I have found that the mx.effects classes are very CPU intensive. I have a project in which I had to replace all of the Move and Fade effects with my own because they wew causing the CPU ( especially on Windows ) to choke.
Jamie On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 7:46 AM, Alex Harui <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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, "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:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On >> Behalf Of Alen Balja >> Sent: Saturday, June 21, 2008 9:13 PM >> To: flexcoders@yahoogroups.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@yahoogroups.com> >> [mailto:flexcoders@yahoogroups.com > <mailto:flexcoders@yahoogroups.com> ] >> On Behalf Of Alen Balja >> Sent: Saturday, June 21, 2008 3:57 AM >> To: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com <mailto:flexcoders@yahoogroups.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. >> > >
