Is it faster to reset a collection of properties or create a new instance? - actionscript-3

I have a Matrix which I recycle and use for drawing DisplayObject instances onto a Bitmap.
At the moment, I reset the Matrix before I render each item, like this:
_matrix.a = 1;
_matrix.b = 0;
_matrix.c = 0;
_matrix.d = 1;
_matrix.tx = 0;
_matrix.ty = 0;
Would it be better to do the above, or to simply do this?:
_matrix = new Matrix();
Generally I would say the former, however I'm unsure if in the case of Matrix there is some heavy stuff going on for each of those properties that I reset (mathematically).

I think reusing the same instance of Matrix is more efficient than creating a new one every time.
In fact, creating a new instance is a relatively heavy operation and that's why caches are used: to create a few instances and reuse them instead of creating a high number of instances.
I run a little benchmark and it confirms my answer:
var t:Number;
var i:int;
var N:int = 10000000;
t = getTimer();
for (i = 0; i < N; i++) {
_matrix = new Matrix();
}
trace(getTimer()-t); // 7600
t = getTimer();
for (i = 0; i < N; i++) {
_matrix.a = 1;
_matrix.b = 0;
_matrix.c = 0;
_matrix.d = 1;
_matrix.tx = 0;
_matrix.ty = 0;
}
trace(getTimer()-t); // 4162
Finally, note that the difference is not that much great and that creating 10000000 new instances takes only 7600 ms, so unless you are creating thousands of matrices per frame, either approach wouldn't have a noticeable impact on performance.
EDIT:
Using the method identity will have the advantages of both approaches (simplicity and performance):
t = getTimer();
for (i = 0; i < N; i++) {
_matrix.identity();
}
trace(getTimer()-t); // 4140

Related

How to batch the calls in google app script

I was trying to optimize runtime some code that ran really slowly, when searching it up google came up with this: https://developers.google.com/apps-script/guides/support/best-practices#:~:text=Use%20batch%20operations,-Scripts%20commonly%20need&text=Alternating%20read%20and%20write%20commands,data%20out%20with%20one%20command.
it shows an example of inefficient code:
var cell = sheet.getRange('a1');
for (var y = 0; y < 100; y++) {
xcoord = xmin;
for (var x = 0; x < 100; x++) {
var c = getColorFromCoordinates(xcoord, ycoord);
cell.offset(y, x).setBackgroundColor(c);
xcoord += xincrement;
}
ycoord -= yincrement;
SpreadsheetApp.flush();
}
and efficient code:
var cell = sheet.getRange('a1');
var colors = new Array(100);
for (var y = 0; y < 100; y++) {
xcoord = xmin;
colors[y] = new Array(100);
for (var x = 0; x < 100; x++) {
colors[y][x] = getColorFromCoordinates(xcoord, ycoord);
xcoord += xincrement;
}
ycoord -= yincrement;
}
sheet.getRange(1, 1, 100, 100).setBackgroundColors(colors);
I tried to understand how this code works and tried running it but first of all "cell" doesn't seem to get used and I do not understand the code at all. What is a version of the code that actually works and how does this make it more efficient? And what part of this code batches the calls and how can I use this in my own coding?
Basically, what it does it reduce the number of calls by its methods.
The inefficient code above calls offset and setBackgroundColor every loop thus making it resource intensive and time consuming.
For the efficient code, it uses the loop to build the 2d array which then will be used on a single call on the method setBackgroundColors to execute it by bulk.
What takes much of the run time is the method calls, so reducing it would be very beneficial. This would make use of loops to build 2d arrays for the array versions of the methods single execution.
e.g.:
setValue -> setValues
setBackgroundColor -> setBackgroundColors
Pseudocode:
from:
loop {
setValue(x[i][j])
}
to:
loop {
x[i][j] = data
}
setValues(x)

Is there any difference in performance between these two for loop?

As I said: Is there any difference (in performance) between these two for loop?
Between this:
var n:int = displayObjects_.length;
for (var i:int = 0; i < n; i++)
{
var currentObject:DisplayObject = displayObjects_[i];
currentObject.width = newWidth;
}
and this:
var n:int = displayObjects_.length;
for (var i:int = 0; i < n; i++)
{
displayObjects_[i].width = newWidth;
}
I tested them before. The result said the first one was faster but I don't know if I did it right.
I know it's not really an answer to your question, but if you're looking for fastest way to iterate through this array you should do:
for each(var currentObject:DisplayObject in displayObjects_) {
currentObject.width = newWidth;
}
I tried this out on a bare-bones project using SDK 4.6. This is the code.
public class Main extends Sprite
{
public function Main()
{
var displayObjects_:Array = [];
for (var i:int = 0; i < 1000000; i++)
{
displayObjects_.push(new Sprite());
}
var start:int = getTimer();
for (i = 0; i < displayObjects_.length; i++)
{
var currentObject:Sprite = displayObjects_[i];
currentObject.width = 100;
}
var end:int = getTimer()
trace(end, start, end - start);
start = getTimer();
for (i = 0; i < displayObjects_.length; i++)
{
displayObjects_[i].width = 100;
}
end = getTimer()
trace(end, start, end - start);
}
}
These are the results.
Done(0)
[Starting debug session with FDB]
16703 16250 453
17141 16703 438
Like I said, it would be very surprising to see any difference between the two. You'll probably see more improvements through using Vector instead of Array. Otherwise, this stuff is too mundane to fuss over.
As I know, Actionscript compiler automatically moves variable definitions to the begin of the function. So, this loop doesn't declare variable each time, first sample the same that:
var currentObject:DisplayObject;
var n:int = displayObjects_.length;
for (var i:int = 0; i < n; i++)
{
currentObject = displayObjects_[i];
currentObject.width = newWidth;
}
So, I think the difference only in one additional variable declare and it willn't affects performance. But 3vilguy's example is better.

