Interesting. Without a sweet competitive upgrade i don't see myself picking it up tho. With as many flash users as there are that would seem to be a solid strategy for Adobe actually...
From: Somewhere over the rainbow Insane since: Mar 2001
posted 01-09-2002 11:09
The poster has demanded we remove all his contributions, less he takes legal action.
We have done so.
Now Tyberius Prime expects him to start complaining that we removed his 'free speech' since this message will replace all of his posts, past and future.
Don't follow his example - seek real life help first.
From: Somewhere over the rainbow Insane since: Mar 2001
posted 01-09-2002 22:34
The poster has demanded we remove all his contributions, less he takes legal action.
We have done so.
Now Tyberius Prime expects him to start complaining that we removed his 'free speech' since this message will replace all of his posts, past and future.
Don't follow his example - seek real life help first.
From: A little lower... lower... ahhhhhh, thats the spot Insane since: Jun 2000
posted 01-11-2002 01:39
Just out of curiosity, if Macromedia developed Flash and is the first to develop new technologies for it, why would anyone want to use LiveMotion instead?
I'm not trying to be a wisenheimer, I'm really curious.
From: Somewhere over the rainbow Insane since: Mar 2001
posted 01-11-2002 16:09
The poster has demanded we remove all his contributions, less he takes legal action.
We have done so.
Now Tyberius Prime expects him to start complaining that we removed his 'free speech' since this message will replace all of his posts, past and future.
Don't follow his example - seek real life help first.
Off the top of my head... ease of use. You can do things in LiveMotion in seconds that would take you much longer in Flash. LM is more object-oriented, because everything in it is an object. Not to mention integration with other Adobe applications, and the ability to create automation scripts to simplify things that you do regularly and Live Tabs that allow you to make your own custom interfaces for the program itself.
Not using it as a reason, but we just got a "Best of Show" award at MacExpo.
From: A little lower... lower... ahhhhhh, thats the spot Insane since: Jun 2000
posted 01-12-2002 04:12
What kind of things can you do more easily? How is LM more object oriented? Within Flash most things are treated pretty much as seperate objects as well.
I already figured it would integrate more easily with Adobe apps.
Is this the first version of LM to actually embrace ActionScript?
Well, the marketting team was always able to explain it best, but I'll try.
In Flash, just to make a simple animation of a moving circle, you'd have to draw a circle, select it and define it as a movieclip, create a keyframe, move the time marker, create another keyframe, move the circle, then click in the timeline and define a tween between the keyframes for the movement.
In LiveMotion, to do the same thing, you draw a circle, click the position stopwatch in the timeline, move the current time marker and move the circle.
What I mean about everything being an object in LiveMotion as opposed to Flash is, in Flash, everything is layers. You draw something on a layer, and then draw something else, you cover up the other thing you drew. In Livemotion, you don't... each thing you make is automatically separated from everything else.
LiveMotion 1 had limited scripting capabilities... it had states that you could set for objects, and then call those states and tell things to play or stop, etc. LiveMotion 2 not only has Actionscript, it also allows for Javascript (we convert the javascript to Actionscript for you on export). And then there's automation scripting so you can actually control the program itself.
Live motion exports to flash format, movies are embeded the same way, files are *.swf.
I worked with it a bit and though I like the ease of use it seems like a much shallower tool than Flash is. To me the comparision would be Flash is to LiveMotion as a Leatherman is to a screwdriver. The interface has those 'ole adobe'ish features that we all love but I really didnt find it useful as a tool. I would like to see what they do in v2 but I am not anticipating much.
From: Somewhere over the rainbow Insane since: Mar 2001
posted 01-13-2002 13:51
The poster has demanded we remove all his contributions, less he takes legal action.
We have done so.
Now Tyberius Prime expects him to start complaining that we removed his 'free speech' since this message will replace all of his posts, past and future.
Don't follow his example - seek real life help first.
I have LiveMotion 1 I tried to play with it and in my opinion it is much easier than Flash... I tried to mess with Flash but I just get seem to get it going
Well, Adobe has guts, no doubts. They put InDesign up in front of Quark, proclaiming it a "Quark Killer" and from what I understand it has potential. It apparently does have some features that are superior to Quark. But the enthusiasm is mainly because there are so many out there who loath corporate Quark. That's not the case in the Flash community so far as I can tell. Those folk are CRAZY for Flash! Pushing the boundaries, pushing the limits. They foam at the mouth. It's, like, religious!
LiveMotion1 came out right about when Flash5 did. That means there's a much broader user base of advanced, professional Flash users who rely on scripting, coding rather than tweening. I gather the interface and operational metaphors are different, and some people will "get" one or the other more easily. But scripting has been the big difference, and Flash got there first.
Flash also has a pretty clear focus (although folk are always trying to push that); if Adobe's focus is to be bigger, badder and a "Flash Killer", well, that's going to appeal to a rather small segment. Who knows? For someone who doesn't have an investment in Flash it might be a toss up. If Adobe can endure, maybe the future is theirs.
Ini - I think it sucks that this glob thing, which you suggest uses the computer's graphics card, is only for PC, when Macs could stand to gain so much more from that. Reading I've done suggests that the plug in is better optimized for a PC's process cycle and page rendering, so even fast Macs are at a big disadvantage. The Flash plug in, optmized for PCs, does all its rendering with the computer, none of it with the graphics card. A plug in that put some of the rendering burden on the card would stand to benefit Macs more and its just NOT FAIR!!!!!
From: Somewhere over the rainbow Insane since: Mar 2001
posted 01-22-2002 07:07
The poster has demanded we remove all his contributions, less he takes legal action.
We have done so.
Now Tyberius Prime expects him to start complaining that we removed his 'free speech' since this message will replace all of his posts, past and future.
Don't follow his example - seek real life help first.
posted 01-08-2002 22:25
