Something which I noticed was that at least for 2D games, smaller resolutions are in theory smoother. At 320x240, you can move the same speed moving 4 pixels a frame as if you moved 8 pixels a frame with 640x480. With 640x480, you would "skip" 8 pixels, while at 320x240 you would "skip" 4. This is just an example. Thoughts?
Previous Entry
I love ATI, but ATI doesn't love me
Next Entry
Surprises and Plot Twists
Advertisement
Latest Entries
My game development habits - an overview
1478 views
Back to Journal Land...
1701 views
2D Butterfly Art Image
1252 views
Game I made
1994 views
Surprises and Plot Twists
1624 views
Today's theory
1532 views
I love ATI, but ATI doesn't love me
1339 views
Art
1799 views
PC Laptops
1476 views
The PS4
1432 views
Advertisement
If both resolutions were full-screen on a monitor, and the monitor was the same physical size (22" or whatever), then you're still moving the same physical distance (1/4" or however much) on the monitor.
If you want smoother movement then don't move X pixels a frame, because different frames take different amounts of time. If Frame A and Frame B take different amounts of time, but both more the same distance, then you get erratic movement. (8 pixels in 1/10th of a second, and then 8 pixels during 1/20th of a second, and so on).
Instead, you could use floats for movement, only casting to integer pixels at the last second. Then, each frame you calculate how far to move based on how much time has passed.
This way, if the computer is going slower or faster, the player is always moving at a constant speed relative to the amount of time passed instead of relative to the number of frames drawn.