I have so far been doing everything in one big big as3 file, but now I seem to be having problems with the memory pretty quickly, even if I am removing all the listeners and clearing all the containers all the time... would separating code in different as3 files help me prevent my flash slowing down?
Might be dumb question, but I dont want to start all the work of re-arranging the code, though at this point it is not too big of a work. Except maybe I have to figure out few things and re-do them since it probably wont work when they are in different files, but...
anyways, thanks in advance!
The increase of memory has nothing to do with working with a single file, so splitting in different files/classes would not solve the problem without a refactoring of your code.
If, as you say, at this point the work it's not too big, I think you should seriously consider to refactor your code with a proper OOP structure. Will help you to debug your app, to help you finishing it and to maintain it in the future
Related
I'm a beginner in programming world, never touch any programming language before. But last 3 days I decide to try make a flash game, I looked some tutorial about AS3, try it, yes I understand a little bit. But I'm still confused about this:
How do I know or to decide what codes I write first, what next? example: I want to add a hero, then a enemy, then a tiles, then a background, event listener.
Is it okay if I write code randomly, example: first I add enemy, then add tiles, add background, then add hero, etc?
What is the best way to completely learn all AS3 codes, especially about flash game dev?
I'm now in frustration mode, so I decide to learn from you all who have mastered AS3.
Check out this guide by Michael James Williams. I was in the same situation as you, and that guide helped me a lot. It goes through a lot of the basics and does a good job of explaining each step.
To answer some of your questions, the order in which you code stuff doesn't matter too much. You can always go back and adjust your old code, and you'll definitely end up doing that at some point.
For learning AS3 syntax, just look through some examples and tutorials, and don't be afraid to read the official AS3 docs. They might be intimidating at first, but once you start learning some of the terminology, they're very helpful.
you can try some video tutorials like these
http://www.lynda.com/ActionScript-tutorials/AS3-language-fundamentals/123492/129625-4.html
http://www.lynda.com/Flash-tutorials/Building-Flash-Games-Starling/98951-2.html?srchtrk=index:1%0Alinktypeid:2%0Aq:flash%2Bgames%0Apage:1%0As:relevance%0Asa:true%0Aproducttypeid:2
If you're frustrated NOW, are you sure that you're ready to invest a couple of YEARS in becoming half-good with Actionscript? You'll have to like learning from your mistakes (an excellent way to learn, actually), because you will make thousands of them and they will cost you thousands of hours!
Do NOT write 'randomly' unless you want to greatly lengthen your time to mastery. Everything you do should have a purpose. I would start (if I were starting again) by giving myself a series of the smallest challenges: make an object appear; make it disappear; make it appear in one second from now; make it appear when I tap a key or click my mouse; make it move across the screen; make it move back; make it follow my mouse... etc.
There are many hundreds of basic programmatic elements like these that will add to your growing grasp of logic, data-structures and language. There are usually many ways to accomplish the same task -- learn and practice all of them.
Luckily, the Internet is full of good tutorials and references to Actionscript, and some decent forums like this one where you can get help.
I know this is king of old but someone might still find this useful.
I think that if you are serious about game development and also want to learn some techniques that are independent of the platform (Flash/AS3 in this case) you should use a framework.
For Flash the best game framework is the Starling along with Feather for UI.
They run on Stage3D which means that run on the GPU not the CPU which make them very fast.
With Starling you can also create mobile games that run in AIR so I think it really is something to consider.
On hsharma.com you can find a free video tutorial that goes through everything you need to know to get starting with game development so it should answer the question on how to create enemies, backgrounds, etc.
Hope this helps someone.
I am a beginning programmer and I really want to have good habits and practices. I have yet to slice up a PSD and code it. Is this a bad practice? I have heard it creates bad code that had to be fixed anyway so why do it? I want to create clean code even if it takes longer. Just wondering if it is as bad as I have heard. Are there advantages to doing it this way? Do I need to learn this skill to make good sites? Thanks.
If your images are very large, then sometimes slicing them into pieces and generating the right HTML that lines up all the pieces can be a better user experience. These days, this seems to matter more for those on very slow links (like dial-up) or very poor links (lots of errors) and less for those on typical internet links unless the images are very large.
Overall, slicing images is more overhead for the browser (more HTML, more separate image request for both client and server) so it's only beneficial when specifically needed to solve a problem. I would not do it by default unless you had a specific problem you were trying to solve with the image slicing.
Your background image shouldn't be a very complex image and if it is try to make it as optimized as possible so the load time is efficient for slower downloads. As for slicing I wouldn't use it all that often as it does cause alot of browser requests, again be sure all are optimized so the download time is very minor. Something to look into is using sprites (I know it wasn't the question) these are very useful for images that don't really matter to SEO of the site (buttons, arrows, bullets, etc. The big thing anymore is download speed you want to keep the images cached, optimized and as minimal bandwidth as possible. If your page takes too long to load then your users will leave, that should drive your image create more than best-practices.
Is there any way to create a "fast" connection between mysql and Flash that is still "secure"?
I'm playing around with a game that would allow players to move in 2d space around a tiled "world". I'd like to show other players that are also playing on the screen at the same time, and have them be able to talk each other by hitting the space bar when you are close to them. For this I would need something relatively quick (maybe 300-500ms?) so when you hit space bar to talk to a guy that looks next to you, he isn't really half a screen away already.
