The Daily Click ::. Forums ::. Klik Coding Help ::. What takes up more memory, a large Backdrop or a lot of tiny backdrops?
 

Post Reply  Post Oekaki 
 

Posted By Message

Patrix



Registered
  21/02/2008
Points
  13
22nd July, 2016 at 22/07/2016 01:57:39 -

What takes up more memory, a large Backdrop or a lot of tiny backdrops?

 
n/a

Rick Cameron



Registered
  11/03/2012 08:45:25
Points
  82
22nd July, 2016 at 22/07/2016 05:33:40 -

This is pure conjecture, but I'd say one large one is less intense, at least if you are talking about covering the same pixel area (ie 800x600 or whatever).

Basically, you've got the same amount of raw data (Pixels and their colours), but with lots of little ones you have the additional burden of whatever data the Backdrop object itself requires, over and above a single instance of said backdrop.

I am, however, no expert. I would wonder if there would be any noticeable memory difference anyway?

 
n/a

Airflow

imafirinmahlazr

Registered
  24/09/2003
Points
  -197

VIP MemberSonic SpeedSnow Cloud!Computer
23rd July, 2016 at 23/07/2016 03:21:11 -

It depends on what the final image is. If you use the same tiny backdrop 16 times for example, and each is 16x16 pix, you save 92160 bits of 24bit color information. If every tile is a separate picture, the tiles take up more space because of what Rick said. The most apparent example of which is needing to store {x,y} information for each tile, but you could also consider the backdrop properties, and the memory required to identify separate backdrop objects. {x,y} information alone isn't much, but for 10x10 tiles it's 3200 bits on an x86 machine.

For the specifics on what's going on, read about memory usage of class instances in objective programming.
Good question

 
n/a

Patrix



Registered
  21/02/2008
Points
  13
24th July, 2016 at 24/07/2016 21:22:52 -

Thanks for the input.

 
n/a

AndyUK

Mascot Maniac

Registered
  01/08/2002
Points
  14560

Game of the Week WinnerSecond GOTW AwardHas Donated, Thank You!VIP Member
28th July, 2016 at 28/07/2016 03:37:43 -

Also if the large backdrop is something that started off as 16x16 and was resized to something much larger at runtime (an active object usually), it takes up less memory than something that started off as a large object.

I use this for invisible objects when I can to save memory.

 
.

UrbanMonk

BRING BACK MITCH

Registered
  07/07/2008
Points
  49614

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!
28th July, 2016 at 28/07/2016 18:30:33 -

If the backdrops are on layer 0 they all get copied to a new backdrop buffer anyway, so it shouldn't matter how you do it.

If they're on layers above that one though they're managed like active objects, or very similarly at least.

Pasted backdrops also work differently since they can be deleted at runtime.

 
n/a
   

Post Reply



 



Advertisement

Worth A Click