Topic: Game Creation Techniques

[uzo]

I don't understand the idea that breaking up the same amount of graphics over a screen could effect how much memory it takes to load those graphics.

Seriously? You can't understand a 256x256 texture takes less memory than a 2048x2048 texture?

I just- How could- Your post is just a giant wall of dribble. I've already explained exactly why the centralized 'tiled' graphic concept was created, and why it still remains a central part of game program design to this day even in 3D games. Apparently you didn't bother reading anything I already wrote. So, fuck it, I quit.

[Corpsecrank]

Seriously? You can't understand a 256x256 texture takes less memory than a 2048x2048 texture?

I just- How could- Your post is just a giant wall of dribble. I've already explained exactly why the centralized 'tiled' graphic concept was created, and why it still remains a central part of game program design to this day even in 3D games. Apparently you didn't bother reading anything I already wrote. So, fuck it, I quit.

No I can't understand that a texture takes more or less memory because I am not talking about textures I am talking about bitmap sprite graphics. But since a texture is never a different size because it gets stretched and tiles but the base texture is always static I guess it couldn't be any larger than it started out could it?

I don't know where you got on this texture thing at I was trying to discuss 2d tiles not 3d textures.

I don't understand how a 500x500 pixel image can take up more memory than 10 - 50x50 pixel images would. THAT is what I am talking about.

[Aridale]

technically it cant. The difference would come from the object data in memory mainly. There shouldnt really be any more memory use either way. The problem comes when you need MORE than that 1 large image loaded. Say 20 things on screen all use the same texture (tile set) but 1 thing on screen uses another texture (different tile set) then both of those have to be loaded in memory completely even tho the 1 that uses the 2nd tile set is only usin 1 tiny part of it.

Another thing to think about. Say you have a huge background you wanna use for like a town. Now say the next map needs the edge of that town as the startin part. Do you put the entire town background in that map and just move it so only the part you need is shown? Or make a new graphic with just the part you need? If it was just a tile set it wouldnt matter.

Like I said before. It all comes down to how the game was designed from the very beginning for what kinda graphics it needs. Hell you could even make a game like Odin Sphere with tiles if ya wanted... Just very big tiles in sets for very specific parts. Which is prolly how it was made anyway

[Flame]

even character model sheets for games like say, Megaman legends or probably even Lament, are tile sheets. Ever look at texture rips?

[TheouAegis]

Why the F would you make ten 50x50px tiles for a 500x500 background? A tile should never be more than 8x16, 16x16, 8x32, or 32x32 in size.

You are completely missing the points of all this.

1) Tiles can be repeated. It's called tiling. Either that's why they're called tiles or that's why it's called tiling. Either way, tiles and textures are the exact same. Yes, you can even stretch tiles.

2) A tile is placed on a 2D surface in a 2D plane. A texture is placed on a 2D surface in a 3D space. That's the only difference between a tile and a texture.

3) A tile is not the same as a map (the term used in Gameboy Advance and DS emulators). Let's look at Dragon Force on the Sega Saturn, as it's a prime example of the difference between tiles and maps.

This is a map.
As is this.
But this is made from tiles.
This is made of tiles placed over a map.

Full-screen portraits aren't tiles; they don't need to be in most cases. There are exceptions to the case, though. Take Kirby for example. This would be done with tiles because there's so much wasted memory otherwise due to the repetition of 8x8 color blocks. Break it down to 8x8px cells and count all the monotone pink or monotone white cells in the pause screen. Take them all out except for one each and compress them all together and see how much memory you save.

[Aridale]

thats not a tile sheet Flame thats a skin. It looks like it could be but thats just how the modeller laid out the UV of the model so the texture could be made. Pretty much EVERY 3d game uses skins for things similar to that for the models. Theres some exceptions and things that can be done without that kind of skinning but its kinda rare especially in characters

And Theou tiles can be any size generally as long as its a power of 2. Its just typical that theyre 32x32 or smaller for 2d games. They can easily be 128x128 and still be used just fine

[TheouAegis]

Well yeah, but you don't make 128x128 tiles typically unless you have a high resolution room. A 500x500 room is a far cry from a resolution that would make 128x128 or even 50x50 tiles logical. A 500x500 room should be a map if you have no way of reducing its presence in the ROM by at least 25%. A 128x128 tile of a foreground tree is much different in use than a 128x128 grass tile.

[Corpsecrank]

Why the F would you make ten 50x50px tiles for a 500x500 background? A tile should never be more than 8x16, 16x16, 8x32, or 32x32 in size.

You are completely missing the points of all this.

1) Tiles can be repeated. It's called tiling. Either that's why they're called tiles or that's why it's called tiling. Either way, tiles and textures are the exact same. Yes, you can even stretch tiles.

2) A tile is placed on a 2D surface in a 2D plane. A texture is placed on a 2D surface in a 3D space. That's the only difference between a tile and a texture.

3) A tile is not the same as a map (the term used in Gameboy Advance and DS emulators). Let's look at Dragon Force on the Sega Saturn, as it's a prime example of the difference between tiles and maps.

This is a map.
As is this.
But this is made from tiles.
This is made of tiles placed over a map.

Full-screen portraits aren't tiles; they don't need to be in most cases. There are exceptions to the case, though. Take Kirby for example. This would be done with tiles because there's so much wasted memory otherwise due to the repetition of 8x8 color blocks. Break it down to 8x8px cells and count all the monotone pink or monotone white cells in the pause screen. Take them all out except for one each and compress them all together and see how much memory you save.

