# Flash sprite sheet generator

**URL:** https://forum.kirupa.com/t/flash-sprite-sheet-generator/332191
**Category:** flash
**Created:** [February 25, 2014, 2:33am UTC](https://forum.kirupa.com/t/flash-sprite-sheet-generator/332191 "2014-02-25T02:33:39Z")
**Posts on this page:** 1
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

### Author: ![tbo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/7feea3/32.png) [@tbo](https://forum.kirupa.com/u/tbo)
#### Post date: [February 25, 2014, 2:33am UTC](https://forum.kirupa.com/t/flash-sprite-sheet-generator/332191/1 "2014-02-25T02:33:39Z")

</div>

:upset:

I’m doing some starling tests (because I haven’t really used it much before) and it seems Flash’s sprite sheet generator does not account for empty pixels

Texture packer does, and includes an offset value in the xml. This results in far more textures on a sheet, but even more important, performance is far greater.

Both tests have all the same game objects in a single 2048x2048 sprite sheet and 1 draw call.

flash pros sprite sheet = 39fps  
texture packers = 52fps

Not to mention the wasted space might kick you into an additional sprite sheet causing another performance hit