Elysian Shadows

if your tiles aren't on screen, don't draw them :D

spirit bomb! wrote:This is a subject that I believe many people on these forums have experience with...

Suppose I have a tile based game. And suppose the character can move, but he really stays in the same spot on the screen, as the entire world moves in the opposite direction he is running in (Kinda like the space ship in FUTURAMA). So the problem is... I am keeping track of every single tile, on and off screen. Every time the character moves, the (x,y) of every single tile needs to be adjusted. This is eating my frame-rate ferociously, because of the ridiculous amount of processes involved. Has anyone experienced this problem, or have any good solution?

Possible Solutions???

-Smaller World.
-Make every layer into one single bitmap. <- wouldn't have any idea how to implement this b.s. but it would be cool


Any halp is awesome, and well appriciated.

for(y = 0; y < map_height; ++y)
    for(int x = 0; x < map_width; ++x)
        DrawSprite(map[y][x]);

eatcomics wrote:yet he manually called a destructor...

mv2112 wrote:

eatcomics wrote:yet he manually called a destructor...

Why the hell is it such bad practice to call destructors? Who says it is bad practice? Why does it matter?

Ahh, i feel better now...

SomeDestructorExample::~SomeDestructorExample()
{
delete pSomeDynamicallyAllocatedMemory;
}

XianForce wrote: Destructors are automatically called. So when you manually call it, it will actually be called twice most likely. So let's say you had this:

Code: Select all

SomeDestructorExample::~SomeDestructorExample()
{
delete pSomeDynamicallyAllocatedMemory;
}

And later the destructor is also automatically called... Then you run into things like segfaults and access violations...

SomeDestructorExample::~SomeDestructorExample()
{
    delete pSomeDynamicallyAllocatedMemory;
    pSomeDynamicallyAllocatedMemory = NULL;
}

XianForce wrote: It's also just plain out unnecessary...

dandymcgee wrote:Not if you have good coding habits.

Code: Select all

SomeDestructorExample::~SomeDestructorExample()
{
    delete pSomeDynamicallyAllocatedMemory;
    pSomeDynamicallyAllocatedMemory = NULL;
}

SomeDestructorExample::~SomeDestructorExample()
{
    if(pSomeDynamicallyAllocatedMemory) {
        delete pSomeDynamicallyAllocatedMemory;
        pSomeDynamicallyAllocatedMemory = NULL;
    }
}

Ginto8 wrote:

dandymcgee wrote:Not if you have good coding habits.

Code: Select all

SomeDestructorExample::~SomeDestructorExample()
{
    delete pSomeDynamicallyAllocatedMemory;
    pSomeDynamicallyAllocatedMemory = NULL;
}

It would have to be more like this:

Code: Select all

SomeDestructorExample::~SomeDestructorExample()
{
    if(pSomeDynamicallyAllocatedMemory) {
        delete pSomeDynamicallyAllocatedMemory;
        pSomeDynamicallyAllocatedMemory = NULL;
    }
}

Null Pointers and Delete

C++ guarantees that operator delete checks its argument for null-ness. If the argument is 0, the delete expression has no effect. In other words, deleting a null pointer is a safe (yet useless) operation. There is no need to check the pointer for null-ness before passing it to delete:


if (p) // useless; delete already checks for a null value
delete(p);