For the band's playin' One of my old favorite songs from way

Inaccurate information. Thread to be deleted.

Thanks for explaining it, though I knew most of it, I think it'll help clear things up for begionners.

Thanks for explaining it, though I knew most of it, I think it'll help clear things up for begionners.

Yep, mostly of use just to the really green users, and np.

On average, a 256x256 image is around 0.25mb uncompressed in VRAM, 512x512 is around 0.5mb. Which gives you some idea of the amount of VRAM you might be using.

I'm not 100% sure about this, but from what I know, 512x512 should be four times as large as 256x256 becauses they are square areas. 512x512 has four times as many pixels as 256x256.

Good point Mr. Wolf, to properly calculate VRAM, the number of bytes is w x h x 4. So 512 x 512 x 4 is 1048576, or 1mb.

My bad, typo.

Thank you! I was concerned with my game having 14 megs of VRAM in one layout which was only half complete, but it looks like I shouldn't worry about it too much anymore.

By testing a game on a lower-end system, how low end do you recommend going? My laptop with integrated graphics can only run it at an average of 15 fps, while my sister's computer which has a Geforce MX4000 (or something like that) get's 60 fps. Should I just ignore the laptop's performance?

Thank you! I was concerned with my game having 14 megs of VRAM in one layout which was only half complete, but it looks like I shouldn't worry about it too much anymore.

By testing a game on a lower-end system, how low end do you recommend going? My laptop with integrated graphics can only run it at an average of 15 fps, while my sister's computer which has a Geforce MX4000 (or something like that) get's 60 fps. Should I just ignore the laptop's performance?

Depends on the sort of game you're making, and the type of player you're aiming for. Then anyone with specs below the ones you list as the minimum requirements, aren't supported.

Generally the fancy big sprites and graphics will have a higher minimum spec than the retro style ones using a tiny screen that's zoomed in. Also the lower the minimum specs, the more people will be able to play it. If your game is still playable on your laptop, you could use that as your minimum requirement if you wanted to. It's entirely up to you. So long as you know it works fine on the minimum (even if you've got a lot of effects and such turned off).

The lower the better though, since folk expect 2D games to just work.

Good point Mr. Wolf, to properly calculate VRAM, the number of bytes is w x h x 4. So 512 x 512 x 4 is 1048576, or 1mb.

Why does it take 1MB for that in VRAM when it takes MUCH less when the file is simply stored on my computer (I looked at some .png files I had)?

The lower the better though, since folk expect 2D games to just work.

Well, I wouldn't discourage someone from making a high end game if he has an audience for it. Also, I can see some people going overboard with how low they aim their minimum specs...

Because PNG files are compressed, and textures are decompressed in VRAM (they'd be roughly the same size as uncompressed .bmp files). A compressed image cannot be drawn unless it's decompressed first, which is why they are decompressed in VRAM.

Because PNG files are compressed, and textures are decompressed in VRAM (they'd be roughly the same size as uncompressed .bmp files). A compressed image cannot be drawn unless it's decompressed first, which is why they are decompressed in VRAM.

Ah, I see. I forgot PNGs are lossless but still compressed.