I know all the talk is isometric, but i currently have a square-based tile engine. Running at 800x600x16 I have 475 tiles visible on the screen. The tiles all only have a single layer. I have implemented frame-to-fram coherency, so that only new tiles need to be redrawn, anyway I am getting 116fps when scroling on a AMD K6 400, with a Rage LT Pro Video card (it is a laptop). All i want ot know is if 116 fps is a good speed for ONLY the landscape?

i think that 100+ fps is good, realy good. UT only runs at about 30-50fpr on my comp.. 100+ is perrty good

AfTeRmAtH

It is completely meaningless to start benchmarking so early, i.e. before your engine does anything useful.
"Optimization is the root of all evil" (D. Knuth)
So write your engine that it performs something useful and start benchmarking and improving the problem areas then. Also, what answer do you expect? Naturally >100 frames is enough, so no need to worry. Engine comparisons at such an early state are completely useless...

regards,

BuschnicK


Life would be much easier if I had the source code.
blackfish.sourceforge.net

Your FPS probably aren''t even limited by the computer speed but by the monitor refresh rate. To get a more or less accurate of the speed of your graphics engine in early stages you could put the entire renderer in a loop, so everything is drawn 10x per frame for example. Then you multiply your framerate by 10 to get the actual framerate.
Of course this value gets meaningless once a significant part of the computing time is taken up by game logic.

cu,
Prefect


One line of sourcecode says more than a thousand words.