Printable View
This is for the people that's more informed about Flash 8 than I.
Why should I update? AS2 isn't really a drawing point, neither are the blurs and drop shadows. I do have to state that Flash MX 2004 Pro on the Mac is the most crash-errific piece of software I've ever have had on there... and I've had some "not-ready-for-primetime" betas on there before.
This is your chance to be a salesman. Let's hear it.
:cap:
Then don't upgrade. If what you can read on macromedia's site doesn't interest you then that's the end of it. It is very simple.
If you have to ask the question, maybe you shouldn't update. Macromedia will probably offer a trial version, try it out and see if you like it.
What do your primarily use Flash for Gerbick? And did you say on a Mac?
I guess it depends what you use Flash for. To me, realtime blending modes, animation curve editor, realtime filters, and all the small bug fixes(ex. bitmap fixes, and I seem to read endless fixes that make me go "oh man! finally!" every day) make it a no-brainer. But if you've got a Flash blog/gallery that's working good enough for you, and don't find yourself wishing it could do more... than like any situation like that, don't bother upgrading :)
I can tell you this: the difference in animation quality is going to be mind blowing. It's realtime blur, blending modes, and curve animation that makes After Effects videos look so much better than Flash made animation... and it just so happens all those features have been added :) Just so long as playback can handle all the goodness, and the IDE isn't as awful to use as MX'04
I give you the answer I gave beforeI updated to Flash 7.
It is not a single blur or shadow effect I am interested in (I have made those effects in MX already) but it is the whole package. The program is advancing including the actionscript and i don't want to stand behind but always be on top of it. Probably a number of new features we cannot yet estimate how useful they are unless we really apply them. As I said in other threads folks who thought that upgrading to Flash 7 is a waste of money and time may now regret they haven't done it because Flash 8 is not a step backwards (except for normal mode AS) but forwards and definitely builds on 7. So Flash 9 will build on 8 and so on.
Hope that might be some argument.
BTW I have no problems with Flash 7 on a Mac, no specific crashing.
I mostly use Flash whenever a client asks for it... mostly for websites only. I've moved almost all of the client simulation and kiosk stuff to either Director or Anark - I do a lot of 3D and faked 3D isn't a choice.
As to why I'm asking this question; I'm asking to convince somebody else. I've pointed out the website(s), and they're not convinced. And oddly enough, they're convincing me otherwise too.
The new features don't really bring much to the table. That's their statement. My statement... if it doesn't offer anything specific to you, then don't update. I'm a notorious early adopter, but MX 2004 on the Mac - 7.2 update installed - it's slow as hell compared to what I've seen on the PC. Try loading a *.swft into it... go get some coffee by the time it's loaded as a library item if it's complex enough.
Oh well. Thanks. It just looks a lot like this will be an upgrade I'll wait and see, personally and recommendation wise.
I've really had it with the mac anomalies. I want to go back to mac baddly, but my PC simply wont hang, slow down or crash enough (or at all) to make me start saving my $. Not to bash, but clearly the 'mac versions' are no longer a benchmark.
You convinced you clients to go with anark and not flash!? Are these intranet-only projects? There will never be a plugin as widely accepted as flash, so for my time, I decided to wait until flash has full 3-d authoring features.
I'm lucky enough to cater to the style-over-substance crowd so it's as if the upgrade was just for me. There is no comparison between the time it will save editing dropshadows in flash as opposed to constantly updating .png's. My question is, when do I start using these features. Once fp8 is released, do I have to wait the 12 months it takes for everyone to upgrade? Or do I start forcing users to upgrade just to watch my e-vites? Creating an alternate version for older players defeats the purpose of creating one for the newest one. ugg!
I'm hoping frames based development and the component performance/size have been improved. If so, that makes it worth buying on my part. Frames based development would make it so much better if the frames were more easily manipulated and loading of frames was more easily tracked. Could bring it up closer to the other development API's such as Microsoft Visual Studio along with still haqving all the graphic goodness of recent flash versions.
Only minor component tweaks this time around. You'll get the performance boost from the faster player but that's about it.
Faster performance for xml parsing as well and parsing bigger files?Quote:
You'll get the performance boost from the faster player
Doesnt look like they focused on data intergration that much this time around. Looks like more a playback performance upgrade. But hey, it's an animation tool first and a web-app second.
