1
General discussions / why not using a namespace
« on: May 30, 2010, 02:09:09 pm »
Ok.
Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Pages: [1]
2
General discussions / why not using a namespace
« on: May 30, 2010, 09:38:08 am »
I'm just wondering why the main namespace is called sf and not sfml? sfml is more descriptive in my opinion.
3
General discussions / How low-level can SFML be?
« on: May 28, 2010, 11:30:27 pm »Quote from: "Laurent"
A good strategy is to keep your own copy of the pixel buffer (in system memory), manipulate it with the CPU, and send it back to video memory when you're done (using sf::Image::LoadFromPixels).
Okay, I could try that!
Quote from: "Laurent"
SFML 2 will probably have more functions for manipulating pixel data.
I'm looking forward to it!
4
General discussions / How low-level can SFML be?
« on: May 28, 2010, 11:21:28 pm »
Where are the buffers located? Are they located somewhere else than on the primary memory, like directly on the graphics card?
The way you suggested I could do it in, you said it would probably be very slow; as slow as it would be in SDL, or maybe even slower? Would the code be messy? What I'd like to use a graphics library for is mainly to get a way to render pixel data to the screen; I mustn't loose access to the pixel data doing that since that is what I'm working with.
Doesn't SFML have any support for that? If it doesn't yet, I really think it should be implemented (which I trust it will be), and I will simply wait until it has been, and in the meantime use SDL. I really like though, the fact that SFML is in C++, and that it is much nicer to work with than SDL (or so I've heard), and that it's faster when you don't have as high requirements as I do
The way you suggested I could do it in, you said it would probably be very slow; as slow as it would be in SDL, or maybe even slower? Would the code be messy? What I'd like to use a graphics library for is mainly to get a way to render pixel data to the screen; I mustn't loose access to the pixel data doing that since that is what I'm working with.
Doesn't SFML have any support for that? If it doesn't yet, I really think it should be implemented (which I trust it will be), and I will simply wait until it has been, and in the meantime use SDL. I really like though, the fact that SFML is in C++, and that it is much nicer to work with than SDL (or so I've heard), and that it's faster when you don't have as high requirements as I do
5
General discussions / How low-level can SFML be?
« on: May 28, 2010, 10:59:44 pm »
Okay, then is there any way to reach the data of the buffers that OpenGL uses? I mean, there must be some way to software manipulate a buffer (reading/writing from/to the memory allocated for pixel data), isn't there?
6
General discussions / How low-level can SFML be?
« on: May 28, 2010, 10:44:24 pm »
Hi, I've been using SDL for a while now, and I really like that it's low level so you can get direct access to the pixel data of a buffer, if you would like to write you own functions for manipulating the buffers. I'm considering changing from SDL to SFML, but can I get direct access to the pixel data in SFML? How low-level can SFML be? I read in another thread where one wrote that all the low level stuff was hidden from him, and that he didn't feel powerful using something that hid things from him, so he stuck with SDL. Is this how I would feel too if I switched to SFML, or is this simply not true?
Pages: [1]