Question on which method is efficient for tilemaps

Method 1: One tilemap of an image with the solids behavior serving as the floor, and one tilemap of the same image without the solids behavior and serves as the background.

Method 2: One tilemap of an image that is just the background, and an invisible tilemap that is only a 16 x 16 image with the solids behavior and is tiled wherever it must be solid.

Here's a link to a capx showing my example

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/308 ... thods.capx

I'd like to know which method is better performance wise. Thanks!

Ashley, you might know this answer better than anyone though

Method 1: One tilemap of an image with the solids behavior serving as the floor, and one tilemap of the same image without the solids behavior and serves as the background.

Method 2: One tilemap of an image that is just the background, and an invisible tilemap that is only a 16 x 16 image with the solids behavior and is tiled wherever it must be solid.

Here's a link to a capx showing my example

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/308 ... thods.capx

I'd like to know which method is better performance wise. Thanks!

Ashley, you might know this answer better than anyone though

the efficient one is the graphics with solid... and you can also edit a poligon collision for every tile....tilemap is the best method to make a large level, and save a lot of memory...

but you can also conbine a tilemap graphics and tilemap solid (only one square) like your example, with this, you can make a player go inside to some holes/make some parallax effect etc...etc...

I don't think there will be any performance difference between the two. It is easy to check the answer to this kind of question yourself, just measure the performance, and if you can't measure a difference it probably doesn't matter. So go with whichever one is easier to use.