> > I'm working on Giga/PicoDrive, a Megadrive emulator, a bit at the moment. When
> I
> > did a few measurements a few weeks ago I found 4ms was used on cpu, and 20ms
> > used on graphics rendering on a GP32.
> >
> > So I thought I may take a bit of time to jump up and down on the tile
> rendering
> > and make it a bit more efficent. It's a line by line renderer at the moment,
> > which I'm keen to hold onto for at long as possible because it makes raster
> > effects so easy. But I may have to lose that at some point or at least make
> two
> > graphics engines.
>
> Why? You could simply use a normal tile engine and add some stuff to make
> clipping efficient, e.g. only parse the needed parts of the tilemap.
>

The Megadrive has per line offset... I'm not sure how this effects the choice of a line-based renderer and a tile-based renderer... I remember have a bit of a nightmare in Final Burn with a tile based one!

I'm interested by Bart's comment that a line-based renderer may not be too much slower than a tile-based one after all - and I think that front-to-back rendering and other optmisations may well be easier on a line by line basis.

Had anyone actually compared a line-based and tile-based engine and the performance difference?

If it is minimal, is there any great advantage to tile based engines at all??


You learn something old everyday...