Another question, 'bout backdrops.

[Corlen]

I noticed in MMF2 that backdrop objects now apply towards the application's memory which probably has to do with how you guys fixed backdrop objects being pasted in to the frame during runtime getting erased if they scroll off screen, but if too many are on the screen at once it can actually slow down the application. Is there any easy way around this if you're like me and using 16x16 tiles in 320x240 resolution or if you're also like me and want to have blood splats stain the ground permanently?

[Yves]

Are your backdrop objects on layers? Only the backdrops on layer 1 don't slow the application. Backdrops on other layers are displayed like active objects. If possible, uncheck the "Save background" option in the layer properties, that will save some time. If you can't do that you'll have to wait for the hardware accelerated version.

Otherwise if you have a huge map with 16x16 tiles, that may take some time when the application scrolls, try using 32x32 or 64x64 tiles, and/or quick backdrop objects to replace blocks of identical tiles.

[Corlen]

Ah yes there are indeed background objects on layers other than layer 1. Thanks for the information. MMF2 has become so impressive especially when you think back to Klik N' Play.

If you don't mind could you tell me the formula to make a parallax as a background system box scroll proper and loop in a 320x240 resolution?

[Olivier]

I have a similar question. Do invisible backdrops created at higher layers impact the app's performance in any way? In case you wonder, I create invisible backdrops from semi-transparent actives so I have invisible collision areas.

[Yves]

Do you mean backdrop objects with a semi-transparency coefficient equal to 128? I think they impact the performances as the routines that save and restore the background behind them don't know that the object is fully transparent. I'll try to see if I can test it in these routines too.

[Olivier]

Do you mean backdrop objects with a semi-transparency coefficient equal to 128?

Yup that's it.

I'll try to see if I can test it in these routines too.

That would be uber cool.[cool]