About WaitScreenImage>

[pantik]

I know that with "FindImagePos>" i can use the variable FIP_SCANPIXELS to set the numer of pixels to scan to something different than 100 (default value). How WaitScreenImage> works? I would like the script waits for the EXACT image,i.e. 100% match.
Since i am guessing that WaitScreenImage search on the full screen... So...Could i get better performance if i know where the image can appear, and using ScreenCapture to capture that area and checking with Comparebitmaps> or GetRectCheckSum> in a loop ?

What about Comparebitmaps>? I have noticed the if you make a light change of 1 pixel in an image, you can still get result=100 (match 100%).
And.. the last one... can really GetRectCheckSum> be used to check 100% matchs?

Sorry for my english )

[Marcus Tettmar]

Same, WaitScreenImage is a wrapper for a loop containing FindImagePos. So just set FIP_SCANPIXELS in the same way.

[pantik]

Ok but... I can get better valuabe performance or speed if i know the imagen will be shown in a small rectanble in stead of capture de full screen? i dont know this, maybe WaitScreenImage is enough optimized.

If i build a loop myself with FindimagePosition , is there some way to save the captured image in memory stead of the hard disk?

[Marcus Tettmar]

Yes you can make your own FindImagePos loop which looks at a portion of the screen or just a specific window.

Not sure how keeping the haystack in memory would help - you want to monitor changes, so you will have to keep re-capturing it.

[pantik]

would not be faster if you get the captured image to be compare from memory stead of hard disk ? i mean writting and reading from memory is faster than hard disk. For example, i noticed big difference between storing captured bmp files in hard disk and storing in SSD disks.