dcsimg
A Flash Developer Resource Site

Page 2 of 7 FirstFirst 123456 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 140

Thread: Very disappointed in MX 2004

  1. #21
    Danny Gomez Creations cosmiceye's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    under a palmtree in Jamaica waiting for psytopia 2005 to begin
    Posts
    982
    Originally posted by FPChris

    blahblah...You can't test a movie directly from the .as script window...blahblah
    have you tried the project feature? Just hit the "test project" button. Im not for actually buying flashmx2004, but I like the new concepts
    ..:: P S Y T O P I A 2 0 0 5 :::..
    . . . view the psytopia reels _____RIVEND REEL | GOMEZ REEL_____ . . . . . . . . . . .

  2. #22
    Product Designer keyone.it's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    Rome, Italy.
    Posts
    1,625

    guys didn't you undestant this before...?

    As far as I'm concerned Flash 5 was the best compromise between semplicity and actionscript functionality.
    What I've seen going on after that is a Microsoft-like company politics...
    Flash was already a very commercial software, but in it's semplicity it had the great idea: very "limited but elastic tool = creativity is the only limit", but then so many things happened, Flash started to spread into so many different usages (where you should actually use other software), and Macromedia tried to make it simple for dummies.

    What is the use to make it simple for dummies? Flash is (*was*) a professional tool, we earn money using it...a lot of money sometimes, so it should be assumed that we invested time and efforts in learning how to use it.
    Today any jerk can learn how to build impossible-skill-level applications with components and a communication server in a few minutes.

    Components are crap, they have been designed to give life to a new market, from Macromedia and other fishes that have started selling components.
    If you think about it, it takes longer to develop a component with the ability to easily change theme and look, than just using movieclips and manually correcting the graphics....the only case I find components usefull is if you work in a big team and a developer has to pass easy-to-use stuff to the designers, which don't know a darn clue about how to assing a scrollbar to a textField (I actually took 6 months to understand how the hell you could make the scrollbar component work with a textfield...and when I did I happily continued building my own scrollers..).


    As regarding Flash MX 2004: I haven't tried the advanced features yet, so I don't know how the av encoders are but I must say that the whole application is A LOT HEAVIER, probably due to all the crap functionalities intended for jerks, just like the timeline effects...this is funny:
    (I installed MX2004 on my Athlon system, which is set up to go slower, for stability issues, so it's a bit like a machine from 1995).
    In the authoring environment I try to create a motion tween and that's when I understand that know I have to play around the submenus now to use that very used command...
    I mistakenly run into the timeline effects, so I give a look... unfortunatelly the first one I got was "Blur".

    ...While waiting for about half a minute bofore anything happened, I thought "wow, is there a featuring filter in the renderer....cool".
    Then I saw....what a sh_t...does Macromedia think that now the main target of this product is people who don't know how to do this themselves? And I bet that all of you here would know how to make it cooler and lighter on the cpu at the same time.

    Nevertheless....when I clicked on "cancel" the whole thing f_cked-up.....I had to wait 68 seconds before I could start working again!!!! I could see the timeline panel scrollbar resizing and moving in a spastic way....I thought "my God, the whole history is being repassed".

    It's obvious, Flash is not intended for the ones that know how to use it well....because unfortunatelly we are the small group...and out there, there are many people that buy it for fun, or to give it a try...and haven't ever opened it before.. we are not the main target, so we are practically countless in the marketing decisions.
    Microsoft-politics are this: give it to the masses... it has a good side too...Internet wouldn't be in all those houses if BillGates didn't bring unprofessionality at this level.

    Two more things:
    my Flash Player 7, on the Athlon machine, is about 70-80% slower than release 6 while playing FP6 movies with PNG transparencies..
    I didn't see any difference on my XEON machine, because it works too fast anyway.

    The last thing:
    Who is it, in Macromedia, that works on the corporate site?
    Because if Macromedia doesn't have people who know how to use Flash, then how can they think about developing such tool?????
    I remember when FlashMX was still in "awaiting"...and the big flash movie on the home page was showing the new features, obviously emulated with Flash5, for FP5...one for all, the draggable mask.
    Every one here knows how to build a draggable mask with Flash5 compatibility right? It's not a matter of advanced coding but just a bit of creativity and logics... well anyway there are some issues you must keep in mind in order to prevent the maskee from flickering around when you drag the mask...it's all related to the actionscript execution order, and to have everything updated at the right time.
    Well I did it perferctly, as many other developers on the web....whereas on the macromedia.com "banner", as you tried to drag the mask, you could see the maskee spastically jumping around and flickering.
    This was the clearest expression of the ignorance, unprofessionality and worthless job that the Macromedia.com sitekeepers are doing everyday.