Haven't personally benchmarked any XML stuff but I would gander that you would at least see some marginal increase in performance.
Well Colin Moock gave it an A+. That's reason enough for me.
http://moock.org/blog/
I have some interesting xml applications/files, which have reached the limits with player 7. Application runs slow and will ask to abort from a certain number of nodes on in that application. Will let you know in this thread how player 8 behaves.
I'll be waiting, cancerinform. Believe it or not, the XML performance will be the make/break purchase decision maker for me.
May take a couple of days since i get Studio 8 upgrade in the regular mail. :zzz:
How do people feel about the time it will take for player 8 to propagate into viewer's browsers? The new visual effects are cool, but only if people can see them.
It has always been that way. You learn the newest stuff for your portfolio while you sell old stuff to your clients. By the time they want Flash 8 then you won't get stumped by anything they want and you can show them how it should have been done a year ago. 'Tis the way of Flash and it works pretty well.Quote:
Originally Posted by arctic
so pretty much, as long as you do not use flash for complicated actionscript and/or web design, its not worth upgrading, right?
On actionscript.org and flashforum.de there are forums for MX2004, MX and Flash 4 and 5. It is amazing that people still go to 4 and 5 forums. However, there are always 1/3rd more visitors in the MX section than in the MX2004 section. That shows that flash development for the newest site versions is far advanced over what is currently reality in the site development.
PS: Gerbick, I downloaded the trial version for Flash at work. So we will soon know if xml is parsed faster and more efficiently. I will make the same files with the 2 versions 7 and 8.
So far I am a little bit disappointed with Flash 8. On the first look there is no difference. Sure there are all those filters but all the examples are frame to frame animation. I am not used to frame to frame any more. Probably one has to get deeper into it.
File upload made me happy again. Also the square+ idea to open files is not bad and especially in the help files saves space and makes things easier to overlook. New video components seem to be interesting.
well the amount of Flash 4/5 code posted in the MX and AS forums here must mean something.
Although it probably just means that the tutorials need updating badly!
:doughnut:
k I just checked out the demo and there doesnt seem to be an obvious way to export as 7 with effects. Soon as you choose an older player in the settings your filters disappear. This is really depressing.
The filters will get old fast and are my least favourite improvement. Next thing you know there'll be a built in lens flare class we can all abuse!
Oh god no. Not lens flare.
eh, you can't set a wind direction on the blur anyway :p
Ok,
I tested player 8 with the ultimate test. When using my database component and using a list function to list all the nodes, with player 7 I could list only 150 but with player 8 the maximum was 230. That is what I call performance increase. Here is one node as example. In the listbox "Sheraton Hotel" would appear and when you click on it you get all the other informations.
I don't want to advertise MM here (I mean MacroM not CandyM) but they have improved the player.PHP Code:<company id="1" name="Sheraton Hotel" subitem1="5 star Hotel San Diego" myUrl="sheraton.txt" pic="images/C1.swf">
<p>
<h1>Sheraton Hotel</h1>
<li>Tel: (956) 429 9999</li>
<li>Fax: (956) 429 9999</li>
<li>Contact Person: Jaco Steyn</li>
<li>Region: Gauteng</li>
<li>Physical address: 633 Bay Street, San Diego, CA</li>
<a href='http://www.sheraton.us.sd' target='_blank'>Web site</a>
</p>
</company>
I don't know...I'm recoding all my old submitters (banner submissions, files, etc) that had to fire upload windows from a flash interface and this new way of doing it is just what the doctor ordered. No html form?...too cool!
I haven't even gotten to the myriad of other new additions since 2004 but that single abilty alone just makes the whole thing worth it for me.
Quote:
...to fire upload windows...that single abilty alone just makes the whole thing worth it for me.
true! :) That was the first thing I set up to get into my applications. And now it is very easy to upload files into different directories.
That's good to hear. I assumed an increase, just hadn't ran any tests myself. You'll get an increase with every major FP release, however slight it may be.Quote:
Originally Posted by cancerinform
ok gerbick, I installed it over the weekend and the definitive answer to your question is: performance. That's if and only if you're going to bother making 8 a requrement.
