Jump to content

  • Log In with Google      Sign In   
  • Create Account


Tonz of large animations [2d]


Old topic!
Guest, the last post of this topic is over 60 days old and at this point you may not reply in this topic. If you wish to continue this conversation start a new topic.

  • You cannot reply to this topic
3 replies to this topic

#1 Neuton Mouse   Members   -  Reputation: 123

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 06 January 2014 - 11:04 AM

Hello GameDev Community,

Ok, this covers 2d opengl (or it really doesn't matter). Before i do any further moves in my project i would like to ask for advices/comments/opinions here. I'm bit confused with some memory management issues.

I'm planning complete 2d game which will assume 10-20 object types. Each object type will have perhaps 50-64 128x128/256x256 frame animation (atlas size isn't specified). There will be other misc animations. 

I'm not sure whether video card will explode after such frame rush. Right now, i'm using default sprite sheet method - one animated atlas, each frame is done via clip draw. Currently, these are test sprites 64x64 in 512x512 and everything is fine. 

I could do future animations in huge atlases but that would result like 8192x8192 (or more?) for each object(~x20) - would that be fatal? Or loading each frame is the key? (i have doubts about it)

Maybe this is naive but anyway i'd ask: what are good algorithms that deal up with animation management? Or it would be fine to continue in such way and have no worries? False alarm then. The point is, i want older computers (let's take for example average laptops of 2004-2009) to be able to work out with it.

Thank you for attention!


Edited by Neuton Mouse, 06 January 2014 - 11:11 AM.


Sponsor:

#2 LorenzoGatti   Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 2513

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 06 January 2014 - 03:16 PM

20 animations * 64 frames * 256*256 pixels * 4 bytes each (RGBA) = 335,544,320 bytes: hefty to load, either acceptable as a single texture atlas or close enough to not worry about texture switching costs, probably affordable on any 512 MB card.  You might also use compressed texture formats to target 128 MB video cards and/or load textures faster.


Produci, consuma, crepa

#3 richardurich   Members   -  Reputation: 1187

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 06 January 2014 - 03:43 PM

If you're targeting laptops (integrated Intel graphics), you'll want smaller textures. Even Sandy Bridge (Jan 2011 release date) has documentation suggesting you limit texture sizes to 256x256 and smaller. If you can access the hardware, it's worth testing if that's still the case or if Intel has improved their drivers in that area.

 

Are you using keyframe animation with 50+ keyframes or frame-by-frame animation? If you're not talking about keyframes, you might look into keyframe animation. It should get you better looking results, better support in 3rd party tools, lower memory requirements, and higher performance.



#4 Solid_Spy   Members   -  Reputation: 389

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 09 January 2014 - 03:40 AM

Also, If you absolutely need the animations and cannot downSize them, then you may want to find some compression technique, and load/unload certain animation files only when you need them.




Old topic!
Guest, the last post of this topic is over 60 days old and at this point you may not reply in this topic. If you wish to continue this conversation start a new topic.



PARTNERS