    Anyway, I am happy to know that we are here keeping us warm....as it's getting colder out there, and we can't stop it.
    As you said before, Macromedia has built a system to defent it's interests, knowing that we, the power-users, would have not accepted the new Flash-for-jerks style.
    We can't fight with that...it's the issue of all companies that have grown too fast and think they can get unlimited power.
    Macromedia is finished and they yet don't know.
    The system is going to break sooner or later...it's just a matter of time, and how much patience the end-client have.

    Peace to all of you, and don't be sad, maybe we will find a new interesting software to develop sites with.
    As for to know, try reducing the amount of stuff you do with Flash and gain expertiese in XHTML, PHP, ASP, JS or whatever you like the best.
    Learn how to survive if Flash crashes.
    Altruism does not exist. Sustainability must be made profitable.

  3. #23
    mullet king
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Posts
    1,398
    just opened up a few of our company's mx files and republished them in mx04 for flash 7.... bye bye to the sound, and to the dynamic text

    ah well, there are only 1,100 fla files to convert and work out the bugs

  4. #24
    Danny Gomez Creations cosmiceye's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    under a palmtree in Jamaica waiting for psytopia 2005 to begin
    Posts
    982
    ....macrosoft...
    ..:: P S Y T O P I A 2 0 0 5 :::..
    . . . view the psytopia reels _____RIVEND REEL | GOMEZ REEL_____ . . . . . . . . . . .

  5. #25
    mullet king
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Posts
    1,398
    i dare anyone to try and make a scolling textbox that loads text dynamically it was so simple in mx

  6. #26
    Danny Gomez Creations cosmiceye's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    under a palmtree in Jamaica waiting for psytopia 2005 to begin
    Posts
    982
    Originally posted by mx_kid
    i dare anyone to try and make a scolling textbox that loads text dynamically it was so simple in mx
    like autoscrolling or a textfield with scrollbar?
    ..:: P S Y T O P I A 2 0 0 5 :::..
    . . . view the psytopia reels _____RIVEND REEL | GOMEZ REEL_____ . . . . . . . . . . .

  7. #27
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Posts
    110
    You guys want a violin?

  8. #28
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Posts
    110
    Originally posted by mx_kid
    i dare anyone to try and make a scolling textbox that loads text dynamically it was so simple in mx
    Pretty easy. I can do it in a few clicks. Try reading the documentation before you complain. Or better yet do a tutorial. No that would be too easy. How about this, link up to a web service in MX and then do it in 2004. Still love MX as much?

  9. #29
    Danny Gomez Creations cosmiceye's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    under a palmtree in Jamaica waiting for psytopia 2005 to begin
    Posts
    982
    Originally posted by circle282
    You guys want a violin?
    ROFL
    ..:: P S Y T O P I A 2 0 0 5 :::..
    . . . view the psytopia reels _____RIVEND REEL | GOMEZ REEL_____ . . . . . . . . . . .

  10. #30
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    4
    Not to mention..... I have found that installing "Flash mx 2004" has now buggered up my Flash MX... changing the layout and options that I once had and used often. Where the hell they went I have no idea. BUGGERY ******** to Flash MX 2004!!!!

    --of course... when I finally get the 2004 cradled in the palm of my hand and manipulate it as I wish... I am sure my tune will change. But as of now... frustration is my only friend in regards to this new version!

  11. #31
    Retired SCORM Guru PAlexC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2000
    Location
    NJ
    Posts
    1,387
    Originally posted by Toby Mack
    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.
    Is there a technote on this issue? Have you reported it to macromedia? Is it repeatable with everything you've created/published to 5/6? How are you doing you're syncing?

    I am concerned as I have legacy content as well in use at client sites where they may upgrade to 7 in the near future.

    I need to be able to confirm this issue if it is true and figure out what to do about it.

    As for the rest of you...

    If you ran out and bought or trialed MX2004 and installed it on a development machine to "test it out", there's no room to complain. If your bread and butter is Flash developement, you should never, ever, just upgrade anything, including the player without going through testing on another box.
    "What really bugs me is that my mom had the audacity to call Flash Kit a bunch of 'inept jack-asses'." - sk8Krog
    ...and now I have tape all over my face.

  12. #32
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Houston TX
    Posts
    563
    Audio sync-ing is done by selecting stream and sync-ing the characters mouth on a frame by frame basis. The presentation we made now trails the audio at an increased rate as it plays. It gets so out of sync that at the very end the narration is there but the character isn't even back on the stage yet. Then when the character does come back the narration is over and you see the character mouthing with no audio.

