The Daily Click ::. Forums ::. Klik Coding Help ::. Active object vs. Backdrop/ Quick Backdrop
 

Post Reply  Post Oekaki 
 

Posted By Message

Greasy



Registered
  15/02/2005
Points
  322
25th May, 2009 at 21:54:42 -

Hey I'm just wondering about how much more space your application would use if you used an active object rather than a backdrop object. I'm always hesitant to use active objects when I only need to move them some place during game play, but I don't see any other way. What is some input on this?

 
n/a

UrbanMonk

BRING BACK MITCH

Registered
  07/07/2008
Points
  50102

Has Donated, Thank You!Little Pirate!ARGH SignKliktober Special Award TagPicture Me This Round 33 Winner!The Outlaw!VIP MemberHasslevania 2!I am an April FoolKitty
Picture Me This Round 32 Winner!Picture Me This Round 42 Winner!Picture Me This Round 44 Winner!Picture Me This Round 53 Winner!
25th May, 2009 at 22:12:55 -

Actives only use more memory because they require the mmf runtime to check on them every loop, whereas backdrops are only rendered, and added to the collision mask if necessary. Actives also use more processing power. With todays computers you shouldn't have to worry about it too much. Just code efficiently.

 
n/a

Dr. James MD

Addict

Registered
  08/12/2003
Points
  11941

First GOTW AwardSecond GOTW AwardThird GOTW AwardPicture Me This -Round 26- Winner!
25th May, 2009 at 22:16:35 -

I used actives as foreground objects in Sam which was the cause of the crappy performance, but some frames had kajillions of the things. I don't know if MMF2 is more effecient at rendering them but in MMF1.5 actives were a bit of a drain. Personally I'd just use backdrops, and if they had to be above the player I'd stick them on a higher layer.

 
Image
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=j--8iXVv2_U
On the sixth day God created Manchester
"You gotta get that sand out your vaj!" x13
www.bossbaddie.com

OMC

What a goofball

Registered
  21/05/2007
Points
  3309

KlikCast Musician! Guy with a HatSomewhat CrazyARGH SignLikes TDCHas Donated, Thank You!Retired Admin
25th May, 2009 at 22:58:18 -


Originally Posted by Dr. James
I'd stick them on a higher layer.

Would that be any more efficient than actives? I guess it would...

 

  		
  		

Dr. James MD

Addict

Registered
  08/12/2003
Points
  11941

First GOTW AwardSecond GOTW AwardThird GOTW AwardPicture Me This -Round 26- Winner!
25th May, 2009 at 23:14:40 -

It should do, as Monk said MMF2 wouldn't be running any event checks on them. I'd imagine that would take up more resources than a layer. But who knows with MMF2

 
Image
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=j--8iXVv2_U
On the sixth day God created Manchester
"You gotta get that sand out your vaj!" x13
www.bossbaddie.com

UrbanMonk

BRING BACK MITCH

Registered
  07/07/2008
Points
  50102

Has Donated, Thank You!Little Pirate!ARGH SignKliktober Special Award TagPicture Me This Round 33 Winner!The Outlaw!VIP MemberHasslevania 2!I am an April FoolKitty
Picture Me This Round 32 Winner!Picture Me This Round 42 Winner!Picture Me This Round 44 Winner!Picture Me This Round 53 Winner!
25th May, 2009 at 23:46:17 -

Yes sticking backdrops on a higher layer is less resource intensive than actives on any layer.

 
n/a

OMC

What a goofball

Registered
  21/05/2007
Points
  3309

KlikCast Musician! Guy with a HatSomewhat CrazyARGH SignLikes TDCHas Donated, Thank You!Retired Admin
25th May, 2009 at 23:59:45 -

I really need to find an old Bill Nye episode and conglomermash together a clip of the "DID YOU KNOW THAT.... NOOOOW YOU KNOW..." for these types of situations.

 

  		
  		

Greasy



Registered
  15/02/2005
Points
  322
26th May, 2009 at 02:21:01 -

Will adding "Only one action where event loops" to events that it is acceptable for help with speed in a big way? This is assuming the event is only something miniscule like setting an alterable value to 1 or whatever.

 
n/a

UrbanMonk

BRING BACK MITCH

Registered
  07/07/2008
Points
  50102

Has Donated, Thank You!Little Pirate!ARGH SignKliktober Special Award TagPicture Me This Round 33 Winner!The Outlaw!VIP MemberHasslevania 2!I am an April FoolKitty
Picture Me This Round 32 Winner!Picture Me This Round 42 Winner!Picture Me This Round 44 Winner!Picture Me This Round 53 Winner!
26th May, 2009 at 03:24:38 -

Any action that the computer will have to perform will take processing power. Whether or not it actually effect performance is another thing. There is no way to really know for sure how mmf2 handles things. All the info you will ever get about the inner workings of the mmf2 monster will be obtained through experimentation, and observation. If the game gains performance by changing all the instances of "always" to "only one action when event loops" then go for it!

 
n/a

nim



Registered
  17/05/2002
Points
  7229
26th May, 2009 at 03:40:54 -

I've heard that putting events into groups and disabling those groups when not needed is a good way to make MMF programs more efficient.

 
//

Cecilectomy

noPE

Registered
  19/03/2005
Points
  305

Has Donated, Thank You!VIP MemberWeekly Picture Me This Winner!Cardboard BoxGhostbuster!Pokemon Ball!ComputerBox RedSanta HatSnowman
I am an April Fool
26th May, 2009 at 03:50:49 -

you heard correctly! especially when running certain things in loops, groups help out a lot.

 
n/a

Greasy



Registered
  15/02/2005
Points
  322
26th May, 2009 at 04:54:24 -

That's a good thing, I've been heavily using groups in this point & click adventure I'm doing. Though it isn't exactly a CPU intensive genre, I still have a pretty efficient system going. Anyone interested in the project can PM me, since I'm looking for people who are willing to do some art.

 
n/a
   

Post Reply



 



Advertisement

Worth A Click