dcsimg
A Flash Developer Resource Site

Page 1 of 7 12345 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 140

Thread: Very disappointed in MX 2004

Hybrid View

  1. #1
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Houston TX
    Posts
    563

    Very disappointed in MX 2004

    I develope in Flash 5 because it has a better audio compression than Flash MX. I don't why it should be different but it is. I get great 24K streaming on audio but I had increase it to 32K in Flash MX to get the same quality. So I didn't buy Flash MX and stayed with Flash 5. Now with Flash MX 2004 out I thought I would try again to better my developement but to my supprise I am unable to load anything created in Flash 5. Does this mean I can't used anything I have made in the past? Are all my Lib's are useless? At what point did backwards compatiblity go out the window? Did I miss something somewhere?

    If this is the wave of the future with flash I can't see upgrading ever. Plus as I read the comments from others I see there are many other problems which would leave a bad impression on buying other products from Macromedia. I think they are wanting us to buy a product still in beta but my money will be spent on a finished product with backwards compatibility.
    Best regards
    Toby Mack

    For the best and funniest Audio Blog on the Internet come visit:

    http://feeds.feedburner.com/Fla****UpBlog

  2. #2
    Senior Member FPChris's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    NJ
    Posts
    644
    We've pretty much decided against upgrading to MX2004.
    However, MX has proven to but solid and I suggest getting it
    while you can. MP3 compression is hardly a reason to hold back.

    As far as MX2004 not loading Flash 5, I can't answer that sorry.

    Chris
    http://www.**********-dms.com

  3. #3
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Houston TX
    Posts
    563
    Audio compression with us is very important due to the fact we want to stream flash to users on dialup and MX just does lend itself to this. In retrospect I think Macromedia's bean counters are looking to create income on a product not ready for market. Does this mean Macromedia is in trouble? Could there be a change in ownership in the near future? Interesting thought.
    Best regards
    Toby Mack

    For the best and funniest Audio Blog on the Internet come visit:

    http://feeds.feedburner.com/Fla****UpBlog

  4. #4
    Flash Product Manager
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Posts
    140
    Originally posted by FPChris
    We've pretty much decided against upgrading to MX2004.
    May I ask why?

  5. #5
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    81

    As an everyday Flash developer here are my reasons not to upgrade

    I dont know if these problems are OS X only but here it goes.

    The library: Horribly slow. I just move it to another monitor and it blanks out, beach balls and takes 20 seconds to reload. Even small libraries. Sort changes same thing. drag and drop between libraries, same. These things were a tad slow in MX now they are productivity killers. There is a file rename bug too. The file name disappears when you try to rename it. It reappears on second click.

    Similar slow down with undo's go back a few and wait wait wait. Also, there were separate histories for undo's for each symbol and on the stage and scenes. This was a little out of the norm and funky but I LIKED IT it was a great feature. Its very confusing now. I hate it. You find yourself jumping all over the FLA.

    No marked speed increase.With the exception of Publishing. SWF file sizes are smaller in some situation by a lot which is GOOD.

    BUGGY in general. Lots of lock ups. No pattern to them. I walk away to get something to eat and come back...POOF.... flash is no where to be found.

    I know a few companies that are just now approving the use of the Flash 6 plugin or publishing for Flash 6. Autodesk for one. I work for them. How many people are going to install the Flash 7 plugin?? What incentive do they have?

    I am running OS 10.2.6 gig of RAM on a dual 867. Clean system. Everything else runs perfectly.

    I love Macromedia products but I am very concerned about these problems. I have 22 days left to decide but right now the answer is no.

  6. #6
    Flash Product Manager
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Posts
    140

    Re: As an everyday Flash developer here are my reasons not to upgrade

    Originally posted by cwflash

    I know a few companies that are just now approving the use of the Flash 6 plugin or publishing for Flash 6. Autodesk for one. I work for them. How many people are going to install the Flash 7 plugin?? What incentive do they have?
    Thanks for the feedback. I'm running a G4 Cube (600MHz I think) and a PB 12" 800MHz and haven't noticed these problems. I remember hearing about the file naming issue that showed up on a small number of Mac users' systems - but I haven't been able to reproduce it.

    As for your question above, I really have to give the same answer I've given for EVERY SINGLE previous release of the Flash player. There are a HUGE number of improvements in the new player, and people will adopt it. Flash Player 6 was downloaded an average of 3 million times per day and gained over 90% penetration in about a year. Flash Player 7, once installed, will actually auto-update itself from then on - a very cool feature that I've been waiting for for a long time.

    I'd suggest you do a little more trouble shooting w/ your install and perhaps ping our support people for assistance.