Trouble creating a spectrogram

I know it was asked a thousand times before, but I still can't find a solution.
Searching SO, I indeed found the algorithm for it, but lacking the mathematical knowledge required to truly understand it, I am helplessly lost!
To start with the beginning, my goal is to compute an entire spectrogram and save it to an image in order to use it for a visualizer.
I tried using Sound.computeSpectrum, but this requires to play the sound and wait for it to end, I want to compute the spectrogram in a way shorter time than that will require to listen all the song. And I have 2 hours long mp3s.
What I am doing now is to read the bytes from a Sound object, the separate into two Vectors(.); Then using a timer, at each 100 ms I call a function (step1) where I have the implementation of the algorithm, as follows:
for each vector (each for a channel) I apply the hann function to the elements;
for each vector I nullify the imaginary part (I have a secondary vector for that)
for each vector I apply FFT
for each vector I find the magnitude for the first N / 2 elements
for each vector I convert squared magnitude to dB scale
end.
But I get only negative values, and only 30 percent of the results might be useful (in the way that the rest are identical)
I will post the code for only one channel to get rid off the "for each vector" part.
private var N:Number = 512;
private function step1() : void
{
var xReLeft:Vector.<Number> = new Vector.<Number>(N);
var xImLeft:Vector.<Number> = new Vector.<Number>(N);
var leftA:Vector.<Number> = new Vector.<Number>(N);
// getting sample range
leftA = this.channels.left.slice(step * N, step * (N) + (N));
if (leftA.length < N)
{
stepper.removeEventListener(TimerEvent.TIMER, getFreq100ms);
return;
}
else if (leftA.length == 0)
{
stepper.removeEventListener(TimerEvent.TIMER, getFreq100ms);
return;
}
var i:int;
// hann window function init
m_win = new Vector.<Number>(N);
for ( var i:int = 0; i < N; i++ )
m_win[i] = (4.0 / N) * 0.5 * (1 - Math.cos(2 * Math.PI * i / N));
// applying hann window function
for ( i = 0; i < N; i++ )
{
xReLeft[i] = m_win[i]*leftA[i];
//xReRight[i] = m_win[i]*rightA[i];
}
// nullify the imaginary part
for ( i = 0; i < N; i++ )
{
xImLeft[i] = 0.0;
//xImRight[i] = 0.0;
}
var magnitutel:Vector.<Number> = new Vector.<Number>(N);
fftl.run( xReLeft, xImLeft );
current = xReLeft;
currf = xImLeft;
for ( i = 0; i < N / 2; i++ )
{
var re:Number = xReLeft[i];
var im:Number = xImLeft[i];
magnitutel[i] = Math.sqrt(re * re + im * im);
}
const SCALE:Number = 20 / Math.LN10;
var l:uint = this.total.length;
for ( i = 0; i < N / 2; i++ )
{
magnitutel[i] = SCALE * Math.log( magnitutel[i] + Number.MIN_VALUE );
}
var bufferl:Vector.<Number> = new Vector.<Number>();
for (i = 0; i < N / 2 ; i++)
{
bufferl[i] = magnitutel[i];
}
var complete:Vector.<Vector.<Number>> = new Vector.<Vector.<Number>>();
complete[0] = bufferl;
this.total[step] = complete;
this.step++;
}
This function is executed in the event dispatched by the timer (stepper).
Obviously I do something wrong, as I said I have only negative values and further more values range between 1 and 7000 (at least).
I want to thank you in advance for any help.
With respect,
Paul
Negative dB values are OK. Just add a constant (representing your volume control) until the number of points you want to color become positive. The remaining values that stay negative are usually just displayed or colored as black in a spectrogram. No matter how negative (as they might just be the FFT's numerical noise, which can be a huge negative dB number or even NaN or -Inf for log(0)).

