alias fonts really? look blurry to me...

[grish]

crisp fonts in mx2004?? they look not that great to me... whats up?

i just popped for the upgrade... i was thinking it would be worth the $300 just to finally have the fonts readable and not blurry. imagine that, crisp fonts in flash without foolin' around with pixel fonts, what a great idea.

please tell me, i'm missing something cause i'm looking at two exported.swf 9pt blocks side by side, not scaled, positioned on the pixel, no fancy kerning and it looks just as bad as the one without the alias option checked.

i'm so bummed out. i really hope i'm missing something.


i though i was done...and what's this i see?

its, another glitch?!? it is annoying that as i double click into one child symbol from another and then into another i begin to see the clip shift around approx .5px as i double click into them. i dont see how i am going to align my work with this problem.

doobious. this is my first five min in mx2004pro.

maybe its me? any ideas anyone?

--grish

[gerbick]

not saying you're wrong... however aliased fonts need to be full-sizes. so, use 7 and 8, not 7.5 and 8.5.

does it look better that way?

[grish]

i hope macromeida has or is going to give instructions for this. i didnt find any.

gerbick thanks, you are totally right 'bout that. though that was not the case in my file.

what has made a big difference for me are these, this is how i have set up a test text block. i'm not saying these are rules, but they seem to help:

no scaling text block or movie the block is in

whole # letter spacing (A/V) entry box in inspector, MX2004 with alias option on rounds yer # at export so no fine tuning if you want it crispy, bummer

on the pixel (1.0, 2.0 not 1.1, 2.3 or .whatever only .0)

same for font size (thanks gerbick)

the text block on the pixel, not scaled

its parents on the pixel, not scaled

the movie it loads into, is on the pixel, not scaled

thats all i have discovered so far. hope that helps someone not get a bummed as i was. (above post) this is better than before but still finicky...

if i am wrong 'bout any of those things please post that i am wrong so others dont have to nit pick thier files as much as this suggeses you have to... thanks

--grish

[gerbick]

dude, I'll check into this tomorrow. somebody at the office still has FlashMX 2004 trial installed on their machines... and I'll look into it. I had something else to add, but I'm home now... will check out when I get there.

in the meantime, anybody else?