    Oh well. It is my understanding that when you create something in Flash 5 and it plays with player 6 shouldn't play just as well in any new player they upgrade to no matter how the sync-ing was done? Or is the concept of backwards compatibility a thing of the past?

    If this is the case we will all end up fixing and refixing everything we sold to clients everytime MM comes out with their lastest and greatest for free most of the time just to keep them happy and on our books as clients. Damn, clients are hard enough to keep as it is.

    And if you tell the client it is our fault MM changed things they don't want to hear it. They just want what they paid for to work.
    Best regards
    Toby Mack

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

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

  13. #33
    Retired SCORM Guru PAlexC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2000
    Location
    NJ
    Posts
    1,387
    Toby, I get what you're saying. I've done it hundreds of times myself.

    You also posted this in another thread, and others were saying that they didn't have that problem in the 7 player.

    This leads me to belive that it may be related to something else.

    Rather than residing to defeat and frustration, I would try to repeat the issue on several boxes/platforms/browsers with different movies and contact MM. v7 has an auto-update feature, so if it is indeed a bug, putting out a minor version update should be quite painless.

    Since my test box is unavailable right now, I will look at your content with 7,0,14,0 when I get a chance.

    However, this seems like it would be too big of an issue, for MM to let out of the door if it occurred all the time with an older swf.

    Please PM me with details.
    "What really bugs me is that my mom had the audacity to call Flash Kit a bunch of 'inept jack-asses'." - sk8Krog
    ...and now I have tape all over my face.

  14. #34
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    81

    Sure!

    Originally posted by circle282
    You guys want a violin?
    It would be easier for me to relearn the violin, 10 years after putting it down, then learn why I lose my undo history every time I leave symbol edit mode.

    Went back to running MX today AHHHHH! Leaving bloatware for someone else to figure out.

    GO FLASHMX 2005!!!!!!!!

  15. #35
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    4
    lol @ CWFLASH ... I agree completely!

  16. #36
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Houston TX
    Posts
    563
    Sorry guys but I am tired of being told there is something wrong with my computer and I have some kind of conflict.

    To prove a point I got a trial copy of MX and installed it.
    I took several of my FLA's created in Flash 5 and save them as Flash MX twice. Once as script 1.0 and script 2.0. Flash MX 2004 still can not open the FLA's.

    If MX can open my Flash 5 FLA's why can't MX 2004.

    This is Macrmedia's problem not ours. If there is a conflict then it is their conflict not mine. My system runs great.

    It is pure and simple, someone at Macromedia screwed up on the backwards compatibility issue big time.

    And if they created a new Flash concept program they should have it in big letters,

    "WARNING THIS SOFTWARE IS NOT BACKWARDS COMPATIBILITY WITH ANY OTHER FLASH SOFTWARE"
    Best regards
    Toby Mack

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

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

  17. #37
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    81

    yep

    There is clearly a significant problem when bringing MX files into MX04. I can testify with an entire day spent trying to do this. Kind of important that files created in he LAST version of a given piece of software be compatible with NEXT version. the files i am trying to convert to MX04 are complex 10 meg tutorials. My client is not going to pay for time spent converting them to MX04. Fixing problems etc... Maybe Macromedia can pick up that tab

    Macromedia products are generally outstanding so I am sure they will address this problem until then I am not buying.

  18. #38
    swfBB Developer
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Posts
    239
    I have not experienced any problems at all on Flash MX2004 Pro. I have opened and resaved about 20 MX fla files without a single hitch. And from a developer not a designer MX2004 is streets ahead.

  19. #39
    Senior Member FPChris's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    NJ
    Posts
    644
    Try reading the documentation before you complain

    WHAT? they have documentation now?

    --

    To the 5 of you who think some of us are crying. Look around the
    net, its not just us. MMs newsgroup is full of complaints about this
    release. Their own messageboards too. Matter of fact I've yet
    to find a messageboard that has positive view of MX2004.
    Point me to it I'd like to see it.

    BTW...
    Still no mention as to why the undo is screwed up.

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

  20. #40
    Senior Member FPChris's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    NJ
    Posts
    644
    Originally posted by cosmiceye
    have you tried the project feature? Just hit the "test project" button. Im not for actually buying flashmx2004, but I like the new concepts
    Nope. I've put MX2004 to bed until MM fixes it or the
    next version comes.

    I agree the concepts are good. The product, sadly, is not.

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

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