How to remove/reload movieclip/graphic in Flash CS5 with AS3

I have a setupBoard(); and a setupBlocks(); in my function:
function init(e)
{
setupBoard();
removeEventListener(Event.ENTER_FRAME , init);
setupCat();
setupBlocks();
}
function setupBoard()
{
var columns:Array = new Array();
var i,j:int;
var _place:place;
for (i = 0; i < 11; i++)
{
columns = [];
for (j = 0; j < 11; j++)
{
_place = new place();
_place.thisX=i;
_place.thisY=j;
_place.thisDistance=Math.min(i+1,j+1,11-i,11-j)*11;
_place.y = 56 * i + 3;
_place.x = 5 + 71 * j + 35*(i%2);
_place.buttonMode=true;
_place.addEventListener(MouseEvent.CLICK, setBlock);
columns[j] = _place;
// SÆTTER TAL PÅ BRIKKERNE
_place.thisText.text = _place.thisDistance + " - " + _place.thisX + " : " + _place.thisY;
addChild(_place);
}
rows[i] = columns;
}
}
The "place" is the MovieClip
this function loads when the game launches and when the game is finish/completed..
the setupBoard, setup the board ofc, and the setupBlocks setup some movieclips, which contain some graphic.
Here's my question, how do I remove/reload all the blocks when the game enters that function again?
At the moment they are just placed upon each other, which I don't like at all.
If I understood correctly, what you want to do is remove all the previous blocks (from the last time you ran the setup function) when you run setup a second time.
To do that, you should create a function which loops your rows and columns Arrays, and for each Place object it find, it does the following: removes it from the stage, removes all Event Listeners, and finally sets it to null. Your function could look something like this (and you would call it just before calling setup again):
for (i = 0; i < rows.length; i++)
{
var column:Array = rows[i];
for (j = 0; j < column.length; j++)
{
var place:Place = column[j];
if (contains(place))
{
removeChild(place);
}
place.removeEventListener(MouseEvent.CLICK, setBlock);
place = null;
}
column = [];
}
row = [];
I just wrote that straight into the box, so it's not tested. But basically it does the three things necessary to get those objects removed from the view, and clears up anything that would stop them from being freed from memory by the garbage collector.
Hope that helps.
Debu

How to filter a specific color from a bitmapData object (or byte-array)

I'm looking for an efficient way to filter a specific color from a bitmapData object in ActionScript 3. Currently I use a loop with readByte32(). This takes about a second to process which is unacceptable. I have been trying to get paletteMap() to work but so far haven't been able to grasp its API (any truly useful links? Google has failed me...).
Here's my current logic, which I want to improve:
var n:int = bitmapData.width;
for (var i:int = 0; i < n; i++) {
var m:int = bitmapData.height;
for (var j:int = 0; j < m; j++) {
var color:int = bitmapData.getPixel(i, j);
if (color == 0xCACACA) {
bitmapData.setPixel32(i, j, 0x00000000);
}
}
}
I can get slightly better performance from using Vectors but it's only marginally better...
var v:Vector.<uint> = bitmapData.getVector(bitmapData.rect);
var n:int = bitmapData.width * bitmapData.height;
for (var i:int = 0; i < n; i++) {
var color:uint = v[i];
v[i] = color == 0xFFCACACA ? 0x00000000 : color;
}
bitmapData.setVector(bitmapData.rect, v);
I really think there must be a better way to do this that only takes a few 100 milliseconds. If anyone can unlock the mysteries of bitmapData for me, you will be the new leader of my people.
PS I am using bitmapData.lock() and unlock(); I just didn't post the boilerplate stuff.
An easy way is using the threshold method. It's a bit cumbersome at first, but it's pretty fast (as fast as you'll get, I think)
This will change every red pixel (considering red only a pixel whose value is exactly 0xffff0000) to blue (0xff0000ff).
var colorToReplace:uint = 0xffff0000;
var newColor:uint = 0xff0000ff;
var maskToUse:uint = 0xffffffff;
var rect:Rectangle = new Rectangle(0,0,bitmapData.width,bitmapData.height);
var p:Point = new Point(0,0);
bitmapData.threshold(bitmapData, rect, p, "==", colorToReplace,
newColor, maskToUse, true);
Flash has an API to a shader like language called pixel bender that may be of use to you in this case. Here is a tutorial from adobe on how to apply a pixel bender filter to an image in flash.
Otherwise you could processes rows at a time. (Note a slight error in your code was to re-get the height on each iteration of width):
private var currentRow:Number = 0;
private var timer:Timer;
public function processImage(event:Event=null):void
{
var m:int = bitmapData.height;
for (var j:int = 0; j < m; j++)
{
if (bitmapData.getPixel(currentRow, j) == 0xCACACA)
{
bitmapData.setPixel32(currentRow, j, 0x00000000);
}
}
currentRow++;
if(currentRow < bitmapData.width)
{
timer = new Timer(1, 500);
timer.addEventListener(TimerEvent.COMPLETE, processImage);
timer.start();
}
}
The processing will take a bit longer but at least your display won't be blocked.