Flash MX is a waste of time!!

[Sigma]

hmm, yeah I have the full version...ya know, that could be the case about the trial version. Wouldn't think so though, but ya never know...

- Sigma

[Ed Mack]

I used the trial version a lot, no leaks at all. It's using 0% of cpu and 25,540K of ram, thats with 4 medium sized mvoies loaded.. I'll let it run until tommorow and see if it dies

[aashu.com]

i never got any probs ... i also having trial version...

[flipsideguy]

Originally posted by nevil

Secondly and this is probably something I am doing wrong, please help if it is, In flash 5 lets you you have an object on the timeline the layer shows 20 frames, if you select 10 of those frames and click delete, 10 frames are deleted, simple right, in Flash MX do the same thing and the object and all frames are deleted, whats going on???

I hope that someone replies to this, because I really want to get on with MX!!!

cheers

nevil

I pulled hair over this one and figured it out. Highlight the frames and right-click (PC) or ctrl-click (mac) and select 'remove frames' from the menu - or just hit 'shift F5'

Flip.
[Edited by flipsideguy on 03-23-2002 at 12:22 PM]

[agent vivid]

yeah... i had to adapt to the non-functioning delete button for frames as well

shift+F5 is easy



no i haven't been following this thread, but people people people

QUIT COMPLAINING

if you don't like what MM has produced... then DON'T USE IT


but don't go around and talk trash about a product that will change the industry


every product ever released in the software industry has bugs

it's a fact of production

and if you're a serious developer, you expect bugs and then you expect an update

it's not a big deal to go to the website and upgrade

[nevil]

I don't mind bugs, that is too be expected.

We can't just not bother using MX, when our clients require it.

The problem is when they change something that works fine already and stops you from doing your normal job properly.

Apart from that MX is cool.

cheers

Nevil
http://www.theory7.com

[EvolveDesigns]

Yo Nevil. Neato site ya got there! Good work.

[slinky2000]

the only prob i have about mx, is really the actions window , i dont like it, and at a screen resolution of 1024*768, man its everything still takes up too much space around the screen!

well saying that i've had no problems, i'v only had it 2 days now!

[Krix]

Originally posted by slinky2000
the only prob i have about mx, is really the actions window , i dont like it, and at a screen resolution of 1024*768, man its everything still takes up too much space around the screen!

well saying that i've had no problems, i'v only had it 2 days now!

yes me too, i might run a higher rez now

[Sigma]

I sorta agree...the panels take up a lot of room but on the other hand it's kind cool having everything right there when you need it...just one or two less mouse clicks...you know what would be cool is if they made a button to collapse the panels vertically...like all of them at one time, collapse to the right..ya know?

- Sigma

[Tajam]

That would be cool Sigma, but the closest thing there is to that is just hitting the tab key. Too bad you can't have a "tab key editor" so that you can tell flash what you want to dissapear when you hit the tab key. The tab key would do exactly what you want if you could stop it from removing the toolbox.

[DannyBolivar]

Im running MX on an Athlon 1800XP with 256 RAM.. I've had no memory problems since I got Flash MX... (where's the wood.. I need to knock it? )

[Sigma]

Yeah I know about the tab key thing...thats the same in photoshop as well...but yeah, it's removes ALL the panels..tools too...oh well!

- Sigma

[Krix]

here's one: did a bmp image in photoshop, standard res. imported to flash mx. it was 700x300 approximately. when i tested movie, computer froze

[DannyBolivar]

Originally posted by Krix
here's one: did a bmp image in photoshop, standard res. imported to flash mx. it was 700x300 approximately. when i tested movie, computer froze

What format, PNG, GIF, JPG?

[theswedishtiger]

Running MX on a 2.2 GHz, 128mb NVIDIA GeForce 4600G with Windows XP proffessional on 512MB RDRAM. No crashes.

Dislike the action script menu, but as someone noted, get used to using expert mode.

Anyone see a guide for ideal font positioning? ie Arial working at x:.2 y:.5?

[DannyBolivar]

Originally posted by theswedishtiger
Anyone see a guide for ideal font positioning? ie Arial working at x:.2 y:.5?

That will depend greatly on the actual size of the font. At certain small sizes and with certain type you need to give yourself more breathing-room for the letters. I kern by hand (old habit), there's no substitute for that.

[slinky2000]

Originally posted by DannyBolivar

Originally posted by Krix
here's one: did a bmp image in photoshop, standard res. imported to flash mx. it was 700x300 approximately. when i tested movie, computer froze

What format, PNG, GIF, JPG?

read the post danny, .bmp!

[flashdance]

I just read through all the MX threads...all the ranting about it, and all the rave reviews about it. I admit I like the new look...it's a lot cleaner and I can find things easier, however I have encountered a problem.

I have been importing files from photoshop as *.png files to maintain their original format, but when I try to use the alpha command and tween them in and out of view, the images seem to break apart almost and move when I view it in a *.swf file. It looks fine when I view it by just hitting enter in the actual program, but once I export the file to *.swf, it manages to make it look a lot less clean then it looks as just a regular *.fla file.

Has anybody else noticed this? And if so, how do you go about fixing it? The files don't come out that large, I was just making banner ads, so they were relatively small..under 50k, I just don't understand why it would break apart images and make them move when I didn't specify that while making it.

[Sigma]

This problem you are having is not uncommon to Flash. I've found that adjusting the size of the image slightly, like to 99% has helped in certain cases. Also make sure the the image is located on WHOLE pixels. For example, you may have this problem if you have the image set to 134.6 x 98.3 - so set it to 134.0 x 98.0. Play around with that some and it should help! Also check the image quality properties before export and play around with that some!

- Sigma