Thank you again, Steve, you have been very helpful! :) On Thursday, April 6, 2017 at 12:54:36 PM UTC-4, Steve Hannah wrote: > > > > On Wed, Apr 5, 2017 at 12:02 PM, <[email protected] <javascript:>> > wrote: > >> This is exactly what I was looking for, thank you so much for taking the >> time to help me out, Steve! :) I'd like to ask a few more questions if >> that's okay, just to get some clarification on a few things! >> >> Is there any documentation regarding the performance of the low-level >> drawing routines? One thing I like is how pixel-perfect the scaling on >> pixel art turns out when using drawImage and manually specifying a width >> and height. The result is so much more crisp than what can be achieved with >> multi-resolution images. As a Codename One developer, do you think it is >> way more expensive handle rendering this way instead of using muti-res, or >> is it about the same? >> > > I haven't don't any profiling on this myself, so I'm not sure the > difference in performance. The performance will likely vary by platform a > little bit. > > >> >> How performant is it to do something like, say, an array of images? Would >> this be undefined behavior? drawImage(testimage[3],objx,objy), for example. >> > > Keeping images in an array should not impact performance in any way (vs > just keeping them in variables). While accessing an array index is an extra > lookup vs using a local variable, that lookup is negligible compared to the > task of drawing the image. > > >> >> Finally, Image.getWidth and Image.getHeight: how expensive are these? Do >> they have to poll the GPU, or are image width and height stored on the CPU >> and these are light operations? I ask because I noticed that scale(x,y) >> isn't 100% portable yet due to limited Affine support, so instead of >> setting scale(logicalsize,logicalsize) to change the logical draw size, a >> developer could do something like >> drawImage(testimage,objx*logicalsize,objy*logicalsize,testimage.getWidth*logicalsize,testimage.getHeight*logicalsize) >> >> as an alternative. But only if these are not expensive and/or slow >> operations to perform? >> > > getWidth() and getHeight() should be fast. It doesn't need to hit the GPU. > > > Best regards > > Steve >
-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "CodenameOne Discussions" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/codenameone-discussions. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/codenameone-discussions/c07aefad-ec8c-46c4-addc-f1852260b96f%40googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
