Definitive Flash MX 2004 Bug and Complaint List

[FPChris]

Yea, I guess I didn't explain myself too well there.
Most of the AS2 classes I've seen are tied to components.
So my mention of components was a bit misleading.

I'll try again...

I like the external .as concept but I'm not in love
with the way it was implemented.

The new additional steps that come between my fingers and
'Ctrl+Enter' are unwelcome.

I'd like to code AS2 style classes directly inside the fla
rather than external .as due to the issues I have with
having to remember to save the .as and the annoying disable
everything/re-enabled everything with switching between tab
windows just to re-test the movie. Its killin' me.

I guess I could resort to AS1 style classes but I was
attempting to move on somehow.

Chris

[epowder]

Originally posted by MG315
I'm working with dual monitors, and i expanded the actual flash application so it stretches across both (I tried keeping it in only one monitor for just the stage and placing the panels in the other monitor but they wouldn't dock without me extending it across both). ....

MG315:

i'm also working on dual monitors and maximizing mx2004 to my main monitor and putting all panels on the secondary works fine. Panels dock as they used to do. Be sure to use the drag handles(on the left of the panel's name) when trying to dock the panels, not the windows 'caption bars'.

But there are also small bugs in this(like in previous versions): i like to have my timeline in the upperleft corner of my secondary monitor, so i drag it there, below that is AS and then comes properties. I save the positions. But, for some reason the timeline moves to the left each time i start Flash MX, so it covers my stage. In MX2004 the panel just does not appear(This must be number 25) and i have to ctrl-alt-t each time i start the app. Then the panel appears, but also way too much to the left.


26. the Rotate and Scale input box has disappeared. It used to be ctrl-alt-s. I was using that really often. Don't see what it was doing wrong for getting removed. How will i be able to scale an object to 70% and rotate it for 35 degrees ??



epowder

[cancerinform]

I like this new version but I have to say one has to be familiar with Flash. For a beginner it is quite difficult.

I do not like certain built-in commands like loadMovie and so on, because I like to have control over the script. Also some of the animations like explosion I am not sure that is really necessary.

Since I am developing components I have to learn a totally new concept. The old MX concept was easy, the new one is pretty complex. One problem I have before even getting started is to establish the paths for the .as files. So I have to see how it works with a little example file. Also MM should have by now a tutorial and example ready how to build the new components. I do not mean the description in the Help file.

As to AS 2 .as files I think the idea is great. The other day I started learning AS 2 from one of the example files (Drag a movieclip). 2 hours later I was able to help somebody in this forum using the script to drag a mask. So one can create a large number of classes with methods and functions and reuse them all the time w/o retyping the scripts but just using the classes and changing the parameters in the fla file. In one year on this forum users will exchange .as files rather than flas.

I have only one concern with .as files. How is the security of these files, since they are located outside the swf. Can anybody hack into the files and change them?
Otherwise I can see the more precise way of writing AS using AS2 syntax, which will probably increase the compiling speed and allow much bigger applications than now to be executed. AS1 alone was pretty flexible, which may not be the best for a programing language.

One thing regarding saving files. I have of course old MX files and want to maintain them as MX files, since many users don't have or want MX2004. It is kind of a drag to always use "save as". MM should have made it possible by the preferences to automatically save in a certain format.

Otherwise I am looking forward to create new content with MX2004.

[sideshow_barry]

Ok here is a bug that has been around since MX and I've seen it on Mac and PC and its still present in 2004.
When you use html list < li > tags in a html text field the colour of the bullet is always black regardless of the colour of the text.

Any chance that this will be fixed?

Barry

[rdoyle720]

I'd like to echo previous statements that I appreciate Mike coming here and answering questions. Although I disagree strongly with a handful of the decisions Macromedia made with this version of Flash, hearing some of the reasoning behind it makes them a little easier to swallow. However I still hope some of those decisions get reversed in future versions.

One bug I've discovered and posted about a few times and haven't gotten much response is in regard to importing .wav files off a cd. In my job I often get cds full of wav files which I import into Flash movies. In Flash MX, importing the files directly off the cd was no problem. In MX 2004, EVERY wav file I try to import directly off a cd gives me a "One or more files were not imported because there was trouble reading them" error. But, if I copy the wav files to my desktop and then import them into MX 2004, no problem. Is it a huge deal that they won't import directly off the cd? No, but since it worked in the previous version I think it should be addressed.

