I'm working on a 2D isometric tile-based turn-based game in java. This is a big step for me since my last project was Pong. I have noticed that the TBS game calls for a lot more animation. I don't know if I will be able to do things like the movement of characters, the animating of attacks, and the smooth movement of menu pointers with just Graphics g. Should I instead learn DirectDraw and use that, or perhaps some other 2D API? Or should Graphics g be enough to do what I want? Thanks!

My experiance with java has been strictly with with command prompt and GUI programes(i.e non games) but if DirecDraw is as easy peasy with java as it is with C# go DirectDraw.... ok its no longer supported(every ones doing 2D in 3D now) but with the right book or web guide you'll have sprites dancing round on screen within an hour.

DirectDraw, all the way. Its fast, its easy, and it leads into 3D

BTW, when the previous poster says "not supported", it just means microsoft wont be updating it (like it needs it anyway). It will ALWAYS still work, because microsoft have to support backwards compatability.

Plus, if you ever want to become a professional, id use the directX way.

Quote:Original post by DMINATOR
I would not reccomend DirectDraw, if you want to find out what it is just go ahead, but DirectDraw is very limited to the amount of work it could do - drawimages for example, if you wan't to draw a line you have to make this function yourself, direct3d would be the best way. But most of all it depends on what you want to achieve.

Not to seam offensive, but while DD is more complex, alot of that stuff (such as line drawing), is actually not that hard to do, and besides, direct3D is damn hard without some knowlege of DD.

I wouldnt say D3D is hard without DD knowledge i started off doing D3D months before i decided to pick up DD.
I chose DD because i wanted a simple 2D tile engine and mucking around with all the extra bumf in D3D to do it was like using a sledge hammer to crack a nut.
DD is simple & your end users wont need 3D capable hardware to use it.
DD is not without its merrits i think its ignorant to dismiss it just because microsoft say it defunct when it still does the job it was intended for as good as it ever did.

DD also gives you an insight of how some 2D work is done accross platforms. I did a little program for the GP32 a while back and it used the draw to a back buffer and flip it to the primary style drawing that is no longer used doing things the D3D way so the more basic some thing is the more you can learn from it i find.

With the D3D way you have cameras, vector3's (you actualy have a 3rd dimension to your graphics even if you never use it), textures, etc. with D'Draw once you have set up the surface you whish to draw to(the screen) and draw from (your sprite graphics) you just tell it to draw at the poisiton on screen from the poition on your sprite graphics its easy peasy with no extra gumph you just dont need....

Though if your learning to do this in a professional capacity then learn both use DDraw 1st and make your graphics class as self contained as possible then as you learn D3D, if you like... as a learning experiance, swap out your graphics class for a D3D one.

So no votes for Graphics g?