From: "A. Jans-Beken" Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.djgpp Subject: Re: allegro Date: Sun, 02 Jan 2000 20:05:59 -0800 Organization: World Access Lines: 19 Message-ID: <38702027.57D1B5BD@wxs.nl> References: NNTP-Posting-Host: vl0655-1.dial.wxs.nl Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: reader2.wxs.nl 946839864 1588332 195.121.202.143 (2 Jan 2000 19:04:24 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse AT wxs DOT nl NNTP-Posting-Date: 2 Jan 2000 19:04:24 GMT X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en-gb] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com DJ-Gateway: from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp Reply-To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com Valkir wrote: > I just fill the xcreen with 1 color, and add a little square that move 1 pixel each time. > I delete de timer just so it's shorter, but it do only 5-6 fps. > > Is there a way for it to be faster or I must use sprite? > thanks, Val What you do is create a whole new bitmap, and then blit this to the screen. And that while you only want to move a small square. Most "animators" would advice you to use a dirty-windows technique. So, to make a long story short, yes - you should use sprites. By the way, if the program that you wrote is for demonstration purposes than it doesn't matter that it is slow. As long as other programs that you want to compare with allegro use the same algorithm. If however you need smooth animation than you should use the allegro sprite routines (and some form of buffering). Oh, and you probably know that the vsync() function slows matters down, and is in many cases not needed at all.