[cancerinform]

Although I am personally quite satisfied with MX2004 and exploiting all the new possiblities I have a complain regarding installation and registration.
I have a Mac and recently wanted to install OS9.X to use some classic installations. So I made a clean installioton of OS9 and then reinstalled 10.2.6. When I wanted to open MX2004 (upgrade version), nothing happened and it did not open. I reinstalled it and still nothing happened. Then I deleted everything regarding Flash including some preferences I found and reinstalled MX and MX2004. I could then open MX2004. However, although still it remembered the serial number I originally entered I had to connect to MM again to activate MX2004. This was my second chance and this happened on the same computer. Does it mean when I have to reinstall I have to buy a new version or when I buy a new computer? If this is the case I think MM is going too far with its security issues. I wonder someone from MM (Muke Downey for example) could answer my question.

[cancerinform]

Definitely worth a complain

I have made components, which run very smoothly without any problems when files are saved in MX. However, when files are saved as MX2004 they either run faulty or as in one case I got the message that the script runs slow in Flashplayer 7 and I should abort it. This means that most probably many scripts will not be ok any more when saved in MX2004, which will make the virtual distance between these two programs bigger and as a result there will be a MX world and a MX2004 world, where boldly go, where no one has gone before.

Anybody similar experience?

[brensco]

Help file bug.

I'm trying to use some components, when I go to the help section, for example , datagrid, It only says click update for the latest info. Doing so I see the following:
downloading 1of 8 files, 5% of progress bar loads then jumps to
downloading 2 of 8 same progress bar reaction then jumps to
downloading 6 of 8 then quickly jumps to
downloading help file.
The the help window seems to refresh and it simply says only...
click update for the latest info.
An endless loop.

I can repeat this with other components every time.
I can't seem to get any help files.

B

[cancerinform]

Ok,

I solved part of the problems and it might be interesting for anybody to see what the problems were:

ScrollSlideshow.prototype.moreUpDate = function(){
    //loading the xml file    
    menuXML = new XML ();
    menuXML.load(xmlMenu);
    menuXML.ignoreWhite = true;
    menuXML.onLoad = parseThisXml;
}

//parsing xml file
function parseThisXml(){
    //we loop through the xml file

//HERE IS MISTAKE NO 1 I FOUND: IT IS OBVIOUS (my fault): menu has to be menuXML, since it refers to the object above. Flashplayer 6 does not care and parses correctly but 7 slows down the parsing.
    for (var count01 = 0; count01 <= menu.childNodes.length; count01++) {
//correct version
    for (var count01 = 0; count01 <= menuXML.childNodes.length; count01++) { 

Mistake no 2 was a var, which I has originally written as: lastslPic
but later referred to: lastSlPic
when I corrected to: lastslPic
it was ok.
In flashplayer 6 this kind of mistake is overlooked and even capital or small letter mix up does not show as a mistake but 7 does not parse this correctly. The problem was it did not show any error message so you have to go through the script one by one to find the mistake. My script was about 700 lines (Puuuh). and it was not so obvious initially where the mistake exactly was.

[Spyderman]

Hey I realise I'm jumping in a bit late in the thread, but I just wanted to say PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE bring back the old Undo functionality. The document-specific Undo was a complete shock. This history panel is worthless.

I just got done downloading the trial version and was looking forward to putting it through its paces with some client projects. After 5 minutes of working with it (and another 90 minutes trying to find some way to disable the new Undo fucntionality) I'm uninstalling it and going back to Flash MX.

I'm sure all of my *****es and gripes have already been covered more eloquently by other people. I'm just hoping that if enough people voice their concerns, perhaps MM will patch it back to the way it was before.

So, quite simply, here is my statement for anyone at Macromedia who might be listening:

<b>The change in the Undo functionality has -- all by itself -- made my decision NOT to upgrade to MX 2004.</b>

I feel like I've had the rug yanked out from under me on this one. Happily most of my clients don't believe in bleeding edge content, so until this is fixed I can guarantee neither I nor anyone I work with, am friends with, or will listen to me on the street will be upgrading to 2004.

[rexion]

hi all,
there are some from my side too that i would like to share...

one thing is that FlashMx2004 Pro is made to look and act lot like the .NET Developement Env and Photoshop.This is what my opinions are when i see i use FM04

I agree with Mark on lot of his points what he made.

