Sorry, OT, but I just had to...
LMAO! ________________________________ From: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com [mailto:flexcod...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Gregor Kiddie Sent: Friday, June 18, 2010 4:45 AM To: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com Subject: RE: [flexcoders] How much does FXG affect performance? Surely on a geek list like this, the only reasonable answer is 42. Your questions may vary... From: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com [mailto:flexcod...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Alex Harui Sent: 18 June 2010 07:49 To: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [flexcoders] How much does FXG affect performance? Maybe, yes, none, n/a, no, yes (17), no, depends, bribery, no thank you. Not necessarily in that order. On 6/17/10 7:15 PM, "dorkiedorkfromdorkt...@gmail.com" <dorkiedorkfromdorkt...@gmail.com> wrote: I saw a comment recently that large FXG usage can affect performance. For example, FXG in skins. But I also read it affects file size??? If it's vector shouldn't it in most cases be smaller in size than a rasterized representation of the vector? What about If the vector skin art is relatively static how much of it is getting redrawn every frame? If it is redrawn every frame what is the use of "Show redrawn regions" in the Flash Player context menu? To quote Ted P, "Internally the player sweeps the DisplayList and processes all graphics, then processes all frame bytecode, then processed events. If there are things to do in each phase, the phase will expand potentially slowing down the frame speed." http://tinyurl.com/2erm72a <http://tinyurl.com/2erm72a> Has this behavior changed in Flash Player 10.1? BTW Is there a limit to the number of questions I can ask in a single post? Have I past that limit? If so will any of my questions get answered or is the whole post disqualified? If so how do I get it re-qualified? Separate posts for each question? JP -- Alex Harui Flex SDK Team Adobe System, Inc. http://blogs.adobe.com/aharui <http://blogs.adobe.com/aharui> -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner <http://www.mailscanner.info/> , and is believed to be clean.
