LÖVE

What I have started just doing is using a framebuffer for the drawing canvas, then resizing the window and scaling the buffer draw to the size of the window. And when going to fullscreen, instead of fullscreening the current window size (And risking having an incompatible window size causing a blank or screwed up screen) it sets the screen size to the size of the current display (By using the getModes() function and using the first result which is the highest compatible resolution) and just scaling the buffer to the size of the screen. No blurring due to forcing the computer to lower the resolution, and if you use "nearest" for the buffer, you can have crisp pixels. Of course this works for me. But YMMV.

Ah, but framebuffers are infamous for causing lots of people problems, especially on older hardware and/or with lame drivers.

Isn't this basically the same as Scäle?

No. TLfres doesn't replace the drawing calls, so anything you can render in love, you can change res properly with TLfres. Even if more drawing functions are added in later versions of Love or the existing ones change.

Taehl wrote:Ah, but framebuffers are infamous for causing lots of people problems, especially on older hardware and/or with lame drivers.

I know, but they're so convenient I will take that risk.

I still want to see an overview of how many people here have limits and how far their limits go. But I am taking the risk that most people can support at least 1 or 2 framebuffers. When the game is finished, I will offer an alternative non FB using mode. When the time comes.

I keep meaning to make a test application that will give each person a sort of "framebuffer benchmark" that will list each persons limits up until the game either crashes (Due to running over the limit) or reaches a high enough limit that there's no reason to assume it can't handle anything. For instance, my MBP can support THOUSANDS of moderately sized framebuffers. But I would never use that many.

I think I've gotten to the point where I'm going to have to say screw it to everyone that can't handle a few framebuffers. After using them I simply can't tolerate going without them. +200 FPS with FB's? Yes please.

Lap wrote:I think I've gotten to the point where I'm going to have to say screw it to everyone that can't handle a few framebuffers. After using them I simply can't tolerate going without them. +200 FPS with FB's? Yes please.

Just make sure you make them Po2 compliant, that'll extend your reach a great deal.

Time for a survey of the forum and who can and can't support FB's and requires PO2.

My friend tried to play my PO2-compliant Snake game that uses framebuffers but it crashed on him, and he has an nvidia 9800 GT. Turns out it's probably because he's still using a RC version of Windows 7. It's not always the age of the computer that's the problem.

/completelyofftopic

i have a 9800gtx+ and i have to have po2 complaint frame buffers for it to work, 800x600 fails miserably. I just use 1024x1024 by default. i can go up to 2048x2048 in a single frame buffer, it just has to be po2 compliant. quite honestly i think that Love should automatically re-size the frame-buffer if can't create the one at the desired dimensions. just make it bigger by finding the next power of 2, a simple fix that's used EVERY WHERE.

edit:
other thoughts on GPU specific stuff what are the chances of getting shader support for bump mapping, and other stuff like heat waves? i have been wanting to add fake lighting to my games for a while now. shader effects combined with good particle effects can make for some CRAZY amazing 2D games. you can even make things like 2.5D with just bump mapping and fake lighting alone.