I wouldn't do that and I didn't miss the point those numbers were purely for example sake and nothing more. You kind of took that a bit literally.

What I mean is that something is X number of pixels wide and tall and you are filling a screen with an image. No matter how you display what is on the screen you must be filling it with something. So a screen size of say 600x800 is always going to have 600x800 pixels on it. I wanted to know why filling it with smaller images is different than filling it with a full 600x800 image. Does that make sense?

I know that tiles can repeat but does that actually lower the memory use? If it did I would understand how it could be better. But there are still other advantages yet like the ability to edit easier or simply reuse the same tiles in other parts of the game without creating a new image.

Come to think of it you could lower the size of the game as a whole by using the same tiles in different areas as the game would contain less artwork total. Maybe that is actually the point of tiles in older games which had limited cartridge space. Even discs are limited to 700mb a piece. That would be a great reason alone to use tiles over full size images.

But I think this is getting kind of out of hand anyways. This has gone from learning to arguments and I for one have no more time for that. It has become counter productive so I am going to go back to work where my time is better spent.

[TheouAegis]

Even regardless of the ROM size, you're still having to load those images into the computer's memory. Tiles allow you to free up more memory on the player's computer for other functions instead of the graphics. If I load up your game and my page file fills up with 2 gigs of 800x600 portraits, I'd be pissed.

[Corpsecrank]

even character model sheets for games like say, Megaman legends or probably even Lament, are tile sheets. Ever look at texture rips?

You misunderstand what those really are and how they are applied to the game. When you look at the rip you are seeing an image of the textures applied across a surface of a 3D model. Those aren't "tiles" each one of those get mapped to a surface which is quite a bit different than a flat bitmap object on the screen. Those may not even be 100% accurate because of how they get ripped. It greatly depends on how good the ripper is and how well they understand the tools and what to rip and how well the tool can do the job. That is why I keep trying to keep 3D and textures out of the conversation it doesn't apply to bitmap tiling in a 2D game.

It doesn't matter either way I did more research on the subject on my own and found out everything I need to know.

[Inccubus]

It doesn't matter either way I did more research on the subject on my own and found out everything I need to know.

So then does that mean you understand why using tiles uses less memory?

[Corpsecrank]

So then does that mean you understand why using tiles uses less memory?

Kind of. I understand how using tiles can give advantages anyhow. Even if it were not saving memory there are other reasons to use it that make sense. I do understand how you can save on memory by using tiles but not in a sense that objects on the screen must still be drawn and that there is memory usage there as well. The idea that instances of a single piece of art take less memory to cover a screen does make sense though. Similar to instancing objects in flash animations. A single image can have lots of instances and your file will be small and handle well while lots of physical copies to make up the same thing would lead to a large file and poor handling.

The thing is if your tiles were all different for a screen and you couldn't take advantage of using instances of a tile would you still be saving any memory? That is really the issue for me. I still want to know if you have to fill a screen and you can't use duplicate tiles to do so is there a reason to chop those particular graphics up into tiles? Unless of course you wanted to use parts of those graphics in other areas of the game. But for a single screen where nothing would be reused are you better off using a solid image vs tiles or is it still better to break it all apart into smaller tiles anyways.

[Inccubus]

That's the thing right there. The actual graphics that appear on the screen take up memory besides the graphics themselves. Roughly, this is the way it works: the pixels that appear in a 640x480 space need to have memory for that 640x480 pixel space all the time no matter what. If the background you're using is a big background that, say, is 5 screens long then you also need to use 640x480x5 pixels worth of memory to have them available to display. Making the total memory usage 640x480x6. 1 for what is currently visible and 5 for the full background. However, if you condense the whole background into a 640x480 tileset that does the same job. But you're now only using a total of 640x480x2 pixels worth of memory. So with a large single image background that's 640x480x6 = 1,843,200 pixels in memory. While condensed in a single tileset it's 640*480*2 = 614,400 pixels in memory. That's a huge difference.

[Corpsecrank]

That's the thing right there. The actual graphics that appear on the screen take up memory besides the graphics themselves. Roughly, this is the way it works: the pixels that appear in a 640x480 space need to have memory for that 640x480 pixel space all the time no matter what. If the background you're using is a big background that, say, is 5 screens long then you also need to use 640x480x5 pixels worth of memory to have them available to display. Making the total memory usage 640x480x6. 1 for what is currently visible and 5 for the full background. However, if you condense the whole background into a 640x480 tileset that does the same job. But you're now only using a total of 640x480x2 pixels worth of memory. So with a large single image background that's 640x480x6 = 1,843,200 pixels in memory. While condensed in a single tileset it's 640*480*2 = 614,400 pixels in memory. That's a huge difference.

That makes sense to. But what if say I only needed to fill a single 640x480 would single images be any different than tiles in that case? You only have to fill 1 640x480 screen and the background wouldn't scroll so I wouldn't think there would be any reason to tile. Not unless you were able to take advantage of tile instances to save on usage.

[Inccubus]

That makes sense to. But what if say I only needed to fill a single 640x480 would single images be any different than tiles in that case? You only have to fill 1 640x480 screen and the background wouldn't scroll so I wouldn't think there would be any reason to tile. Not unless you were able to take advantage of tile instances to save on usage.

Yes, it would still make a difference because the memory space for the graphics are always separate from the actual image being displayed. Even if it's a single screen and you can condense the bg into a smaller set of tiles you'll be saving on memory usage.