    Regards,
    MD

  7. #7
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    81

    System/player 7

    I have not been having any other problems, but its actually good to know that you have not had other complaints about slow library functions. Its tough for me to take the time to trouble shoot when only one app. is having problems. I have 8 applications open right now including PS and Swift3D all running superbly. I also have Flash MX running with no problems.

    You don't have to sell me on Player 7. I can already see the smoother play etc... The auto-update is brilliant. Big relief. However, bigger companies with a broad audience are a bit more cautious about these things. Once the percentage hits 80% they will have no problem adopting 7.

    The MX plugin was a huge leap ( video etc..). Maybe version 7 is too but it may not be as obvious to users and developers. Seems like it will take longer to get everyone on it.

  8. #8
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Houston TX
    Posts
    563
    Mike, The player is not a problem with us at www.fsosystems.com because Macromedia always fixes bugs in the player due to the vast amount of users and need to keep a high profile with the standard web viewer.

    If you would address the reason why there is no backwards compatibility to flash 4 or 5? Without this developers wishing to take advantage of the features of MX 2004 for exisiting project already published to their clients web sites will have to start completely over from scratch.

    Please tell us at what point does backwards compatibility stop.

    Will Macromedia supply a conversion program to for Flash 5 FLA's to be used in MX 2004? I don't want to buy Flash MX just to convert over for MX 2004.
    Best regards
    Toby Mack

    For the best and funniest Audio Blog on the Internet come visit:

    http://feeds.feedburner.com/Fla****UpBlog

  9. #9
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    3
    i juz installed few hours ago... seems ok to me...

    i love a number of features... the form application concept is way cool... i am a programmer and also a designer... i will love flash beign able to develop applications... although i not such how far can flash go in developing applications... will be trying out...

    the presentation concept is cool too... now i dun have to do my presentation in the very limited powerpoint...

    the backward compatibility issue... i not very sure... but it seems that there is a huge upgrade in this mx2004 version... player 7 playing mx2004 swf seems to be smoother and faster ... ~
    DES!GNBRANZ
    http://www.des!gn.bz

  10. #10
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Posts
    110
    I don't know if there is a way to open a Flash 5 file directly in 2004 but if there really isn't, it's not that hard to work around. Find a copy of MX (trial, friends, etc) and open your files and save them as MX. Then open them in 2004. It's one more step but you should have upgraded to begin with

  11. #11
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Houston TX
    Posts
    563
    Let me make this perfectly clear, Flash MX has a screwed audio compression. The quality I get in Flash 5 at a stream compression rate of 24K is superior to Flash MX at 24K. To get the same quality in MX you have to increase the stream compression rate to 32K which is not acceptable for dialups. Why should I buy something I can't use?

    Now is everyone clear on this?
    Best regards
    Toby Mack

    For the best and funniest Audio Blog on the Internet come visit:

    http://feeds.feedburner.com/Fla****UpBlog

  12. #12
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Posts
    110
    Hey duke, step off the ledge. My suggestion should still work. You wont have to mess with the file at all. Just open and save.

    You're not actually Toby Mack are you?

  13. #13
    Senior Member FPChris's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    NJ
    Posts
    644
    Originally posted by MikeDowney
    May I ask why?
    Ok, I'll bite...

    I simply won't be able to work in it while the undo
    inside symbols gets flushed EVERYTIME you go to the stage and back.
    This is without a doubt the number one reason not to upgrade.
    Whomever greenlighted that should have been fired just for
    suggesting it be removed. Do these people use Flash?
    Really I mean that. I would like to know more on this and
    the reasons behind removing it. Mike?

    The timeline effects are unusable as well as being nothing great to
    begin with. Impossible to believe that they also didn't find
    it to be painfully slow.

    The strict syntax isn't what it seems. Its no more strict than before.
    Its merely a method that you can use to force a compiler error.

    var X:Number = 5;
    myStr = "Hello";
    X = myStr;

    The above doesn't throw any errors. Unexceptable. What's the point
    of complicating my code if there if THE USER is still the
    best error checker in this program?

    You can't test a movie directly from the .as script window
    and the whole disable/re-enabled redraw is old already.

    The changes made to an .as file isn't updated into the
    movie you are testing until it's saved. Unlike the way
    coding works directly inside the fla. MX2004 won't even
    remind you that its not saved and leave you to wonder
    why am I still seeing that bug? I wonder on a big project
    just how 'fun' that would be?

    Help files are poor. Somewhere along the lines it became standard
    practice to release a product without proper documentation.
    Always promising that they'll eventually get updated.
    MM is not the only one guilty of this but they've surely done
    it in this case. I wonder how much time it took to
    develop the help updater in MX2004? Why not invest that
    time into making the actual files instead? I don't want
    popups asking me to download updates while I'm trying to
    work.

