I'm wondering because I'm kinda curious about working with the image buffer. I'm working on a tile engine where I assemble an image from many smaller images so that pyglet only has to draw a single thing instead of a buttload of small sprites that slow everything to a crawl.
At the moment I'm using PIL to assemble my image by using a grid, from there I can either save it to a file or keep it in memory (the buffer of sorts) where I can work over it and then feed it to Pyglet. So far everything seems to be working fine, but it means I do have to depend on something other than good ol' Pyglet. The advantages are that it is a very straight forward process and I can easily modify small regions of the larger image on the fly if I so wish, with relative ease. Yet I still have to keep making the conversions between the PIL buffer and the Pyglet one. But just a few moments ago I started playing aorund with the whole 'pyglet image texture' stuff where, if I understand correctly, I can create textures and then either blit some stuff onto them, or blit the textures directly to the screen, and I'm assuming I may be able to get something similar working using just the actual pyglet buffer, just slightly less straight forward (than what I'm used to). My issue is in discerning what should be better, to keep using PIL, which is a graphics library in itself, or substitute it for a full-on pyglet application. Any thoughts? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "pyglet-users" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/pyglet-users?hl=en.
