-
I just tested to hide the "off-switched" lights in my pinball table by stopping at an empty frame. I did it with "tellTarget" as this is supposed to be 25 times faster than dot-syntax or "with" (flasm site).
Anyway the whole game slowed down.
In this case the power to switch states by "gotoAndStop" or "attach/remove" drag more performance than just keeping all lights on the stage and changing there _visibility.
Seems like: if you have a lot of on/off switching to do fastly, you better use _visibility; otherwise i guess displaying an empty frame ist better, because it (hopefully) costs less drawing time. Perfect seems attach/remove, if you have the CPU Power to do so. Offstage-clips should be removed anyway.
3 ways to get nothing. :-)
Concerning scrolling, i think it is best to place off-screen-clips on screen again by just altering their coords instead of removing/attaching - if your clips allow to do so due to their content.
-
Yeah, we proved that changing the frames of objects and repositioning then around the screen was the fastest method a while ago:
http://members.optushome.com.au/chri...scrollGoTo.swf
is the result...
-
-
Cheeky little game pred :)
The threads( If anyone is interested ) about scrolling methods are http://www.flashkit.com/board/showth...l&pagenumber=1 and http://www.flashkit.com/board/showth...light=scroller
Dunno if it's still good reading or not ;)
Squize.
-
Squize: How do you use Diagonals for platforms?
-
pred/squize: just hit the flashkit (looking for advanced AS Coding) and... it takes me a bit to get an overview... :-) Interesting scrolling thread though! Seems like i found my place.
-
adityadennis:
As ever http://outsideofsociety.idz.net/ has a good tut on it, failing that pred will be a better person to ask than me ( I like shooters not platformers I'm afraid :) ).
You'd be suprised, for the low number of posts he's not bad ;)
leif0:
Yeah, when the boards good it's excellent but it seems to have highs and lows ( Mainly when people really don't wanna use the search function or when only one game type is in vogue ).
Squize.
-
stfu squize you bistach =)
26 posts plus the 500 on my old one, damned moderators wont combine the accounts =(
-
Sorry I seem to keep bringing this thread back from the dead but it's a good one and it's just handy having a load of tips in one place.
Check out www.zoode.org there's a fantastic description of loop un-rolling ( Something which I totally forgot about ) and a port of Duff's Device.
Basically no matter how quick your conditional loop code ( while (--x) ) you've still got to run that conditional check x number of times. Say if x=11 (ie we are running the loop 10 times) and we are just calling a function 10 times within that loop just set x=(10/2)+1 and then call the function twice within the loop. This halves the number of conditional checks ( And so on ).
( Taking this to the extreme you would remove loops all together but the file size would rocket, and it would just be impossible to amend the code. As strange as it sounds, faster code is usually longer ! )
Duff's device is just a ( Very ) clever way of doing this which will work with any number of iterations. If you don't know the value for x ( Or if it may be a variable value ) then use this.
There are some other good tips on the site ( Including a lot of excellent xml stuff ) so have a good look 'round.
Squize.
pred you know I love ya :)
-
Squize: Can you explain that again, I didnt really get it. How does "x= (10/2) + 1" optimize my code?
-
if(var i = 0; i < 10; i ++){
//this gets called 10 times
}
if(var i = 0; i < 10;i+=2){
//this gets called 5 times
//this gets called 5 times
}
is basically what its getting to..you can make a loop more efficient by unrolling it
-
On playing around I found that declairing a varible is much faster than not if it's in a for loop, around 17%-19%, for example:
Code:
MAX_VALUE = 39999
function loop() {
var z;
for (i=0; i<MAX_VALUE; i++) {
z += 1;
}
}
loop();
Is around 17%-19% faster on my machine than:
Code:
MAX_VALUE = 39999
function loop() {
for (i=0; i<MAX_VALUE; i++) {
z += 1;
}
}
loop();
I would imagine that in the first example it is storing the variable in memory and incrimenting it whilst in the second exampl it is not stroring it in the memory and having to recall it each time it loops (not 100% sure on that though)?? Squize/Pred can probably explain better than myself!
RipX
-
Weird, there is no logical reason why the second example runs slower, its just better coding practise to declare your variables before you use them.... but I mean, sure, if it works, lets go =)
Basically squize's example means running through a loop half/quarter/eighth as much times, and just repeating the code...