I m working onsite for a client of mine who needed things to be done in flash, since i hadnt tried the latest FM04, thought would download and try.

The app started of like the previous versions, but as i progressed my file size got bigger and flash started slowing down gradually, Now after I have created about 4 scenes of 700 frames each, I find it very tough to jump between frames, instances, scenes anything for that matter. For eg, normally i create effects in swish and include them into flash, i made some changes and wanted them back in flash,
on just selecting the MC instance it took me about 20 or more secs , double click and 20 or more secs
select all frames-20 or more secs
remove selected frames - ditto
import selected frames - dead------it takes about 3 to 4 mins
and if by mistake u happen to touch some other object in flash, repeat all what i wrote above again,

One Undo, ie if i import 100 frames from a movie clip and then undo them, Flash starts flickering like mad !!!focus unfocus focus ........................... and finally throws me to some and instance which is inside its child instance....
ie if i have 3 inside 2 and 2 inside 1, i will b at 1, but on top it reads like this 1 ---> 2 ----> 3 ----> 1
and the whole stage is white or bgcolor, cannot drag, scared to even move, god i shouldnt lose my work.....

Believe me, its so confusing that i m on the 12th version of my file, in just 2 days.....but now i cant even back off to older versions...

For once i thought my laptop conked off, and i requested for a desktop, which i got of similar config, but ditto

my sys is TOSHIBA tecra, 512MB, 20GB, PIII 600

Guess this is pretty enough for a small project.

one simple look out for scene panel was so maddening, theres no way to locate in help files, atleast i couldnt, i could reach the help file on adding scenes
Faced problems with play on a button, which i never did before in my life.....I still dont know how I rectified it
Movie clips seem to loop infinitely even though the root timeline is over or even half the length of the mc placed, does not go to next scene, have to use framelabel, which everyone may not try,

The end, 800K of pure Vector graphics, dont know how !!! thought they were lighter, atlest i expected 300K, preloader as described in help files, didnt work for me in the double CTRL ENTR mode, set at 56kbps.

History is pathetic, even selecting three things one after another is recorded in the history................why?

the timeline effect is foolishly designed, if UIs are so much copied from Photoshop, how could they forget preview....while trying to select one of the squares, this thing started to loop recklessly...
lost all my work....


I do believe that macromedia offers full working copies of its products for trial downloads. Then y this?

Same here mark buddy, cant list anymore problems i have faced, I m giving up on 04 after going back home...

I agree that lot of things have been improved, but y reinvent the wheel, y not continue from where u left....

[Josiah]

Does F9 crash or cause flash to not respond for like 30 seconds for anybody else or is it just me?

Very often when I hit F9 to pop open the actions panel nothing happens and flash stops responding...then i have to hit it like 10 times really fast in a row to get it to respond.

Very annoying and buggy...anybody else experiencing this same problem?

[Steve40]

One thing that has always anoyed me with flash is the fact that you can't full justify dynamic text. (I'm sure everyone has notised this though). But it does really limit your options. Dynamic site that looks bad, or static site that looks good. tough call some times.

[cancerinform]

...but as i progressed my file size got bigger and flash started slowing down gradually...

I have observed that with MX and it became actually better in 2004. Also flickring I observed in MX and that was due to too many movieclips. Generally I divide my movies and avoid scenes completely rather make a new movie.

.....but now i cant even back off to older versions...

Yes you can. Copy from the main timeline and open a new file,paste the frames and save in FlashMX, if it was that what you meant. If you want to use the old version of FlashMX you have to of course delete MX2004.

[dsotm@dow-snipe]

Now I agree, missing Normal Mode is going to be a problem for some and I *think* it's removal was just a business decision that was judged to be in the best interests of the platform. I'm sure there are a variety of both technical and strategic reasons for the decision, but that's the decision the product team came to.

Mike I think that MM have seriously underestimated the effect that removing certain features has had on their client base. Of all those raised in this forum (and others), the most critical seems to have been the removal of 'Normal Mode', and I will discuss this in detail.