I've looked at AMFPHP for this...but it seems like it would not be fast enough..
Thanks for the Help
You might want to look at Red5: faster than AMFPHP and a good bit more capable.
Direct connections to MySQL are possible, but haven't seen those widely deployed. AS-SQL appears to provide support for it, but there is some policy file work you need to do to make it work reliably and that might be a bit of a pain.
I am developing a jQtouch app and each request done via ajax creates a new div in the document for the loaded content. Only a single div is shown at any one time.
How many div's can I have before the app starts getting unresponsive and slow?
Anyone have any ideas on this?
EDIT: Its an iPad app running on Safari, and it would be less than 1000 div's with very basic content
I've had tens of thousands, maybe even a hundred thousand divs, on screen at once.
Performance is either fine, or bad, depending on:
Parsed from HTML or generated Dynamically in JavaScript?
Parsed from HTML means you have a LARGE html source, and this can make browsers hang. Generated in JS is surprisingly fast, even on Internet Explorer, which is the slowest of all browsers for JS.
To be honest, if you really need an absolute answer to this question, then you might want to reconsider your design.
No answer given here will be right, as it depends upon many factors that are specific to your application. E.g. heavy vs. little CSS use, size of the divs, amount of actual graphics rendering required per div, target browser/platform, number of DOM event listeners etc..
Just because you can doesn't mean that you should! :-)
As others have said, there's really no answer.
However, in this talk about the Google Maps API version 3, the speaker brings up the number ten thousand several times, as a basic threshold for browser unhappiness.
http://code.google.com/apis/maps/documentation/javascript/
Without defining a particular environment, it's not possible to answer your question.
And even then, anything anyone tells you is just a guess. You need to do your own testing on real-world configurations with different browsers and hardware. You'll also need to establish some performance benchmarks to decide what "too slow" even means.
I've been able to add several thousand divs without a problem. Depends on what you'll be doing afterwards, of course, and the memory on the client machine. Everyone else is right about that.
As Harpo said, 10K is probably a good ceiling. At one time, I noticed speed problems starting at about 4K divs, but hardware has improved since then.
And, as Neil N said, adding the divs via scripting is better than having a huge HTML source.
And, to answer Harpo's comment, one way to "break it up" so that JS doesn't lock the page and produce a "page is running slowly" error is to call a timer at the end of each "add a div" routine, and the timer in turn calls your "add a div" function again.
Now, MY question is: is it possible to "paint" so that you don't need to add thousands of divs? This can be done with the canvas tag with some browsers, but I don't think it's possible with VML (the excanvas project) on IE. Or is it? I think VML "paints" by adding new elements to the DOM, at which point you may as well use DIVs, unless it's a simple shape.
Is it possible to alter the source of an image via scripting? (the image in the DOM, of course -- not the original image on the server.)
Is there any significant performance/load time impact if single web page will load, say, 10 identical flash objects? 20? 30?.. any evidential data on sustainability of such kind of setup?
This would be the same flash app, each instance serving its own stream.
There's definitely going to be some overhead in size as there is a certain amount of code that is contained in every swf regardless of it's developer created content.
I'm almost certain there would be speed issues as well, which would see frame rates drop right down the more swfs you add to the page.
To be honest the concept smells a little fishy and i would think there must be a better solution to your problem.
EDIT
Also there is a restriction on having two steams coming over http per domain. Sure you could get around this but it will definitely be an issue.
I found this post which might help. The trick is to use SWFObject to embed your swf files.
I ran into a strange problem today. On the music charts page on Muziboo, I was displaying a list of songs and a playlist on the right. Each song has a small button player done in OpenLaszlo. In firefox everything was fine and in IE (not unusually), the page would freeze for sometime. This would happen once and repeat only if I delete cache and try again. I googled a bit and learnt that it's a good idea to embed give each swf a unique id otherwise the browser misbehaves. I then went ahead and used swfobject to embed the swf files and everything started working great!
Yes, it'll likely nuke the browser if you go too far down that road.
If you want to deal in multiple streams, perhaps combining all your would-be applets into one giant one might work better. It'll certainly offset the serious overhead you'd have with 10-40 of the little blighters.
If this is a music player, you want to have a serious look at doing some JavaScript remoting. It's fairly trivial to control a flash app via JS so you could have standard HTML/CSS controls without having to load up a billion flash instances.
Design-wise this just sounds like a bad idea. You'd be running multiple instances of the Flash player inside a browser, each of which has an individual cost, and the host (in this case the browser) will run all of them on the same thread (with the exception of certain elective asynchronous processes), so you're almost surely going to run into problems of various kinds -- jittery playback, UI blocking, processor burden, memory bloat, consequent instability of the host, etc.
Unless the SWFs are very tiny, and doing very little work, it seems like a design that's just asking for trouble. Indeed you could test such a thing fairly easily; have you run any tests yet? Just curious.
Also curious as to the requirements; we might be able to offer more constructive alternatives if we knew a little more about what you were aiming for. Have you considered simply loading all the SWFs into a single container SWF requiring only a single browser-hosted instance of the Flash player?