It all relies on:
w00t();
w00t();
w00t();
being faster than:
for(var i = 0; i < 3;i++){
w00t();
}
-
Yes it's totally true and it's even more so when unrolling. Using the same initial figure and unrolling to 10:
Code:
MAX_VALUE = 39999;
function loop() {
var z;
for (i=0; i<MAX_VALUE; i += 10) {
z += 1;
z += 1;
z += 1;
z += 1;
z += 1;
z += 1;
z += 1;
z += 1;
z += 1;
z += 1;
}
}
loop();
It was 25-30% faster when decairing the variable!!!! :D
Here are the result without declairing the var. Running 5 tests in a row the results were:
2297ms
2306ms
2337ms
2280ms
2295ms
Here are the results when declairing the variable var z:
1658ms
1596ms
1588ms
1582ms
1581ms
Obviously a significant and not fluke difference!!
RipX
-
Thanks pred, I should have posted an example.
adityadennis:
You don't save on the code run in the loop, you save on the actual loop conditional code.
A good way to think of it ( And optimisation in general ) is to give everything a time value, ie the number of milliseconds it takes to run ( I know it's just wishful thinking but are there cycle timings for AS ? )
So say every command and var takes 5ms:
for(var i = 0; i < 10; i ++){
//this gets called 10 times
}
The first line takes 50ms ( That's just counting every individual element on that line using our 5ms pretend timing ) and the function in the loop takes 5ms ( Or 5 billion, doesn't matter ).
Cause it's a loop it'll get run 10 times, so thats 10*50 = 500ms just for the loop code.
So for the optimised example:
for(var i = 0; i < 10;i+=2){
//this gets called 5 times
//this gets called 5 times
}
It still takes 50ms, there's still the same number of elements on the line, and the functions aren't any quicker in themselves. The difference is the loop is only running 5 times, ie half as many iterations. So now our loop code that really doesn't do anything that productive only takes 5*50 = 250ms. We've just halved the time to run a piece of code, which isn't bad :)
The Duff's Device is just a really nice structured way to do the same thing. Basically, as with most optimisations, if you can slip it into your code without killing yourself then do it.
RipX:
Yeah declared vars run quicker.
From what I know ( and guess :) ) the var declaration reserves some memory in the system pool and tokenises (sp?) the var to help speed things up at run time. Because of this you should try and avoid using var within a loop, it'll actually be slower. But if declared outside the loop it's quicker for Flash to look up.
Squize.
-
hmm:
defining z:
512
509
520
512
513
507
506
516
not defining z:
745
740
739
771
739
734
My 'expert' opinion (yeah right) says that because your using var z, inside the function, your declaring a variable who's scope is that function, i'm willing to say that its faster because the variable is made as a register, because of its short lifespan..
-
Flash6 does actually use register r:0 under certain conditions ( I don't think 5 uses them at all ? ), mainly for loop init code such as for / while loop code, but from what I've seen it doesn't use it too effectively, and with only 4 registers to play with it would soon struggle handling local variables.
Who wants to search through figleaf for the answer ? ;)
Squize.
-
not me! ehhe..
but if it is not made as a register internally (on the CPU) then it might be done as a flash internal register, so it bypasses flash's lookup code...
-
Hmm, I understand. But I use for loops mainly. More efficient than while loops...
Code:
i = 0;
while(10/2+1){
doSomething();
//I'm sure this loop will generate a "Script is causing Flash Player to run slowly" dialog :)
i++
}
VS
Code:
for(i=0; i<10/2+1; i+=2){
doSomething();
}
Haven't performed any test's on the "Duff's Device" or whatever Squize spoke about.
-
in some cercumstances your right!!!
some test results here:
Code:
while loop without declaired var:
4577 ms
4503 ms
4537 ms
4488 ms
4524 ms
//
while loop with declaired var:
3170 ms
3183 ms
3138 ms
3139 ms
3153 ms
//
for loop without declaired var:
3070 ms
3089 ms
3107 ms
3059 ms
3082 ms
//
for loop with declaired var:
2135 ms
2521 ms
2096 ms
2136 ms
2115 ms
RipX