The filters and drawing improvements are nice, but not necessary. Bitmap API? If you're going to get all fancy and artsy, or maybe do some cracked out games, be my guest.
Maybe if you're doing a lot of video, you'll want the new codec.
However, I still publish courseware to 6, because I have clients on it. (But, in my line of work you tend to have to stay behind the curve.) gSolo IMO this is why Central will fail as an intranet supplement. Even as a front-end to something like Websphere Portal.
DW8, however, looks like it makes working with CSS a lot easier.
But, most of us serious about video already paid extra for sorenson's pro Flash codecs, which I assume is still better than what comes with Flash 8, therefore we have no use for video "improvements".Quote:
Maybe if you're doing a lot of video, you'll want the new codec.
Hi, just wanted to comment that if your use of XML is so large that it causes "the Flash Player is running slow" errors, then you are not using the best architecture for your application.
I just ran into a similar problem, and it was largely due to loading in large amounts of data in XML files. So what we did to solve the terribly slow performance was change to a "server query" model where Flash hits the server and requests specific data and then that data (and that data alone) is sent back, in XML format. The performance now is lightning fast.
(Sorry, this is not really a Flash 8 comment)
Back on topic: I find that there are enough big leaps forward in this release that can be applied to GAMES, so it's worth an upgrade for me.
Guh? 6/7 used Spark. AFAIK there was no "pro" version of it, just better conversion utilities (Squeeze, etc.) than importing directly into Flash. (Or in the case of 7, getting Pro so you could import right into Flash.)Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeMD
The "improvements" in 8 include an entirely new codec for export, On2.
Thanks for the suggestion, but that is not the point, since nobody would use this feature anyways to list several hundred listings, since the search engine has a search function, which works really fast even with a much larger number of nodes. This is just an xml file with lots of data originally designed for users to use this for databases on CDs.Quote:
Hi, just wanted to comment that if your use of XML is so large that it causes "the Flash Player is running slow" errors, then you are not using the best architecture for your application.
Whether it was actually called pro or not is besides the point. It was what you had to use for good quality video in Flash.Quote:
Guh? 6/7 used Spark. AFAIK there was no "pro" version of it, just better conversion utilities (Squeeze, etc.) than importing directly into Flash. (Or in the case of 7, getting Pro so you could import right into Flash.)
Sorenson site does say: The pro version of ON2 VP6 plug in and Squeeze for Flash 4.2 will be available as a free upgrade , so I get that for free anyway.
The question is whether Flash 8 built in codec is better than Flash MX 2004 with Squeeze. I don't think so, that's why I said that wasn't exactly a reason to upgrade. Even if you feel on2 does a better job, still gotta pay extra for pro version of Flix ( always the same story, gotta pay extra if you want good video )
I've got some ideas as to where they're going with the Central thing as far as the Flash Platform is concerned. Perhaps more info will be released at MAX or otherwise sometime down the line...Quote:
Originally Posted by PAlexC
Having played with the new version and got a feel for the upgrades I sense that this upgrade is doing two things
- bringing back the newbie
- preparing us for the full Adobe integration
I think, for most us developers we will see the filters, drop shadow etc as toys. But for the newbie, it's gee-whiz stuff. Excellent marketing material for the seething masses. Hence the re-appearance of the abc version of the AS panel.
The photoshoppy stuff and Flash Paper are all, IMHO, preparation for a future 'Adobe Suite'. Not that this is a bad thing, one hopes that Flash does not get too laden down with silly toys.
As far as upgrading, it depends what you use Flash for. If, like myself, one has already heavily invested in Sorenson, worked around drop shadows and do most stuff in AS then skipping this upload would not be that detrimental. However if there is a feature(s) that you would estimate save you $300 bucks in time, it is a no-brainer.
It's not a feature question for me. I know I want skip huge AE png sequences for a simple motion blur. But how do I go about forcing my viewers to download the latest player?
This was already a reason to update to Flash 7:
http://www.flashkit.com/board/showthread.php?t=650543
http://flashkit.com/board/showthread.php?t=650800
Skipping more and more updates and flash will be a complete foreign program. I am not advertising MM products but if Flash is a major component of the web work and it will be more and more then investing a couple of hundred $$ is worth the money apart from so many other new features, which facilitate working.