You need to use swfdump -abc

You are only looking at SWF assets (bitmaps are DefineBitsLossLess) right
now.

-Alex

On 3/28/14 10:41 AM, "João Fernandes"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Alex, do you know what <DefineBitsLossless2 id='xxx' encoding='base64'>
>are? There are around 10k lines from this kind of definitions out of 11.5k
>lines. The traits you're talking about are placed before this definitions?
>
>
>On 28 March 2014 17:00, Alex Harui <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Hmm.  Those are pretty substantial modules.  I assume you've optimized
>>out
>> all the classes you can?
>>
>> I haven't looked at Scout output too much so I don't have a sense of
>>what
>> that number looks like in other situations.  But consider this: a 300K
>>swf
>> expands to about 600K, almost all of which is frame 2 ABC code.  The
>> player thrn has to do a for loop over all of the traits data and build
>>up
>> structures.  You can use SWFDump to see roughly how much traits data
>>there
>> is.  The first part of the SWFDump is the constant pools and traits.
>>Once
>> you see the actual code for your methods that is the end of the traits
>> data.
>>
>> If you must load that much code while maintaining a smooth animation,
>>you
>> might need to distribute the code out on several frames, or break the
>>big
>> module into smaller ones.  But it might be easier to mess with the user
>> experience.  Any time someone re-focuses or re-targets I think you can
>>buy
>> half a second.
>>
>> -Alex
>>
>> On 3/28/14 9:40 AM, "João Fernandes"
>><[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Ok Alex, it seems I was profiling a debug version of the app and not
>>the
>> >release one. The sabe build using a release version is around 1/4 of
>>the
>> >debug one. So I still get around 200ms to 400ms per module (between
>>300k
>> >to
>> >800k in size).Is this more "acceptable" as overhead? I still find it
>>too
>> >much considering that apps can have something in between 12 to 20 fps
>>and
>> >clearly this times are way above the budget.
>> >
>> >
>> >On 28 March 2014 16:27, Alex Harui <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Yes, the images say self time is 1.6 seconds.  How big is the module?
>> >> It might be interesting to see what the FB profiler shows.
>> >>
>> >> -Alex
>> >>
>> >> From:  João Fernandes <[email protected]>
>> >> Reply-To:  "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
>> >> Date:  Friday, March 28, 2014 8:13 AM
>> >> To:  "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
>> >> Subject:  Re: Preparing ActionScript Bytecode
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> I think it's the self time (single frame) as you can see here
>>[1][2][3].
>> >> The percent time is above 90% of the total frame time.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> [1]
>> >>
>> >>
>> 
>>https://www.dropbox.com/s/x7suurimsxqhixk/Captura%20de%20tela%202014-03-2
>> >>8%
>> >> 2015.06.53.png
>> >> <
>> >>
>> >>
>> 
>>https://www.dropbox.com/s/x7suurimsxqhixk/Captura%20de%20tela%202014-03-2
>> >>8
>> >> %2015.06.53.png>
>> >> [2]
>> >>
>> >>
>> 
>>https://www.dropbox.com/s/x7suurimsxqhixk/Captura%20de%20tela%202014-03-2
>> >>8%
>> >> 2015.06.53.png
>> >> <
>> >>
>> >>
>> 
>>https://www.dropbox.com/s/x7suurimsxqhixk/Captura%20de%20tela%202014-03-2
>> >>8
>> >> %2015.06.53.png>
>> >> [3]
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On 28 March 2014 15:04, Alex Harui <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Is that cumulative time or self time? What % of total time are you
>> >>seeing?
>> >>
>> >> I thought that was simply the parsing of the module's ABC code.  It
>> >> shouldn't take long on its own and should be directly related to the
>> >> amount of code in the module.
>> >>
>> >> -Alex
>> >>
>> >> On 3/28/14 7:42 AM, "João Fernandes"
>> >><[email protected]>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >I've noticed a lot of time is spent is this process when a module is
>> >> >loaded
>> >> >(movieClip.nextFrame > preparing ActionScript Bytecode) and I
>>wonder if
>> >> >there is any way to optimize and prevent so much overhead in this
>> >>process.
>> >> >
>> >> >--
>> >> >
>> >> >João Fernandes
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >>
>> >> João Fernandes
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> >--
>> >
>> >João Fernandes
>>
>>
>
>
>-- 
>
>João Fernandes

Reply via email to