🚀 go-pugleaf

tmkk@uiuc.edu (Khan) writes:

>In article <1992Aug11.134312.16390@wam.umd.edu> dmb@wam.umd.edu (David M. Baggett) writes:
>>In article <BstLnJ.Lv6@news.cso.uiuc.edu> tmkk@uiuc.edu (Khan) writes:
>>>There's no way I know to draw to both pages at once. What you have to do
>>>is draw your status info to one page and then draw it again to the
>>>other. This takes twice as long to do.
>>
>>OK, now I see what you were getting at.  You are doing twice as much
>>work to update score counters and any other status information because
>>this "static" stuff needs to be drawn to both (all) page flip screens
>>at the "same time." [...]
>>
>>But this is just a price to be paid for page flipping -- I don't see
>>how a split screen would eliminate this problem either.  If you make
>>the status display half of the split screen a static image (i.e., not
>>page flipped) then you've got a flicker problem.

>Flicker? Hmm... I wouldn't expect drawing to a static split screen
>"window" would exhibit any more flicker than drawing to a full screen in
>non-double-buffer mode. Why would there be a problem with flicker?

Writing to the static portion without double buffering is just like writing
to the physical page.  You may not get any flickering if the amount of
updating is kept to a minimum however flickering will occur if enough 
updates are performed.  This is the reason for double buffering.  Display
a working page after you finish making all updates.  That way the screen
changes will appear instantaneous.

I kinda like the split screen idea if flickering can be kept to a minimum.

Mark Wyman