As a designer I found the normal mode particularly useful. It was quick, foolproof, could be easily edited by switching to to expert mode, and commands could be inserted without time spent wading through the action script list. I have neither the time nor inclination to learn extended action scripting as I am a designer not a programmer, work for myself, and found the MX facilities maximised my time and workflow. I will give an example:

In flash MX:
on (release) {
loadMovieNum("swf/13.swf", 0);
}

In MX 2004 from the behaviours panel:

on (release) {
//load Movie Behavior
if(_root == Number(_root)){
loadMovieNum("13.swf",_root);
} else {
_root.loadMovie("13.swf");
}
//End Behavior
}


In the first example I can do basic editing if it does not work and fix it. In the second I am confronted with terms I am not familiar with, and would have to waste time that I do not have learning what they mean and how to fix it. I do not have time to now go and learn AS2.0 or even 1.0 for that matter. I suspect that many people are now in the same boat.

You say that its 'easy' to learn AS as an alternative to 'Normal Mode', and that new users will naturally migrate to it. Thats untrue, and a very flawed view of how people use software. How many Windows users do you know who said "I love the Windows GUI so much - let me rush out and learn VB!"

The idea that the vast bulk of Flash users are either noobs or programmers is not true - they are designers who work to deadlines and time constraints, who learn and use exactly what they need when they need it to get the job done, and have grown used the 'Normal Mode' as time saving device. To take it away and force them to spend time learning AS is going to cost MM a lot of clients.

As to it being a 'business decision', lets do a little calculation

From the responses I've seen, and forums read, a lot of users are not going to upgrade to Mx 2004. Lets make a conservative estimate at 100 000 people worldwide @ $200 per upgrade.

Thats 20 million dollars in losts sales. I don't know how much money MM make per year, but thats a big hit in anybodies book.

I will not be upgrading to MX 2004 - as a businessman I cannot take the hit in revenue that the time loss incurred in the learning curve would cause. I know of at least 15 people like myself within the group of designers that I work with. I know of three companies with +/- 40 licences that feel the same way.

No matter what your platitudes about the 'ease of use', improved functionality' andmy personal favourite 'Expert mode is almost as easy as Normal Mode', these are business people making a business decision about your product. Its a pity MM did not ask the market what it wanted before making its 'business decision'

[MikeDowney]

Hi there, dsotm@dow-snipe -

Thanks for taking the time to articulate the pain points you've experienced. I've read and understood the point you're making and this, as well as everyone else's feedback, is taken very seriously.

It sounds like the most important pro-active point you're making is that you'd like to see Normal Mode return (and yes, I have read all of the other posts where this has been pointed out) - or something similar that does exactly what you want it to do. I've heard you and I will make sure this is effectively communicated to the product team.

Originally posted by dsotm@dow-snipe
I have neither the time nor inclination to learn extended action scripting as I am a designer not a programmer, work for myself, and found the MX facilities maximised my time and workflow.

...I am not familiar with, and would have to waste time that I do not have learning what they mean and how to fix it. I do not have time to now go and learn AS2.0 or even 1.0 for that matter. I suspect that many people are now in the same boat.

So it looks like you're looking for something more flexible than behaviors but less flexible than "Expert Mode?"

I'm curious, and I hope others will post their feelings on this, but is it really that you do not want to learn ActionScript, or are there just not enough good resources for you to learn ActionScript? Would you be interested in learning it enough to better understand the basic concepts that you run into, in this case, within the code written by behaviors?

Are designers, for the most part, opposed to learning ActionScript - no matter what? I can assure you that you can do quite a lot with ActionScript without being a "programmer" - but is that still something that is unappealing to a stereotypical "designer?"

You mentioned that you don't want to use behaviors because the code they write has more unfamiliar keywords in it than the code that you were used to finding with "Normal Mode." So that tells me that you don't want to just "Fire and Forget" as fighter pilots say, rather you want to get into the code after you've applied the behavior. You just want the code that you're getting into to be simpler than it currently is?

What if the code written by behaviors was much more thoroughly commented with explanations of what was actually happening in the code? I imagine that would not only help make better sense of the code, but might also serve to teach those like yourself more about ActionScript. Do you think that would help?

Please provide us with some more constructive and proactive feedback about this - the way to do it next time - so we can continue to make Flash even better. I think most of us can agree that "Normal Mode" was not the *perfect* solution. Let's see if there's some hybrid idea that we can come up with that will make everyone's lives easier.

Your feedback is very welcome.

You say that its 'easy' to learn AS as an alternative to 'Normal Mode', and that new users will naturally migrate to it. Thats untrue, and a very flawed view of how people use software. How many Windows users do you know who said "I love the Windows GUI so much - let me rush out and learn VB!"

