Mail Archives: djgpp/1999/02/17/23:22:37
Ismael Herrera Zamarron(MCC) wrote:
>
> Hello, I have installed allegro and it compiled fine, I have a computer
> with an amd k6 processor 333 Mhz. with 64 M of RAM I have run rhe demo
> with diferents techniques among them dirty rectangles while double
> buffering produces 26-30 fps dirty rectangles could produce above 500 fps,
> when working with mesa in a workstation with a processor of 100 Mhz I
> recall it produces 9-11 fps. When an animation works with 24 fps it could
> be say that it emalutes real time, if it works at 30 fps it could be say
> that it emulates real time accurately, but what could be say when it works
> above 30 fps. Is this measure correct or is there some error?
Well, you need about 24 fps to get something good enough to fool
the brain, Film at cinema has a 24fps and Most european TV 25fps(IIRC).
After that, the bigger the better, with one condition, that is that the
out unit (your screen) can be able to show these higher frame rates
(most computer monitors has an update frequency of 60-80hz).
Everything also depends on what to show, a not so much moving video is
OK on 24fps, but a high speed F1 game could really benefice of 60.
BTW 500 fps for dirty rectangles is a rather useless measure as the time
consumption depends on how "dirty" the screen is.
If you aren't changing any graphics, your framerate will be both useless
and enormous.
So, I guess that for any graphic package, the fps that counts is when
the whole screen is redrawn, and then it's up to the user to use
the dirty rectangles if he only changes parts of the screen between
updates.
HTH
Ludvig Larsson
- Raw text -