|
|
|
|
|
by ehsanu1
5356 days ago
|
|
I suppose spritesheets would making loading time faster since there would be fewer files. But other than that, it's just a neat way of organizing sprites, which can also be managed with a good naming convention tying together related sprites. Is there any other reason to use a spritesheet? Well, if you're using dom-based animation, spritesheets also work better for animations since it's much faster to adjust background-image-position in a div, compared to just replacing the background-image. |
|
I wasn't even aware of using background-image-position as a way to do this... I'll stick that one in my cap, thanks!
I'd say the main benefit of spritesheets as i've seen it would be what you've already commented on: Fewer GETs against the server (when you're thinking in terms of scale, for a large project with lots of assets, i'd say this becomes important, but of course that's a fairly subjective metric), as well as organization of files.
You could go with naming conventions... but then for a 45 frame animation, you have 45 distinct files all named something like "SPECIFIC_ANIMATION_FRAME_X", as opposed to using a dynamic approach, utilizing the cell-size of the frames and the width and height of the image overall, to calculate the frames on the fly; To me, that is far more maintainable than a huge pile of aptly named images.
You could make the claim that calculating out the frame each time is wasted cpu cycles that could be spent elsewhere, but I feel like it's the right approach.
But that could just be my opinion. I would love for someone to weigh in with actual metrics on whether or not using a dynamic approach is actually faster or slower in a meaningful way than a brute-force style naming convention animation system.