TMC wrote:
To call out James again for a phony excuse, I just tried higher resolutions in the first town in Vikings on my (low end 3 year old) netbook. Running with a window size 1280x960 I get 48fps when running at 2x zoom (actual resolution 640x480), or 37fps when running at 1x zoom. I'm surprised it's that fast. But anyway even if our rendering code were too slow all of our graphics backend libraries have much more highly optimised software blitting routines than our own ones, as well as hardware rendering, and we're hoping to switch over to those soonish.
To call out James again for a phony excuse, I just tried higher resolutions in the first town in Vikings on my (low end 3 year old) netbook. Running with a window size 1280x960 I get 48fps when running at 2x zoom (actual resolution 640x480), or 37fps when running at 1x zoom. I'm surprised it's that fast. But anyway even if our rendering code were too slow all of our graphics backend libraries have much more highly optimised software blitting routines than our own ones, as well as hardware rendering, and we're hoping to switch over to those soonish.
Haha! I can't get away with anything, can I?
I did the same test myself on Escape the Wolf, which uses all 8 layers. My laptop is pretty fast and I was able to stay at 55 fps most of the time. However, it did spike one of my two CPUs to near 100% and kept it there the whole time. (Normal unzoomed 18.2 fps gameplay averages about 20%)



