• Announcements

    • khawk

      Download the Game Design and Indie Game Marketing Freebook   07/19/17

      GameDev.net and CRC Press have teamed up to bring a free ebook of content curated from top titles published by CRC Press. The freebook, Practices of Game Design & Indie Game Marketing, includes chapters from The Art of Game Design: A Book of Lenses, A Practical Guide to Indie Game Marketing, and An Architectural Approach to Level Design. The GameDev.net FreeBook is relevant to game designers, developers, and those interested in learning more about the challenges in game development. We know game development can be a tough discipline and business, so we picked several chapters from CRC Press titles that we thought would be of interest to you, the GameDev.net audience, in your journey to design, develop, and market your next game. The free ebook is available through CRC Press by clicking here. The Curated Books The Art of Game Design: A Book of Lenses, Second Edition, by Jesse Schell Presents 100+ sets of questions, or different lenses, for viewing a game’s design, encompassing diverse fields such as psychology, architecture, music, film, software engineering, theme park design, mathematics, anthropology, and more. Written by one of the world's top game designers, this book describes the deepest and most fundamental principles of game design, demonstrating how tactics used in board, card, and athletic games also work in video games. It provides practical instruction on creating world-class games that will be played again and again. View it here. A Practical Guide to Indie Game Marketing, by Joel Dreskin Marketing is an essential but too frequently overlooked or minimized component of the release plan for indie games. A Practical Guide to Indie Game Marketing provides you with the tools needed to build visibility and sell your indie games. With special focus on those developers with small budgets and limited staff and resources, this book is packed with tangible recommendations and techniques that you can put to use immediately. As a seasoned professional of the indie game arena, author Joel Dreskin gives you insight into practical, real-world experiences of marketing numerous successful games and also provides stories of the failures. View it here. An Architectural Approach to Level Design This is one of the first books to integrate architectural and spatial design theory with the field of level design. The book presents architectural techniques and theories for level designers to use in their own work. It connects architecture and level design in different ways that address the practical elements of how designers construct space and the experiential elements of how and why humans interact with this space. Throughout the text, readers learn skills for spatial layout, evoking emotion through gamespaces, and creating better levels through architectural theory. View it here. Learn more and download the ebook by clicking here. Did you know? GameDev.net and CRC Press also recently teamed up to bring GDNet+ Members up to a 20% discount on all CRC Press books. Learn more about this and other benefits here.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
lonewolff

What is more efficient?

8 posts in this topic

Hi Guys,

 

I am making massive progress with a game engine I am writing, but am now wondering what would be more efficient. Rendering sprites using the DX9 sprite interface or just using textured quads?

 

I am calling sprite Begin, End, and Flush only once - even if I am rendering 1000 sprites, so I think I am going as efficient as I can in that regard. But, am wondering if I could squeeze out more potential if I used quads instead.

 

What do you guys recommend?

 

Thanks in advance :)

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Best to encapsulate your sprite interface and use either a DX9 Spirte or quad implementation. This way you can test out different approaches without the necessarity to rewrite most of your code.

 

PS:

There might be although some trapdoors when using quads, e.g. filtering, I believe, that sprites are more memory copy operations, while quads will be more like rendering. When rendering you have some advantages (use shaders for some pretty effects) and disadvantages (filtering which could result in bluring your sprites when not really careful).

Edited by Ashaman73
1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Ashaman73, I was hoping there was an easy answer. But you are right, the only way to really tell is to try it out and see.

 

My code is pretty clean as the sprite calls are allready neatly wrapped up. So, I just need to make some quads and test things out.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, I was just reading an XNA book that was talking about the guts of SpriteBatch. It turns out that Spritebatch uses textured quads because the GPU hardware is so specialized it turns out to be faster. I suspect if you roll your own textured quad drawing implementation, it might be marginally faster than SpriteBatch. But the ONLY true test of which one is faster is to code them and profile them both.

 

A couple of related links:

http://www.gamedev.net/topic/536693-xna-textured-quad-vs-sprite-batch/

http://gamedev.stackexchange.com/questions/21220/how-exactly-does-xnas-spritebatch-work

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There might be although some trapdoors when using quads, e.g. filtering, I believe, that sprites are more memory copy operations, while quads will be more like rendering. When rendering you have some advantages (use shaders for some pretty effects) and disadvantages (filtering which could result in bluring your sprites when not really careful).

D3DX sprites are rendered using textured quads, so it's the same thing.

 

In my opinion the D3DX helper interfaces for sprites and fonts (and meshes etc.) are excellent when you are starting and actually may be perfectly fine for you for a long time. But sooner or later you'll want to implement it yourself. Especially ID3DXFont is very slow. The problem is that they are quite generalised and you can make a more efficient code by making it directly as you want and need.

Edited by Tom KQT
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Generally the D3DX code can be improved upon, which is why it's just there as a helper library, rather than an actual part of D3D itself. It's likely just a wrapper around a dynamic vertex/index buffer, which it copies your rects into, and then constructs indexed-draw calls based on the textures used.

 

This is exactly how it's implemented, yes.  You can use PIX to view the actual D3D calls that the sprite interface makes and determine that it's nothing more than a wrapper.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0