Well, I'm not sure that I agree with your analogy here. We're really talking apples and oranges. Writing ActionScript is MUCH more common for a Flash user than writing VB is to a Windows user.

I do personally feel that it's not incredibly difficult to hand write the exact same code that you used to create with Normal Mode. Although I do agree that it will take you longer to write it by hand. (Hopefully we can do something about this in the future - see my comments above.)

The idea that the vast bulk of Flash users are either noobs or programmers is not true - they are designers who work to deadlines and time constraints, who learn and use exactly what they need when they need it to get the job done, and have grown used the 'Normal Mode' as time saving device.

I agree that we can still make it easier for what we all seem to label "designers" (although I'm never quick to lump people into either a 'designer' or 'developer' silo - I think there's much more to it than that) to use ActionScript effectively. This is definitely a big opportunity that the new Behaviors panel made a good step forward in addressing. But it can be better. Let's figure out how to make that happen.

As to it being a 'business decision', lets do a little calculation

From the responses I've seen, and forums read, a lot of users are not going to upgrade to Mx 2004. Lets make a conservative estimate at 100 000 people worldwide @ $200 per upgrade.

Thats 20 million dollars in losts sales. I don't know how much money MM make per year, but thats a big hit in anybodies book.

Well, you're making a very BIG assumption here. Following the points you've made, you're assuming that 100,000 users would decide not to upgrade because they don't fully understand the code that behaviors write, they have no desire to learn ActionScript, and they can't be successful without normal mode. I fully understand that for some like yourself, this might be the case. And hopefully we can figure out a great solution for others like yourself. But I hope your "conservative estimate" is not actually the case.

Its a pity MM did not ask the market what it wanted before making its 'business decision'

Another big assumption here. Product development is a very long and complicated process that includes extensive research with all kinds of groups of users. Macromedia is known for working with their customers to create new and improved products.

That said, I know we can always do things better. The only way that we can do so is by getting the specific, proactive feedback that we need from our customers. If you and others really want to contribute to making future versions of the products that I know you are so passionate about, please let us know. And I can't stress how important it is that you are specific about what you want.

There are two ways that you can provide guidance to the product's development. You can send a detailed email to wish-flash@macromedia.com and you can also email me directly at mdowney@macromedia.com.

I'd be especially interested in hearing more from designers and what they want in the product. I know you all want to add the interactivity that ActionScript provides, but let us know how we can make that easier, faster, more efficient, etc. Is this something that is best solved with a "feature" or would something more like a learning program (online classes, books, etc) be more effective?

I look forward to your continued feedback and - I guarantee - we are all listening and reading.

Many thanks,
MD

[cancerinform]

Please only one type of upgrade next time for the price of the regular version ($199). I now regret that I did not upgrade to the 2004 pro version, since there are features I need.

Regarding normal and expert mode I started with Flash5 and did normal mode but never expert mode. Then I read somewhere as a comment to start with expert mode directly. Now since long time I am only using expert mode. In the past when just for fun I switched back to normal mode to check something I found it annoying because I had the feeling I was forced to a certain code or code structure. Normal mode is probably fine for a 2-3 lines of AS but it is awful when scripts become longer. Now there is another way to check syntax which is to use a little button saying check syntax.

[fender_21]

My biggest Problem with the new Flash is Mainly

2) Removal of normal mode fom actionscript palette in favour of the behaviours palette which takes longer to run through. Expert mode is for AS experts. Behaviours are for AS know nothings. Most of us are inbetween which is what normal mode provided.

It's so much harder, I've been working with flash for almost three years now, Starting from flash five just fooling around, This new flash is great, but I really wish the actionscripting could be changed off of Expert mode and like in Flash Mx.

Thanks,

[dsotm@dow-snipe]

Mike - First I would like to thank you for your detailed and well thought out reply. If my post was sometimes a bit emotional, I was quite upset as the fundamental change wrought into the program by the removal of Normal Mode. He are some of my thoughts as to the detail you requested:

So it looks like you're looking for something more flexible than behaviors but less flexible than "Expert Mode?"

Yes. It was called Normal Mode, but you can bring it back under whatever name you decide

I'm curious, and I hope others will post their feelings on this, but is it really that you do not want to learn ActionScript, or are there just not enough good resources for you to learn ActionScript? Would you be interested in learning it enough to better understand the basic concepts that you run into, in this case, within the code written by behaviors?

