Hi all and thanks for the input. I agree with Dave that the svg does look bloated compared to swf, and Claus and Jaco's explanations make sense for why this is. So far from what I found I agree with Jaco that there is no golden rule for predicting filesize when embedding svgs except that usually the swf will be smaller.
I tried some of the suggested Inkscape optimising tips (ungroup,convert to paths, removing metadata/gradient definitions) and others (Vacuum Defs, Paths simplify) but none had a notable filesize impact once that particular svg was embedded in Flash (although they do benefit other svgs). The main culprit seems to be the three shadows below the base and one once they were removed from the svg took the resulting swf from 63k down to 30k which is roughly the svg/swf ratio I would expect. One related thing I found is : Original monitor svg = 64k adds 63k to the swf when embedded alone Edited monitor svg = 69k adds 30k to the swf when embedded alone Embedding BOTH svg files in the SAME swf adds only 63k to the swf I am guessing that the reason why is that when converting embedded svgs to swf the Flex2 SDK caches paths and gradients converts them to symbols in the library so that if it finds the same definition in another embedded svg it pulls it out of the library instead of recreating it. But I would need to test it some more to be sure. Cool if it is though. I put up the edited examples and a new post here http://www.dehash.com/?p=41 if anyone wants to follow it up. -gary _______________________________________________ Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com To change your subscription options or search the archive: http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders Brought to you by Fig Leaf Software Premier Authorized Adobe Consulting and Training http://www.figleaf.com http://training.figleaf.com
