Flasher Archive

[Previous] [Next] - [Index] [Thread Index] - [Previous in Thread] [Next in Thread]


Subject: RE: FLASH: Flash 5/6 aka DirectFlash! Some suggestions
From: Damien Morton
Date: Tue, 8 Aug 2000 21:34:46 +0100

Not being able to see your code, Branden, Ive had to make a few assumptions,
but Id love to hear how your code performs if optimised.

Im not sure that the use of floating points would be slower than integers,
given the fundamental overhead of running an interpreter. At any rate, there
should be virtually no difference.

Exporting Newtons method where a square root is called doesnt make sense to
me. When outputting Flash 4, this is no doubt necessary, but surely not in
the case in Flash 5. It would better in the plug-in itself, and a whole slew
of math/trig functions are probably already in there for the actual vector
drawing routines anyway, so it should 'simply' be a matter of exposing them
to actionscript.

My basic point is that fast code enables a realm of experiences that go
beyond scripted animations and into creating actual behaviours. Your version
of SodaPlay, Branden, is a great example of this, and I think that further
enabling this kind of thing will enhance Flash as a platform.

The smallness of the plug-in comes up again and again, and I wonder if the
balance between plug-in size and plug-in capabilities has been well-struck.
A 200K plug-in is a good thing (tm). Is it better than a 400K plug-in that
has some combination of much faster code execution and rendering, video
sprites and images compressed 6 times better than JPEG? I wonder.

Ive been playing Unreal Tournament a bit lately, in software rendering mode.
It runs at over 30 frames per second, and is doing a _whole_ lot more work
than a 1-spring 2-body dynamic system. At a guess, its doing somewhere
between a thousand times and a million times more work. Why does it only use
2 times the CPU of the sprung.swf demo?

Im not disparaging the Flash dev team. Flash is a cool tech, and obviously,
in getting a product out the door, there are limits to be reached and
compromises to be made. Keep up the good work and keep pushing the envelope.

------------------
Damien Morton
Senior Programmer
Dennis Interactive

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owneratchinwag [dot] com [owneratchinwag [dot] com]On">mailto:owneratchinwag [dot] com]On Behalf Of Branden
> Hall
>
> Actually, that system does some just-plain-complex(tm) math...
> lots of fun
> calculus stuff (integration via Euler's method), and I am kinda
> sloppy with
> my floating points... I'm sure if I went in and did a few assembler-style
> tricks to keep the code from ever using floats, it would speed up quite
> nicely. The simple fact of the matter is that you have a 200K
> plugin that is
> able to run some *serious* code pretty damn fast. More than
> likely, F5 took
> a sort-of RISC approach to be able to do all it does with that
> little... in
> other words, the F5 plugin is probably optimized up to wazoo for
> doing basic
> operations, and have all complex operations exsist as combinations of the
> basic ones. For example, when you export say, a square root call Flash
> probably includes the math needed to do a newtons method to get
> the sqrt in
> the SWF... Otherwise I don't see how in the hell the plugin is still so
> damn small.
>
> Anyhoo... you have to look at all of the factors involved with
> why flash is
> what it is...
> Besides that, I honestly do not see video coming to Flash for a
> while... it
> would just bloat the plugin too much.. and once browsers get their act
> together they should all be able to do what I can do in IE... put a
> quicktime above my flash movie. Finally, as for JPG2000... I agree
> totally... wavelets are the future!
>
> -= Branden J. Hall
> -= Senior Interactive Developer/Instructor
> -= Fig Leaf Software - "We've got you covered!"
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owneratchinwag [dot] com [owneratchinwag [dot] com]On">mailto:owneratchinwag [dot] com]On Behalf Of Damien
> Morton
>
> Heres a couple of suggestions for Flash 6:
>
> Ive been looking at Branden Hall's sprung.swf Flash 5 demo. A 1-spring, 2
> body system consumes 50-60% of my 600MHz CPU. Now Branden is a
> smart guy, so
> I cant really imagine that hes implemented that demo too shabbily. If this
> is anything like what we can expect, then the performance of ActionScript5
> leaves a lot to be desired. Suggestion: Make ActionScript byte code
> interpretation much much faster. For games, for anything
> requiring a modicum
> of physical simulation or computation, a faster interpreter is needed.
<snip>



~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Full flasher archive now available online at:
http://www.chinwag.com/flasher/archive.shtml
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
To unsubscribe or change your list settings go to
http://www.chinwag.com/flasher or email helpatchinwag [dot] com


Replies
  RE: FLASH: Flash 5/6 aka DirectFlash! So, Branden Hall

Replies
  RE: FLASH: Flash 5/6 aka DirectFlash! So, Branden Hall

[Previous] [Next] - [Index] [Thread Index] - [Next in Thread] [Previous in Thread]