Yes. A SWF will always have more overhead than a simple JPG or GIF
________________________________ From: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of stldvd Sent: Thursday, July 17, 2008 7:11 AM To: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com Subject: [flexcoders] Re: Flex Efficiency Is this true regardless of whether you're loading the swfs as swfs (swfloader) or just as the source for image controls? --- In flexcoders@yahoogroups.com <mailto:flexcoders%40yahoogroups.com> , "Alex Harui" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > SWFs have the potential to do timeline animations and thus require more > player overhead that static images or event animated GIFs. I don't know > the limits off-hand even if there are any, but if you pile up 100 of > them on top of each other, I wouldn't expect it to render that well. > You want to add instances of classes, not whole SWFs. Look into how > modules work. > > > > ________________________________ > > From: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com <mailto:flexcoders%40yahoogroups.com> [mailto:flexcoders@yahoogroups.com <mailto:flexcoders%40yahoogroups.com> ] On > Behalf Of Alen Balja > Sent: Saturday, June 21, 2008 9:13 PM > To: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com <mailto:flexcoders%40yahoogroups.com> > Subject: Re: [flexcoders] Flex Efficiency > > > > Thanks, Alex. Unfortunately that is the main problem as I let users add > graphics on the fly to create their artwork. And graphics are small swf > animations, really simple ones. How is adding swf's different in this > regard than adding jpegs, gifs or png's on the fly? Also is there a > limit set? Because after adding lots of them, some of them just start to > disappear and all I do is stack them with addChild(). Can we expect same > performance issues when adding lots of visual objects such as buttons, > canvases, etc...? If I add 100 simple swfs and 100 button controls, will > it behave the same? > > > > > > On Sun, Jun 22, 2008 at 3:37 AM, Alex Harui <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > There are no workarounds. Good design for Flash minimizes use of > resources. The profiler can help you tune things, but if you use lots > of SWFs you're going to pay a price. However, that may not be your main > problem, and the profiler can help you determine that. > > > > ________________________________ > > From: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com <mailto:flexcoders%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:flexcoders@yahoogroups.com <mailto:flexcoders%40yahoogroups.com> > > [mailto:flexcoders@yahoogroups.com <mailto:flexcoders%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:flexcoders@yahoogroups.com <mailto:flexcoders%40yahoogroups.com> > ] > On Behalf Of Alen Balja > Sent: Saturday, June 21, 2008 3:57 AM > To: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com <mailto:flexcoders%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:flexcoders@yahoogroups.com <mailto:flexcoders%40yahoogroups.com> > > Subject: Re: [flexcoders] Flex Efficiency > > > > Alex, do you have any more info on the subject, especially what are the > workarounds? I too am using lots of really tiny and simple external swf > animations and performance is really really bad. If I remember correctly > it's much worse than Flash Player 7. > > > > The profiler will help you find inefficiencies in your app. > > > > Loading lots of SWFs is, of course, going to eat resources. >
