as often as it can.
At the time, I was thinking of allowing the user to adjust the Timer
so that if it is choppy that they could at least make it less
irregular and unpredictable.
I've done something a bit like this with my game, but rather than
adjusting the rate at which the timer fires, the user can adjust the
number of times the engine goes round a tight loop before exiting until
the timer next fires. To be honest though this is a really ugly hack
and I hate it, I just don't see a better way of coping with the fact
that timer performance is dreadful, but tight loops can cause the
interface to freeze. In any case this approach requires a frame-rate
independent graphics engine.
What *would* be better than a timer adjustment is a control to adjust
the complexity of the graphics -- and I am working on that too.
Agreed,
Nick
_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe or switch delivery mode:
<http://support.realsoftware.com/listmanager/>
Search the archives of this list here:
<http://support.realsoftware.com/listarchives/lists.html>
|