I am creating a bejeweled style game using flash builder for the web and I am wondering if it would be best (higher framerates, less render intensive, fast on all types of computers) to use the native rendering of actionscript 3 (display lists) or the gpu rendering of the Starling 2D Framework? My reasoning for wanting to use the native flash rendering is because from my research I understand that flash will utilize redraw regions and only redraw portions of the stage that need to be updated whereas starling will re-render the entire stage every frame. In a bejeweled style game there are many static objects and fewer dynamic objects so generally the entire stage does not need to be redrawn every frame, only small portions of the stage. Would it be better for performance to stick with the native rendering calls of actionscript 3 or would it be wiser to use the starling framework to utilize the gpu to accelerate the rendering? Any perspective would be much appreciated. Thanks.
Share
Starling will be faster if you are using images, particularly on mobile.
The static regions can either be rendered as a single Sprite, or you can flatten it at runtime to improve the performance.
If you are drawing, in Starling you’ll need to draw to a bitmap and then use that as a Sprite. You’ll get better performance if everything is in the same sprite sheet, however.
While it’s true that Starling draws every frame, it’s a different sort of operation. Here’s what actually happens:
1) The textures (images) being used by the app are uploaded to the GPU. This is done once.
2) Each frame, Starling tells the GPU “render this texture at this position with this scale and rotation”. This is called a “draw call” but it’s extremely fast. The slick thing with Starling is that it can batch these draw calls under certain circumstances to get serious speed improvements.
So yes, everything is “redrawn” each frame, but the GPU’s hardware acceleration is used.
On mobile, Starling (or similar) is really the only way to do something at 60fps.