Re: [Flashcoders] Re:Adjust .swf to 100 % to screen size

[Mike Britton]

Jorge, here's an example of using ExternalInterface to send stage
dimensions to JavaScript.

http://www.randomusa.com/flash/downloads/externalInterface_screenDimensions.zip

Hope I'm not OT on this one.

Mike
___
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

[Flashcoders] Re:Adjust .swf to 100 % to screen size

[Jorge Larraya]

Adjust the .swf to 100 % to screen size

I have a Java script code to recognize the size of the screen , but I do not 
know where to insert


those variables al the flash code, please I need a hand here.

Thanks

Jorge


From: "Johannes Nel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: Flashcoders mailing list 
To: "Flashcoders mailing list" 
Subject: Re: [Flashcoders] Slow performance of Flash 7 content in Flash 
Player9

Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2006 12:52:02 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: from chattyfig.figleaf.com ([146.145.88.77]) by 
bay0-mc10-f12.bay0.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.2444); Tue, 
5 Sep 2006 09:53:19 -0700
Received: from localhost.localdomain (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])by 
chattyfig.figleaf.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3913B185ECF;Tue,  5 Sep 2006 
12:55:11 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from wx-out-0506.google.com (wx-out-0506.google.com 
[66.249.82.231])by chattyfig.figleaf.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 
5C314185EB3for ;Tue,  5 Sep 2006 
12:55:00 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by wx-out-0506.google.com with SMTP id s7so2450919wxcfor 
;Tue, 05 Sep 2006 09:52:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.70.19.20 with SMTP id 20mr11411585wxs;Tue, 05 Sep 2006 
09:52:02 -0700 (PDT)

Received: by 10.70.13.12 with HTTP; Tue, 5 Sep 2006 09:52:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-Message-Info: LsUYwwHHNt1ejdVBDzYbADYeAT7GIDd3ydTkN/TXRhc=
X-Original-To: flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com
Delivered-To: flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; 
d=gmail.com;h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:references;b=LYysZ72b1Ue+cUXyhhmPpWQZurNieAzqvLYdcSNn8fM+skSVwkrb7mrPIPTT6ehOHC5VpCuOuZybh6wj/ERcWoF2JND8Kme6NRafyuURjrJ56AlosGOxiN/hQ+m1SJ2ckldSgw92Nvq3KyOPdc6F+NdM2HpKlY3FXAASlayQYo8=
References: 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]><[EMAIL PROTECTED]><[EMAIL PROTECTED]><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.5
X-BeenThere: flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Flashcoders mailing list 
List-Unsubscribe: 
, 


List-Archive: 
List-Post: 
List-Help: 
List-Subscribe: 
,

Errors-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Return-Path: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 05 Sep 2006 16:53:23.0976 (UTC) 
FILETIME=[CCEFF080:01C6D10B]


i am under the impression that the string performance increases are avm2
only.

On 9/5/06, Peter Hall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


In general, swf7 content should be the same or faster in FP8/9 than in
FP7. AVM2 is completely separate from AVM1, but some aspects are
shared. For example the incremental garbage collector, which was
introduced in FP8. It's *possible* that certain apps on certain
systems might appear to run slower, because of how they consume memory
and how that affects the GC, but this would apply to FP8 as well as 9.

Strings are stored and managed differently in AVM2, and I'm not sure
if that code change is shared with AVM1. This is supposedly an overall
performance improvement, vastly reducing memory usage when you do a
lot of string concatenation, but might be slightly slower in a few
cases.

When people discuss performance, they are usually talking about
rendering. As far as I am aware, this has hardly changed, with the
exception of new (optional) features, such as bitmap caching.

Peter



On 9/5/06, Scott Hyndman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Yes, that's what he's saying.
>
> On 05/09/06, Aaron Haines <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > No, I just mean playing a SWF published as Flash 7 in the F9 player.
> >
> > So if the F9 player is actually two players 8 and 9 as you say then
when you
> > play a F7 SWF in FP9 it should actually be the same as playing it in
FP8?
> >
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Johannes Nel
> > Sent: 05 September 2006 17:06
> > To: Flashcoders mailing list
> > Subject: Re: [Flashcoders] Slow performance of Flash 7 content in
Flash
> > Player9
> >
> > no, we don't have this problem and afaik player 9 is basically two
players 8
> > and 9 with their respective vm's. or do you mean loading player 7/8
content
> > into a 9 movie?
> >
> > On 9/5/06, Aaron Haines <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi
> > >
> > > Does anyone have any solid information about the performance of 
SWFs

> > > published as Flash 7 when playing in Flash Player 9?
> > >
> > > There seems to be some anecdotal evidence that it runs very slowly
and
> > > we are seeing some eveidence of this.
> > > I heard somewhere that FP9 runs F7 content in emulation which
accounts
> > > for the slow speed.
> > >
> > > Is this really true?
> > > Has anyone else had similar problems?
> > >
> > > Thanks
> > > Aaron.
> > > _