    They've taken out features that alot people rely on, like
    Normal Mode. I personally don't use it but it doesn't mean that
    it isn't important to other people.

    So in the end if it destroys my productivity why should I
    pay the increased price and bring that on myself?

    MX2004 feels very much like a beta that was rushed out the door.

    I'm done ... again.
    Chris
    http://www.**********-dms.com

  14. #14
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    81

    Undo changes

    Adobe has done the same sort of thing with PS. Take a perfectly good feature and mess it up for the sake of "progress" I know several Artist at ILM that still use PS 5.5 because of this.

    I'm going to assume the new history palette has something to do with the undo changes. The history palette is worthless to me so far.

  15. #15
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Houston TX
    Posts
    563
    circle282, Yes my stage name as it were is Toby Mack.
    No I am not the singer. Yes I am the voiceover artist.

    You can see and listen to some of my work at

    www.fsosystems.com
    Best regards
    Toby Mack

    For the best and funniest Audio Blog on the Internet come visit:

    http://feeds.feedburner.com/Fla****UpBlog

  16. #16
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Houston TX
    Posts
    563
    My God, Macromedia just forced us at FSO Systems to upgrade to Flash MX 2004. And they have forced you also if you want to keep your clients.

    I am talking now about Flash Player 7 which has changed how SWF's play on web page viewers computers. Flash Player 7 is not compatable with anything created in Flash 5 or MX. What Macromedia has done is screwed up the audio syns-ing with the animation on anything created with earlier versions of Flash. Here is an example where the audio narration was in complete sync with the animation but is now out of syns while using Flash Player 7 browser plug-in.

    www.cyberartlearning.com

    Click on the cartoon character called Artie and watch the whole 5 minutes of the presentation. You will see the sync-ing become more and more out of sync. Now if I want to keep my client as customers I have to buy MX 2004 and find a way to load all of the work I have done into MX 2004 and re-sync all of the animations with the audio narrations.


    Way to go Macromedia, you may have just put me out of business.

    If there were a way to have my clients to send you a bill for all the work I have to do now I would you bunch of jerks.

    I wonder how many more developers will loose clients over this?
    Best regards
    Toby Mack

    For the best and funniest Audio Blog on the Internet come visit:

    http://feeds.feedburner.com/Fla****UpBlog

  17. #17
    Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Posts
    91
    i really use the seperate undo history for every object all the time. They are crucial. Some people don't like them, but many do. It should be an option in the preferences
    I am on pc and not yet on MX2004, but if it does not have that feature on pc, then i won't get it.


    Also: the help files should be complete, like previous versions.

    Thank you people on this forum to inform others about the REAL MX 2004.


    *edit* by the way: where did the scale and rotate window(ctrl-alt-s) go in 2004?
    Last edited by epowder; 09-19-2003 at 06:44 AM.

  18. #18
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    131
    brrrrrrrrr, this is getting ugly!
    yesterday, i opened an mx-fla in mx04 and published it to see about the purported speed increases. in the resulting swf, all textfields were suddenly 3-4 pixels higher on the stage than before! what a nightmare ...

  19. #19
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    81

    ugly is right

    Its kind of cool that Mike Downey stopped by but it seems it was nothing but a chance to defend mx2004.

    The compatibility problems are horrendous. Truly a god awful nightmare. I have been going back and forth between MX and MX04, careful to "save as" MX, and its corrupted libraries and caused endless problems.

    The new undo limitations are just about making me flush the trial. Not to mention every MX file I open in MX2004 is screwed up in some way shape or form.

    I never thought that Macromedia could blow it so badly. They've done so well at listening in the past. Each release has brought Flash one step closer to perfection. Then came 2004....ugh. Instead of finding new little smart things they've done to make life easier I am finding endless annoyances. My productivity is going down down down...... and how cheesy is that drop shadow effect? Its not even feathered! Back to MX tomorrow......

  20. #20
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Houston TX
    Posts
    563
    Macro-crap now has everyone buy the short hairs if they
    intend to or have sync-ed the movies to music or audio narration.

    Their intent is to distribute player 7 to at least 80% of the users
    buy the second quarter of 2004. This forces us to also make the Flash plugin test and if the viewer does not have player 7 they will have to download it. Furthermore, I am not sure if player 7 can sync streamed audio, I haven't completed a movie with it yet.

    AS far as I am concerned all this stuff Mac-Crap just put out smells like we all just stepped in cow (Sugar-Hotel-1-Tango).

    Now, how in the hell do I get this player 7 off my machine, or am I screwed there too?
    Best regards
    Toby Mack

    For the best and funniest Audio Blog on the Internet come visit:

    http://feeds.feedburner.com/Fla****UpBlog

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  




Click Here to Expand Forum to Full Width

HTML5 Development Center