Gee!
Didn't know life was really this complex.
For those who don't know what they are talking about (like me), this is an example of what they think is very inefficient (and probably off topic).
Be interest in seeing what they come up with.

Don't know about best but will give you a starting point.

For just playing around on windows I use the simple mount function to get around Love's file restrictions. mount = function( name ) local ffi = require( 'ffi' ) local lv = ffi.load( 'love' ) ffi.cdef[[ int PHYSFS_mount(const char *newDir, const char *mountPoint, int appendToPath); ]]; ffi.cdef[[ int...

I'm sure pgimeno will say I'm off track again but wouldn't this be close enough - a simple semi-transparent rectangle?

Sounds like over kill to me.
I like: If delay is set to something like 6, you get a nice smooth movement to the mouse coords (mx,my).

Ops! Old version now updated to 11.1
Best

Doesn't seem to be too much interest in this topic.
I'm still amazed at what people can do with them.

(ESC to exit)

Hey pgimeno! Late to the party but probably missing the point. Can do the same thing as your example without a shader. local palette = {{0, 0, 0, 1}, {0, 0, .7, 1}, {.7, 0, 0, 1}, {.7, 0, .7, 1}, {0, .7, 0, 1}, {0, .7, .7, 1}, {.7, .7, 0, 1}, {.7, .7, .7, 1}, {.3,.3,.3, 1}, {0, 0, 1, 1}, { 1, 0, 0, ...

Tables are what you want. ans = { { image = love.graphics.newImage('somethingOne.png, x=100, y=100, sx = 0.2, sy = 0.2 }, { image=love.graphics.newImage(somethingTwo.png', x=300, y=100, sx=0.3, sy=0.3 } } and then love.draw() contains: love.graphics.draw( ans[currentFrame].image, ans[currentFrame].x...

I can see what's causing you problems. I suggest eliminating 'activeFrame' and stick with 'currentFrame'. Then love.draw only has to contain im = animations[currentFrame] love.graphics.draw(im, love.graphics:getWidth()/2,love.graphics:getHeight()/2, 0, 0.2,0.2 ,im:getWidth()/2,im:getHeight()/2) Thin...