I’ve done quite a bit of research on the differences between Vector and Raster graphics in conjunction with Flash-based games. More specifically looking at how each differs in their ability to impact overall Flash-gaming performance. When speaking in terms performance, I’m talking about raw speed (and consistency thereof) as well as the handling and responsiveness of onscreen objects.
So here’s what I think I think I know:
Vector graphics provide the benefit of much smaller file size and flexibility in scaling but can hinder on-screen performance. The performance hit is due to the repetitive calculations required each time an object is moved or with the passing of each frame.
Raster graphics provide the benefit of on-screen responsiveness and speed, however are much larger in file size and will increase initial pre-load requirements. As well, they are limited in scalability without an associated quality hit. But because raster graphics do not require the repetitive calculations that vector graphics do, they ultimately free up cpu resources making them faster.
[/list]So I’m just looking for some clarification or validation on this theory from anybody who’s in the know. Can anybody tell me if the above is true? If it is, then for an action-based, arcade style game, I should lean towards raster, not vector graphics for the overall performance gain. It does me no good to design a game that ultimately lags or slows due to over-utilization of vector graphics.