Designers and programmers have very different reasons for using the software. Programmers get turned on by the infinite capabilities of AS and what it can do, and generally have the time and interest to develop this knowledge. Designers are time, and deadline constrained, they need to spend the absolute minimum of time on things that can be automated so as to spend more time on other areas of projects. This means that they will utilise Flash to do exactly what they need at the time and no more. When thay have a need for more sophistication they drag out the refence book, look up the relevant command and use it - hence the popularity of Normal Mode.

Normal mode meant point, click and get the right code every time. If I then wanted to fool around with it I could - but 9 times out of ten I did not need to. I had no need, no desire to learn AS. No matter what the resources available, Normal Mode meant that I could use commands and know that they were right first time. The best analogy I can give is this:
Normal mode is going to a bakery, selecting the loaf and leaving. AS is being given a bag of ingredients and asked to bake the bread. Even with the best recipe, if you've never baked, it never works first time.
Its not that I do not want to learn AS - until 2004 I did not need to, and now I will be forced into it, and it will cost me time and money, and put many projects on hold, which I and my clients cannot afford to do.

Are designers, for the most part, opposed to learning ActionScript - no matter what? I can assure you that you can do quite a lot with ActionScript without being a "programmer" - but is that still something that is unappealing to a stereotypical "designer?"

I know that you can do fantastic things with AS, even without being a programmer. I do not need to, but without Normal Mode I am now forced to become a programmer, and learn AS. As far as I can see 'Behaviours' replicates about 5% of the old Normal Mode commands and the rest will now require detailed (or some) knowledge of AS. I, and many like me, do not have the luxury of time to go and learn this, no matter how good the resource. Its also a lot more time intensive to physically type in the commands (and hope that your your syntax is correct) - again, time that I do not have. It does not matter how good your learning resources are - without Normal Mode I am going to waste valuable time typing (and even more debugging) commands that before were a click of a mouse away.

You mentioned that you don't want to use behaviors because the code they write has more unfamiliar keywords in it than the code that you were used to finding with "Normal Mode." So that tells me that you don't want to just "Fire and Forget" as fighter pilots say, rather you want to get into the code after you've applied the behavior. You just want the code that you're getting into to be simpler than it currently is?

The complexity or otherwise of the code is a non-issue - the issue is that I did not have to learn and type my own code before and now I do - I do not have the time nor inclination to type in expert mode and debug. Normal mode meant one click of the mouse and your button had its command, and you could then enter details in the various drop downs. That took a second or two. "Fire and Forget" would be perfect, thats what we had before.

What if the code written by behaviors was much more thoroughly commented with explanations of what was actually happening in the code? I imagine that would not only help make better sense of the code, but might also serve to teach those like yourself more about ActionScript. Do you think that would help?

Nope sorry it wouldn't. I don't need to understand more complex code. I need to assign a command to a button in a second or two and move on. And again (sorry to keep re-iterating this but its very important) I did not need to more about AS before MX 2004, and I still don't need to. Heres a second analogy: When you start your car in the morning, it starts a very complex sequence of events within multiple components of your engine that result in movement. Do you need to know how they all work and interact? No. All you require is that the engine starts when you turn the key.

I do understand Mike that as a teacher of AS you have a love of the language, and to you, learning AS and its many capabilities is as easy as breathing, and you are probably puzzled as to my (and many others) strong response in this regard. But I am not not exagerating when I say that if you had taken away my mouse, and made me use arrow keys to navigate my screen, MM could not have had a worse impact on my use of Flash.

All that I (and many, many others) want, is to turn the key, and start the engine.

Regards

Brian

[bryan.fury]

well mike,

i got another one!

this pic shows a dynamic textfield when published in mx with all characters embeded:



this pic show the same dynamic textfield published in mx2004:


problem is, mx2004 doesn't properly interpret the mx command "include all". instead it only selects "uppercase", "lowercase", "numerals" and "punctuation", omitting the special characters necessary for german. that basically means that one needs to go through every dynamic textfield and select an extra set of characters, which to top things off is located somewhere between "Devanagari" and "cyrilic"

oh and while we're at it, why did i never hear anything from you about the file i sent you concerning the font problem i described here ?