yea... this is true unfortunately :(

On Jul 11, 2007, at 2:40 PM, Austin Haas wrote:

> Maybe I should have said you "can" see tearing instead of you  
> "will" see tearing. The point is that tearing is absolutely  
> possible in Flash, and it occurs b/c there is no way to sync with  
> the vertical refresh. All of the techniques proposed, and the  
> performance of the client's machine, can only mitigate the problem,  
> not solve it completely.
>
> -austin
>
> -- 
> Austin Haas
> Pet Tomato, Inc.
> http://pettomato.com
>
> On Wed Jul 11 14:24 , Samuel Agesilas wrote:
>> Whoa! That's a little bit of a generalization that I'm not 100% in an
>> agreement with. Tearing does NOT always happen. The AVM2 display
>> engine is fast enough to update the screen in most cases so tearing
>> does not occur. However this is entirely up to the performance
>> capabilities of the host machine. In other words the faster the
>> machine the less of a chance you have an experience tearing. If you
>> run flash on a Pentium  2 then you will some artifacts. As proof you
>> can download a 1024x768 image and use actionscript to move it across
>> the screen and you will not notice any tearing ( of course it would
>> be wise to set the image to use runtime bitmap caching ). The reason
>> for this is that starting in Flash 8 Adobe is using OpenGL on the Mac
>> to do the final blitting to the screen. Using OpenGL for this greatly
>> improves performance on the Mac platform where artifact could be seen
>> the most as compared to the windows version of the plugin which if
>> memory serves me correctly uses Direct X(not sure about this though).
>>
>> -sam
>>
>> On Jul 11, 2007, at 2:05 PM, Austin Haas wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> No, we do have those problems in Flash. If you move a large image
>>> horizontally across the screen, you will see tearing and there is
>>> no way to fix it. The frame rate in Flash is not sync'd to the
>>> refresh rate of the screen.
>>>
>>> Blitting just means combining pixels from one bitmap into another.
>>> I suppose you could say that calling copyPixels() or draw() is
>>> blitting.
>>>
>>> -austin
>>>
>>> -- 
>>> Austin Haas
>>> Pet Tomato, Inc.
>>> http://pettomato.com
>>>
>>> On Wed Jul 11 14:54 , Keith Peters wrote:
>>>> Well it seems like true double buffering would be solving a
>>>> problem we
>>>> don't really have in Flash. I've also heard the term "blitting" be
>>>> applied to this technique in Flash. There are a couple videos up
>>>> on the
>>>> fitc.ca site from the toronto 07 conference that discuss this.
>>>>
>>>> Austin Haas wrote:
>>>>> Double buffering isn't about performance. It's about drawing the
>>>>> next screen before the monitor does a vertical sync. The purpose
>>>>> of double buffering is to avoid graphic issues like tearing and
>>>>> shearing that occur when the screen is being updated at the same
>>>>> time as it's being drawn.
>>>>>
>>>>> You can use two buffers to simulate the double buffer technique,
>>>>> and there might be some performance gains there, and you might
>>>>> reduce the chances of tearing/shearing, but calling that double
>>>>> buffering would be an abuse of terminology, as that term already
>>>>> has an accepted meaning. You would be misleading anyone who was
>>>>> looking for a solution to the real problems that double buffering
>>>>> is intended to solve.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'd really like to know if there are performance gains with this
>>>>> technique in Flash. I thought that I tried it a while back, but
>>>>> abandoned the idea after seeing no real gains. Does anyone have
>>>>> any data or a live comparison?
>>>>>
>>>>> -austin
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> osflash mailing list
>>>> [email protected]
>>>> http://osflash.org/mailman/listinfo/osflash_osflash.org
>>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> osflash mailing list
>>> [email protected]
>>> http://osflash.org/mailman/listinfo/osflash_osflash.org
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> osflash mailing list
>> [email protected]
>> http://osflash.org/mailman/listinfo/osflash_osflash.org
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> osflash mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://osflash.org/mailman/listinfo/osflash_osflash.org


_______________________________________________
osflash mailing list
[email protected]
http://osflash.org/mailman/listinfo/osflash_osflash.org

Reply via email to